Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about housing benefit decisions. Any fault by the Council concerning tenants’ benefits did not directly cause significant injustice to the housing provider.

The complaint

1. Mr X is from a Housing Provider (‘the Provider’). He complains the Council stopped paying housing benefit, delayed dealing with the appeal against that decision and did not reply to his complaint. He says this meant the Provider’s tenants were evicted and the Provider suffered financial difficulties.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide: any fault has not caused direct injustice to the person or organisation who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (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 the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Tenants of ‘supported housing’ (as legally defined) can receive housing benefit. Housing benefit is claimed by, and paid in respect of, the tenant, not the landlord, although the Council can pay it direct to the landlord rather than via the tenant. If a council cancels a tenant’s housing benefit, the tenant can ask the Council to review the decision. If the review does not change the decision, an independent tribunal can decide the appeal. We expect councils to deal promptly with requests for reviews and appeals and to pass appeals promptly to the tribunal.
6. Mr X represents a housing provider that had tenants in Haringey. The Council previously paid housing benefit for supported housing in respect of those tenants. The Council suspended, then cancelled, the benefit claims, saying it had decided the Provider’s service did not meet the legal definition of ‘supported housing.’
7. Mr X sought an appeal for the tenants in February 2023. He complained to us in December 2023 after hearing nothing substantive about the appeal. On 19 December 2023 the Council told us it would pass the appeal (and its comments on the appeal) to the tribunal that week. Meanwhile the Provider, no longer receiving housing benefit to cover the tenants’ rent, had ended the tenancies and disposed of the properties where the tenants had lived.
8. The central point of the complaint is the cancellation of the housing benefit claims. The Provider's involvement here was as a landlord. Tenants, not landlords, claim housing benefit. When deciding whether to end a housing benefit claim, the Council has no direct duty to a landlord. The Council's only direct duty on that point is to the claimant (the tenant). This complaint is from the Provider in its own right, not from the tenants. The Council was not directly responsible for any knock-on impact its benefit decisions might have on the Provider.
9. The Provider, like any landlord, was responsible for protecting its own position. It did so by ending the tenancies and its liability for the properties. That might have taken some time and involved some cost, but that was not directly the Council's responsibility. The Council's benefit decisions only indirectly affected the Provider. As there was no direct significant injustice, we shall not investigate the complaint.
10. Mr X says the tenants lost their accommodation because the Council stopped paying housing benefit. As noted above, this complaint is not from the tenants. Anyway, the tribunal, not the Ombudsman, has the expertise to decide if the Council was wrong and the power to order the Council to pay benefit. As I have explained, the Council had no direct duty to the Provider on these decisions.
11. As well as the cancellation of housing benefit, there is the Council’s apparent delay considering the appeals and passing them to the tribunal. The same reasoning applies here as for the benefit decisions. The Council had no direct responsibility to the Provider, so we shall not hold it responsible for any claimed impact the delay had on the Provider.
12. Mr X told us he wanted the Council to:
1. Deal with the appeals – We understand the Council has passed the appeals to the independent tribunal. There is nothing more we can achieve on this point, even if the tenants had complained to us about the impact on them.
2. Reverse its decision and pay the unpaid housing benefit – It is for the independent tribunal, not the Ombudsman, to decide whether the accommodation met the legal requirements for receiving housing benefit.
13. Although, as explained above, there is no direct injustice to Mr X’s organisation, significant delays in the Council progressing appeals might disadvantage other people. We identified this in another recent complaint against the Council. At our recommendation, the Council produced an action plan in January 2024 to reduce its appeals backlog and delay. Therefore, we cannot reasonably achieve more on this point by pursuing Mr X’s complaint.
14. Mr X also complains the Council did not reply to his formal complaint about the matter. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is no direct causal link between any fault by the Council and any significant injustice to the Housing Provider. In that context, it would also be disproportionate to investigate the Council’s complaint-handling in isolation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman