Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council used an Attachment of Earnings Order to recover a housing benefit overpayment despite telling the complainant the matter was on hold. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council told him recovery action was on hold when it had already applied for an Attachment of Earnings Order (AEO). Mr X says this caused financial hardship and a £12 bank charge for being overdrawn. Mr X wants the Council to cover his costs and pay compensation.

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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

4. In 2010 the Council asked Mr X to repay a housing benefit overpayment of £470. In September 2010 the tribunal dismissed his appeal about repaying the money. Mr X repaid some of the debt between 2010 and 2016. In February 2022 the Council sent Mr X an invoice for the outstanding £223. The Council asked him to make a payment plan by 31 March to avoid recovery action. In response Mr X said he was complaining to us and he did not set up a payment plan.
5. In July the Council applied to Mr X’s employer for an AEO. Mr X called the Council on 21 July and the officer said they would apply a four week hold. But, by then, the request had already been sent to the employer. The officer was unaware of this when they agreed the hold. On 25 August Mr X offered £15 a month, after the deduction had been made from his pay, if the Council refunded the money deducted from his pay. The Council declined.
6. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The debt has been outstanding since 2010 and the Council has a duty to protect public funds. In 2022 the Council took action to recover the outstanding balance and gave Mr X time to pay before taking further action. If Mr X had offered a plan early in 2022, as requested, the Council would not have asked for an AEO. But, by July, Mr X had not repaid the money or made an offer, so the Council applied for an AEO. The Council agreed a hold in July but by then the Council had already requested the deduction and Mr X did not make an offer of payment until more than four weeks later and after the deduction had been made.
7. I also will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of injustice. I appreciate Mr X feels aggrieved because a hold was agreed. But, by then, the AEO had been issued and Mr X did not use the period of the hold to make a payment or a plan. Regardless of what he was told there is little to suggest the outcome would have been any different. In addition, while Mr X says he incurred a £12 bank charge, this is not a level of injustice requiring an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman