Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about housing benefit overpayments. This is because the complainant could have used her appeal rights and because it is a late complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, says she should not have had to repay some HB overpayments. Mrs X wants a refund and an apology.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. The Social Entitlement Chamber (also known as the Social Security Appeal Tribunal) is a tribunal that considers housing benefit appeals. (The Social Entitlement Chamber of the First Tier Tribunal)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Between 2011 and 2019 the Council asked Mrs X to repay some housing benefit overpayments. There were several overpayments relating to different properties. The Council says Mrs X rang at various times to discuss and dispute the overpayments; for example, it says there were eight conversations between 2014 and 2018 and that in 2018 she agreed to pay £5 a week towards the debt. The Council recovered the overpayments by reducing Mrs X’s on-going housing benefit. The Council also says it discussed appeal rights in 2013.
8. Mrs X disputes the overpayments. She says the housing benefit was paid to her landlord. Mrs X says she should not have to repay anything because she did not receive any of the benefit. Mrs X thinks there has been fraud and wants a refund and a full investigation.
9. Mrs X acknowledges the housing benefit issues are old but says a different ombudsman scheme took time to deal with a different complaint. Mrs X received a decision about that complaint in 2020.
10. I will not start an investigation for the following reasons. Mrs X could have used her appeal rights to challenge any of the housing benefit decisions. She could have appealed if she did not think she had been overpaid or that any overpayment was recoverable from her. Each benefit overpayment decision letter would have told Mrs X she had one month to appeal; in addition, appeal rights were discussed during calls. The Council has no record of Mrs X lodging an appeal. It is reasonable to expect Mrs X to have appealed because the tribunal is the appropriate body to determine benefit disputes. The tribunal would have decided if Mrs X had been overpaid and if she had to repay any money. These are not decisions we can make.
11. I also will not start an investigation because this is a late complaint. The overpayments first arose in 2011 but Mrs X did not complain to us until 2024. Mrs X could have appealed, or complained to us, at any time between 2011 and 2019. Mrs X has explained she has caring responsibilities but, as she was able to contact the Council during this period, it is reasonable to expect she could have made an earlier complaint. Mrs X did not contact the other ombudsman scheme until after the period of the overpayments so their involvement did not stop Mrs X from making a complaint from 2011. And, as I said, we expect people to use their appeal rights so even if the complaint was not late we would still not start an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint because Mrs X could have used her appeal rights and because it is a late complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman