Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council delaying telling Mr X he had claimed the wrong benefit. The Council’s actions did not directly cause Mr X to lose out on the correct benefit.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council delayed telling him he had incorrectly claimed Housing Benefit. He says this meant he lost out on receiving the correct benefit for some months, incurred debt to pay his rent and suffered avoidable stress.

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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide any fault has not directly 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 the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council deals with Housing Benefit (HB) claims. The Department for Work and Pensions, not the Council, deals with Universal Credit (UC) claims. In Hackney, most people who would previously have claimed HB have had to claim UC instead since 2018, including people whose circumstances changed after 2018. The Council has made information publicly available, including on its website, explaining that many people who could previously get HB from the Council would now need to claim UC instead.
6. In October 2020 the Council experienced a cyber-attack that left it unable to with HB claims (and many other matters) for a considerable time.
7. Mr X had claimed housing benefit at his previous address. His new circumstances meant he was no longer eligible for HB. Mr X’s support worker, seemingly unaware of that change, sent the Council a claim for HB in February 2021.
8. Due to the cyber-attack, the Council could not see the details of the claim or decide the claim. Mr X’s support worker telephoned the Council to chase progress. We shall not be able to reach a clear enough view now about what was said, but the Council believes it probably explained it could not deal with the details of claims and would do so when the problems caused by the cyber-attack were resolved. Meanwhile, Mr X was not getting benefit to pay his rent. He reports he borrowed money from family and friends to pay his rent and avoid eviction.
9. In September 2021, the Council was able to deal with the claim and told Mr X he was not eligible for HB and should claim UC instead. Mr X then claimed UC. He now receives UC, but it was only backdated for one month before his claim. So Mr X received no payment to cover most of the period between February and September 2021. Mr X argues the Council would have given him the correct advice much sooner but for the problems caused by the cyber-attack and its comments to his support worker in the meantime. So he says the Council should pay him an amount equivalent to the UC he did not receive.
10. The Council’s involvement in Mr X’s benefit claim was only due to that claim being made to the wrong organisation for the wrong benefit. The Council was not at fault for that error. The cyber-attack meant the Council took longer than it usually would have to point out the mistake. However, any fault in that respect (regarding either the delay or any advice the Council gave in the meantime) does not make the Council directly responsible for Mr X not receiving benefit for that period. The connection between the Council’s action and the rent arrears is only indirect. The direct cause of the arrears was the incorrect benefit claim, which was not the Council’s fault. So we shall not investigate the complaint with a view to asking the Council to pay towards the arrears.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman