Summary: Mr X complained the Council’s offer to settle his complaint does not fully recognise the distress and financial hardship he experienced as a result of its failure to action a housing benefit appeal. A higher payment is appropriate in this case.

The complaint

1. Mr Y, on behalf of Mr X, complained the Council’s proposed remedy payment of £300 is insufficient after failing to forward a housing benefit appeal and making benefit deductions for over two years.
2. Mr X has suffered distress and financial hardship.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant’s representative;
• discussed the issues with the complainant’s representative;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant’s representative and taken account of their comments in reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X was claiming housing benefit in Croydon. Mr X was at risk of violence and so moved to another area in London. He made a claim for housing benefit in this new London Borough believing he could get housing benefit on two properties for a limited period due to the risk of violence. Information was passed between the two local authorities and both housing benefit claims were cancelled.
7. Croydon Council decided that Mr X had been overpaid housing benefit and sent an email notifying him of this decision. Mr X responded to the email disagreeing with the decision and requesting an appeal. The Council failed to act on this email suggesting it may have gone into a junk folder and then been deleted.
8. As well as not progressing Mr X’s appeal request, the Council began recovery of the housing benefit overpayment. This was recovered through weekly deductions from Mr X’s job seekers allowance (JSA). Deductions began and a total of £1,176.60 was taken.
9. Mr X sought advice from Mr Y and a complaint was made to the Council. Mr Y has been able to provide a copy of the email sent by Mr X requesting an appeal in respect of the housing benefit overpayment decision. The Council accepted it was at fault for failing to deal with the appeal request.
10. The Council reviewed the overpayment decision and decided the overpayment was caused by official error and that it was not recoverable. It therefore cancelled the overpayment and refunded the £1,176.60 it had taken from Mr X’s JSA. The Council apologised for the financial hardship and stress experienced by Mr X and offered a payment of £300 to recognise the impact on him.
11. Mr X did not consider this was an appropriate amount and asked the Council to consider a higher amount. Mr Y wrote on his behalf saying a payment of £2,500 was considered appropriate. He said explained that the long term reduction of Mr X’s JSA due to the deductions exacerbated his stress when he was already street homeless. Mr X reported that the reduction in income not only meant that he was unable to secure a reprieve from his street homelessness as often as he had previously been able to, it also meant a loss of opportunity to secure work as he had less resources to look for work or be ready for interviews.
12. The Council remained of the view that £300 was a fair and proportionate sum to redress the emotional and financial distress caused to Mr X.

Analysis

13. Prior to the complaint being made to the Ombudsman, the Council had already accepted fault in this case. It had taken action to put this right including offering a payment to acknowledge the injustice caused to Mr X. As the Council accepts fault, my consideration is focussed on whether a payment of £300 is appropriate.
14. The Ombudsman produces a document setting out guidance on remedies. This is a publicly available document and is the basis on which we determine what is an appropriate amount.
15. The guidance says we expect bodies in jurisdiction to treat people fairly and with respect, and not to expose the public to unnecessary distress, harm or risk as a result of their actions or inactions. Such injustice cannot generally be remedied by a payment, so we usually seek a symbolic amount to acknowledge the impact of fault on the complainant. The amount depends on the circumstances of the case.
16. When we assess distress, we consider the complainant’s individual circumstances (such as their state of health and age). In reaching a view on remedy we will consider all the circumstances including:
• The severity of the distress.
• The length of time involved.
• The number of people affected (for example, members of the complainant’s family as well as the complainant).
• Whether the person affected is vulnerable and affected by distress more severely than most people.
• Any relevant professional opinion about the effects on any individual.
17. A remedy payment for distress is often a moderate sum of between £100 and £300. In cases where the distress was severe or prolonged, up to £1,000 may be justified. Exceptionally, we may recommend more than this.
18. The Council’s proposed payment of £300 is therefore in line with this guidance. However, I am satisfied there are good reasons in this case to consider a higher amount. Mr X is street homeless and while his homeless situation was not caused by the fault identified in this case, I do consider he is more vulnerable than most people and that the reduction in his JSA carried on for a prolonged period.
19. The amount requested by Mr X of £2,500 is not in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies and I am not persuaded the circumstances are so exceptional as to warrant such an amount. I have taken account of Mr X’s circumstances and noted that while the Council accepts fault, there is nothing to suggest any action by Mr X to find out why his appeal was delayed or to challenge the benefit deduction. However, I do consider a higher amount is appropriate in this case.

Back to top

Agreed action

20. Within one month of my final decision, the Council will make a symbolic payment of £750 to recognise the distress and financial hardship caused to Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault for the reasons explained in this statement. The Council has agreed to implement the actions I have recommended. These appropriately remedy any injustice caused by fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman