Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council administered a housing benefit review. This is because the Council has provided a satisfactory response and there is not enough remaining injustice to require an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, says the Council suspended her housing benefit because it did not check the accuracy of a letter. This caused stress to Ms X because she was worried about paying her rent.

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:

• the Council has provided a fair remedy, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and the housing benefit letters. I also considered our Assessment Code and invited Ms X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. On 5 October the Council asked Ms X to complete a housing benefit review. The letter said she must complete the review in 90 days or her claim may be suspended. Due to the information stated in the letter, Ms X thought she had plenty of time to do the review. On 11 November the Council sent Ms X a reminder and said it had suspended the claim because she had not responded. The letter said her claim would be cancelled if she did not do the review in 30 days.
5. Ms X completed the review on 17 November and the Council lifted the suspension on 28 November. On 29 November it paid the housing benefit due from when the claim was suspended. Ms X’s housing benefit did not change and the suspension has not caused any loss of benefit.
6. In response to the complaint the Council said it had already realised the letter was unclear. The letter had been changed and now states people must complete the review in 30 days. The Council apologised for the inconvenience.
7. The Council made an error. It asked Ms X to complete a review but did not tell her there was a 30 day deadline; instead the letter indicated she had 90 days. I have read the letter and can understand why Ms X did not rush to do the review. I do not doubt that if the letter had contained the correct information Ms X would have acted promptly and the Council would not have suspended the claim. I appreciate the suspension and unclear instructions may have caused worry and annoyance.
8. However, I will not start an investigation because the Council has provided a fair response. It apologised and said it had already amended the letter to include the correct deadline. There is nothing more we would ask the Council to do. I acknowledge the stress caused to Ms X regarding how she would pay her rent, but there has been no loss of benefit and the claim was put back into payment in November. And, Ms X has not said she incurred any costs from her landlord. So, while the review process did not go smoothly, once the Council’s response has been taken into account, there is not enough remaining injustice to require an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint because the Council has provided a fair response and there is not enough remaining injustice to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman