Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council handled his housing benefit claim. The Council avoidably delayed his claim and resulting appeal, causing him distress and uncertainty. The Council should apologise, evidence to Mr X it has now referred his appeal to the First-Tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber), and pay a financial remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council handled a housing benefit claim he made in January 2024. He says the Council:
• delayed in considering his appeal against its decision to refuse the claim;
• delayed in referring the appeal to the First-Tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber); and
• did not respond when he complained about these delays.
2. Because of this he says he experienced distress and financial loss and became homeless. He wants the Council to award housing benefit for the claimed period, repay him for financial loss, and pay compensation for distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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)
5. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
6. The courts have established that if someone has appealed to the Tribunal, the law says we cannot investigate any matter which was part of, was connected to, or could have been part of, the appeal to the Tribunal. (R (on application of Milburn) v Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman [2023] EWCA Civ 207)
7. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy, and guidance.
9. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and guidance

Housing benefit

10. The Council manages and pays Housing Benefit which helps eligible people on low incomes pay their rent. Regulations set out the rules councils must follow for calculating and paying Housing Benefit. Usually, the Council pays the tenant housing benefit. The tenant is then responsible for paying the rent to their landlord.
11. The Council should decide if it will pay housing benefit within 14 days of the person providing all the information required to make their claim, or as soon as reasonably practicable after this. (The Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, section 89)
12. If someone disagrees with a housing benefit decision they can ask the council for a review. If they have a review, and are not happy with the decision, they can then appeal to the Social Entitlement Chamber of the First Tier Tribunal. The law says people should appeal within one month of the date of the decision they think is wrong. The tribunal can decide to accept a late appeal up to 13 months after the decision. Because the person can appeal, we would normally decide not to investigate complaints about these decisions.
13. Where a council receives an appeal, it can reconsider the decision before passing it to the Tribunal. If the decision remains unchanged, the council must pass the matter to the Tribunal “as soon as reasonably practicable”. (Rule 24(1A) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-Tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008

Our principles of good administrative practice

14. We publish guidance for councils, including our Principles of Good Administrative Practice. This says councils should make timely decisions and proactively explain the reasons for any delays.

What happened

15. In January 2024, Mr X made a housing benefit claim to the Council. This was for accommodation he stayed in for two weeks from late-December 2023 to early-January 2024. A couple of weeks later, the Council told Mr X it had decided not to pay housing benefit. Mr X asked the Council to review its decision.
16. Two days later, the Council told Mr X its decision remained the same that it would not pay housing benefit. It said he had a right to seek a review from the Council within one month. Mr X responded the same day to say he had already sought a Council review, so his appeal should now go to the First-Tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber).
17. Three months later, in May 2024, Mr X chased the Council because he had heard nothing further. The Council said it had not yet passed his appeal to the Tribunal but would do so “in due course”.
18. Two months later, in July 2024, the Council told Mr X it had reconsidered his claim and changed its decision, so it would now pay housing benefit. Mr X disputed the amount the Council had agreed to pay. He also said he had to take out a loan for the money while awaiting progress on the claim, and the Council should repay him for the interest he paid on this loan.
19. Two weeks later, Mr X complained to the Council because he had not heard anything further or received any money. A month later, at the end of August 2024, the Council had not responded, so Mr X asked to escalate his complaint. The Council responded to confirm it would not change the amount of benefit it had agreed to pay. Mr X responded asking it to refer the case to the Tribunal.
20. A month later, in September 2024, Mr X had heard nothing further about his Tribunal appeal, so came to the Ombudsman. In response to enquiries we made, the Council told us it passed the appeal to the Tribunal on 29 October 2024, the same day we made enquiries. Mr X disputes this and says it the Council passed the appeal to the Tribunal in January 2025.

What I have and have not investigated

21. There is a right of appeal to the First-Tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) about housing benefit claims. Mr X’s appeal has now been passed to the Tribunal. The law says the Ombudsman cannot consider any matter which was part of, was connected to, or could have been part of, an appeal to a tribunal. Therefore, we cannot consider whether Mr X should receive housing benefit, or how much this should be.
22. However, I can consider delays by the Council in considering Mr X’s claim and review and allowing him this Tribunal appeal right.

My findings

23. The Council considered Mr X’s claim in good time. However, after Mr X asked it to pass his appeal to the Tribunal in February 2024, there were significant delays. There were five months where the Council took no action on the case. It then changed its decision despite having no new information from Mr X, so could have made this decision to award housing benefit five months earlier. This avoidable delay was fault.
24. The Council then delayed further, and Mr X had to complain to get a response, which was further fault. Ultimately the Council and Mr X disagreed about the amount of benefit, so the Council should have passed an appeal to the Tribunal but delayed in doing so until after the Ombudsman became involved. This was fault.
25. I consider a reasonable amount of time for the Council to have decided the claim, considered a review, and referred an appeal to Tribunal, would have been by April 2024. Therefore, the Council caused significant avoidable delays, which was fault. This caused Mr X avoidable distress and frustration, for which it should provide a remedy.
26. Mr X’s view is the Council should repay him interest for a loan he says he had to take out while awaiting progress on the housing benefit claim. Mr X provided no evidence of a loan or interest amount. Regardless, I cannot recommend a repayment for interest. Our guidance on remedies says we may consider recommending added interest when we find a council has failed to pay a complainant money they are due. However, we will not normally do so unless the payment itself was more than £1,000. In Mr X’s case, I am not deciding whether a housing benefit payment is due. The amount of housing benefit due is still under dispute and will be resolved by the Tribunal. This means I cannot make a decision about associated interest. The amount of any loan and associated interest is too closely linked to the issue Mr X has appealed. Also, the disputed amount of housing benefit is well below £1,000.
27. I can only recommend a financial payment for distress caused by the delays, and for the uncertainty that remains for Mr X about how things may have been different had the Council processed his case in good time.

Back to top

Action

28. Within one month of our final decision, the Council will:
1. apologise to Mr X for the faults identified and the impact of those faults. Our guidance on remedies sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology;
2. if it has not already done so, provide evidence to Mr X that it has now referred his appeal to the Tribunal; and
3. pay a financial remedy of £100 to recognise the distress and uncertainty caused by the delay.
29. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Decision

30. I find fault causing injustice. The Council agreed to my recommendations to remedy the injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman