Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a housing benefit overpayment and a lack of response to the complainant’s emails. This is because the Council provided a satisfactory response, and the complainant could have used his review and appeal rights.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains that the Council did not respond to emails about some housing benefit overpayments. He says the overpayments were caused by Council error and should be waived. Mr X wants compensation because the problem has happened before.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
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 Mr X and the Council. This includes some of the benefit decision letters and the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X has some housing benefit overpayments. One was notified in 2020; another was raised in 2023 and a further one in January 2024. Between September 2023 and March 2024 Mr X sent emails asking for information about the overpayments. He said he wanted the information so he could decide whether to appeal. The overpayment decision letters notified Mr X of his appeal rights.
7. The Council provided an explanation about the overpayments in May.
8. The Council upheld his complaint and apologised for the delayed response to his emails. It said it would raise the issue with the manager and address any training needs. The Council awarded £50 for the delayed response. The Council also explained that the delay had not contributed to the overpayments. It said he could ask for a review or an appeal if he disagreed with the overpayments.
9. I will not start an investigation because the Council has provided a satisfactory response. It has apologised for the delayed response, awarded £50 and alerted a manager. I am aware there was a similar problem in 2022, for which the Council awarded compensation, but this does not mean an additional remedy is needed now.
10. Mr X says the Council should waive the overpayments because of the delayed response. But, the overpayments were not caused by the delay or linked to the delay so it would not be appropriate to ask the Council to waive them.
11. Mr X says the overpayments were caused by Council error and, if correct, he would not have to repay the money. Mr X would need to use his review and appeal rights to establish if the overpayments were caused by an official error. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to use his appeal rights because the Council repeated in May that he could appeal and the review and appeals process is the correct way to challenge housing benefit decisions.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint because the Council has provided a fair response and Mr X could have used his appeal rights.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman