Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council delaying in telling Mr X he needed to apply for universal credit, rather than housing benefit. This is because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council delayed in telling him he needed to apply for universal credit, rather than housing benefit. He said this led to him accruing rent arrears.

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 an investigation if we decide:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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. Mr X signed the tenancy for his flat in April 2023. Mr X applied for housing benefit and council tax support in April 2023. Mr X did not indicate he needed support with his application or that the Council should correspond with a third party. Mr X also listed his address within his online application as Address 1.
6. The Council sent Mr X a letter and email in May 2023 to advise him to make a claim for Universal Credit to help him with his housing costs. The letter was sent to Address 1. The Council said Mr X had provided an incorrect email address in his application form and this was why he didn’t receive the email.
7. Mr X and his support worker contacted the Council to enquire about his claim in May 2023. The records showed there was no discussion about Mr X’s housing benefit claim, only his claim for council tax support.
8. Mr X and his support worker contacted the Council again in July 2023. The Council acknowledged its officer failed to remind Mr X he needed to apply for Universal Credit during this contact. Instead, the officer sent the request to the Council’s benefit service. Two days later, the benefit service sent Mr X another letter, again to Address 1, to advise him he needed to apply for Universal Credit.
9. In August 2023, Mr X and his support worker contacted the Council again. During this phone call, the officer advised Mr X he needed to apply for Universal Credit.
10. An investigation is not justified as it would not lead to any different findings or outcomes. The Council has accepted it should have told Mr X during the phone call in July 2023 that he needed to apply for Universal Credit. However, the Council provided this information just two days later. Therefore, I am satisfied the accepted fault would not have caused any significant injustice. Further, the Council had appropriately informed Mr X to apply for Universal Credit in May 2023.
11. I am also satisfied the Council had no information that it needed to correspond with a third party rather than Mr X, or that Mr X would not be able to understand information sent to him. Therefore, we are not likely to find fault with the Council for sending Mr X the information in a letter.
12. I have considered whether it was appropriate for the Council to send the letters to Mr X’s address, given he did not move into the property until mid-May 2023. However, I note that Mr X’s original application form listed this as his address. Therefore, I am satisfied it was reasonable for the Council to have sent correspondence to the listed address and so an investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman