Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council re-assessed the complainant’s housing benefit. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because there were appeal rights the complainant could have used.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, complains the Council ignored evidence she provided about her housing benefit and fraudulently changed her claim. Ms X wants the Council to correct the housing benefit and apologise for the terrible way it treated her.

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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)
4. 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

5. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence, review form and benefit decision letters. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X completed a housing benefit review form in September. She said her daughter (Y) was a member of the household. She said Y had no income. The Council checked with the Department for Work & Pensions (DWP) whose records showed Y was employed. The Council reduced Ms X’s housing benefit because there was a working adult (Y) in the household. Ms X provided more information to show her daughter had no income. The Council did further checks but those checks still indicated Y was working.
7. In December Ms X said she had reported Y as missing and the police had found that Y had been living abroad since late 2022. The Council removed Y from the housing benefit claim from December. The Council applied an over-occupancy deduction to the claim because Y’s departure meant Ms X was living in a home that was too large. In response Ms X said the deduction should not apply because another member of her household (W) needs 24 hour care. The Council invited Ms X to provide evidence of the care so it could consider removing the deduction. The Council sent new decision letters giving the new benefit award taking into account the changes relating to Y and W. The decision letters notified Ms X of her appeal rights.
8. I will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons. First, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council reassessed the claim based on information provided by Ms X and the DWP. In the review form Ms X said Y was a member of the household and the Council was entitled to seek information from the DWP about Y’s income. I do not know why the DWP records show Y was receiving an income when the police say Y was abroad but it was not wrong for the Council to use the DWP information. The Council acted correctly by answering Ms X’s questions and inviting her to provide evidence about W’s care needs. There is nothing to suggest the Council committed fraud; instead, it used a combination of evidence from Ms X and the DWP.
9. I also will not start an investigation because Ms X could have used her appeal rights. She could have used these rights to argue that the £100 deduction for Y should have been completely removed and she could have appealed regarding the over-occupancy charge. It is reasonable to expect Ms X to have used her appeal rights because this is the appropriate way to challenge benefit decisions. The tribunal is free to use and the Council notified Ms X of her appeal rights. The tribunal would have decided if the Council was correct to have made a deduction for Y and if it was correct to have applied an over-occupancy deduction.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because Ms X could have used her appeal rights.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman