Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant must claim housing benefit rather than Universal Credit (housing costs). This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the complainant could have used her appeal rights. We also cannot investigate the Department for Work and Pensions.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, disagrees with the Council’s decision that she must claim housing benefit rather than housing costs through Universal Credit (UCHC). She says the Council delayed identifying an error and has not explained its decisions. She wants an explanation and for the Council to cover any shortfall in her rent for the period when the error was not identified. Ms X also wants an apology and gesture of goodwill.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. The Social Entitlement Chamber (also known as the Social Security Appeal Tribunal) is a tribunal that considers housing benefit appeals. (The Social Entitlement Chamber of the First Tier Tribunal)
5. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and housing benefit decision letters. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Ms X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Most people claim UCHC rather than housing benefit. There are some properties that are exempt and the tenant must claim housing benefit. In 2015 the Council sent the DWP a list of exempt properties; this included Ms X’s home. The DWP administers UCHC.
8. Ms X moved to her home in late 2020. She applied for help with her rent through UC. The DWP awarded UCHC. The Council was not involved in this process. Ms X also applied to the Council for help with her council tax.
9. In 2022, while assessing a recent claim for council tax support (CTS), the Council realised Ms X was receiving the wrong benefit. It alerted the DWP who stopped the UCHC. Ms X says she did not get any notification about the claim ending. The Council wrote to Ms X in April to say it had processed a housing benefit claim from December 2020 and told the DWP the property is exempt.
10. The Council awarded housing benefit from the start of the tenancy. Ms X did not qualify for full benefit. There were some periods for which she did not qualify due to her income and her claim ended earlier this year due to her income. The Council sent Ms X housing benefit decision letters, in March 2022, detailing the awards from 2020. It notified her of her appeal rights and paid a lump sum of £4438 to her landlord.
11. In response to the complaint the Council explained why it had decided her property is exempt. It also explained what had happened and why it could not have known sooner that she was getting the wrong benefit. It said it usually pays housing benefit for exempt properties to the landlord but accepted it should have checked how Ms X wanted the money paid. The Council explained it was the DWP that decided to award and end UCHC and it was for the DWP to tell Ms X of any changes.
12. Ms X disagrees her home is exempt and says she should continue to receive UCHC. She says the Council delayed identifying the error and wants the Council to pay the shortfall in her rent support for that period.
13. I will not start an investigation because Ms X could have used her appeal rights. Ms X could have appealed against the DWP decision to end the UCHC claim or she could have appealed against the decision to award housing benefit. It is reasonable to expect Ms X to appeal because the tribunal is the appropriate body to consider benefit disputes. In addition, as part of the appeal process, more information would have been produced about why the Council believes the property is exempt. Ms X could also have appealed if she did not think the amount of housing benefit was correct.
14. I also will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. It notified the DWP of the status of the property and could not have known the DWP had awarded UCHC because it does not administer UCHC and was not part of the application process. And, Ms X’s CTS claim did not include information about her rent. When the Council realised Ms X was not getting the correct benefit, it told the DWP and awarded housing benefit from the start of the tenancy. I appreciate Ms X would have preferred to receive the benefit direct but she still received the support with her rent, regardless of how it was paid. I have not seen anything to suggest we need to start an investigation. In addition, some of the decisions and actions are the responsibility of the DWP and we have no power to investigate the DWP.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not start an investigation because Ms X could have used her appeal rights, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, and because we cannot investigate the DWP.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman