Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has suspended the complainant’s housing benefit and keeps asking for information he has already provided. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council suspended his housing benefit and keeps asking for information he has already provided. He says the Council is being malicious and vindictive and he is running out of savings because his claim remains suspended. Mr X wants the Council to put the claim back into payment, change the rules and award 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and the Council’s most recent request for evidence. I also considered our Assessment Code.
4. I have considered Mr X’s comments on our draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Councils must assess housing benefit claims using the regulations set by central government. Councils cannot change the regulations. The regulations say a claimant must provide any evidence requested by a council to determine eligibility/continued eligibility for benefit. The regulations also say a person will not be eligible for housing benefit if they have more than £16,000. If a person has between £6000 and £16,000 the benefit must be reduced.
6. In September the Council asked Mr X for information so it could review his claim. The Council suspended the claim in November because Mr X had not responded. Mr X then responded, but did not provide all the information the Council needed. In addition, the documents he did provide showed that at times he had capital above £16000 and this prompted the Council to ask for more information.
7. Since then the Council has made further requests for information. Mr X has not provided all the evidence and has accused the Council of asking for unnecessary evidence and for documents he has already provided. The Council apologised because it twice asked for information Mr X had provided; the Council said its other requests for evidence were all valid. The Council also agreed that, at times, it had not handled the self-employed aspects of his claim well. The Council awarded £50 for Mr X’s time and trouble.
8. The Council asked for more information in June. It said that if Mr X did not provide the evidence, it would make a decision based on the information it has. The information requested includes bank statements, self-employment accounts, details about two payments of £5000, and information about a payment Mr X says was to his cleaner but may be linked to his business. The deadline for Mr X to respond has expired.
9. I do not know if Mr X provided all the information. I have seen emails in which he said he would not provide some documents because he thinks it is unnecessary. Mr X disagrees with the capital rules and thinks the Council should change how it assesses claims from self-employed people. Mr X asked for the Council to reinstate his claim and pay compensation.
10. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The law is clear councils can ask for any information it needs to assess a claim. Mr X disagrees and considers some of the information requested by the Council to be irrelevant.
11. However, I have seen the information requests and comments about a lack of clarity regarding Mr X’s capital and business, and I see no suggestion of fault in relation to what the Council has requested. The claim has been suspended since November, but this is because Mr X has not provided the information. The Council must follow the regulations and cannot change how it applies the capital rules or the self-employment rules.
12. There have been a couple of occasions when the Council asked for evidence it already had but this is outweighed by the amount of outstanding information. The Council has already apologised and awarded a symbolic payment. I do not consider any further remedy is necessary in the circumstances.
13. I acknowledge Mr X feels the Council has treated him badly, but I have not seen anything to suggest we need to start an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman