Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s retrospective claim for housing benefit made without the complainant’s knowledge and delay in responding to the complaint. We do not consider Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice because of the Council’s actions. And we consider an apology for the delay in responding to the complainant is a suitable remedy to this part of the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council fraudulently applied for housing tax benefit in his name without his knowledge.
2. He also complains the Council delayed in responding to his complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 injustice to the person who complained, or
• further 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

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X contacted the Council for clarification about a housing benefit claim which he was not aware he had made.
7. The Council confirmed the claim has been completed retrospectively by the Council to cover a period that Mr X was in temporary accommodation.
8. Mr X said he was told the cost for the accommodation would be met by the Council and he was not told to make any housing benefit claim.
9. The Council explained it covers most costs of bed and breakfast accommodation, but it can recover £13.04 per night through housing benefit. It apologised that its temporary housing officer failed to tell him about this. But the officer has now left and cannot be questioned on this point.
10. The Council also explained that Mr X would have been liable to pay £13.04 per night for his stay, but as he was not made aware of this, the Council made a retrospective claim to cover this cost.
11. The Council also apologised for the delay in responding to Mr X’s complaint about this.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• The housing benefit claim covered a cost which he otherwise may have been liable for. Therefore Mr X did not suffer a personal injustice because of the Council’s decision to make the retrospective claim on his behalf.
• The relevant Council officer has now left the Council so further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.
• The Council has apologised for the delay in responding to his complaint which is a suitable remedy for this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman