Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council notifies housing benefit decisions. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice and because there are appeal rights the complainant could use.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, says the way the Council notifies housing benefit decisions is wrong and misleading. He says he cannot verify an award is correct unless the Council provides figures to four decimal places. He says the Council should correct the notifications or include a disclaimer.

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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.

(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 Mr X and the Council. I also considered the housing benefit regulations and our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained that the housing benefit decision letters only show the award to two decimal places. He says the Council should include the figures to four places. Without this, he says the decision letters are misleading.
7. The Council explained its systems are audited by the Department for Work and Pensions and no concerns have been raised. The Council said that not displaying the figures to four places may mean there appears to be a small discrepancy, but it is minimal. The Council stated Mr X’s housing benefit is correct.
8. I will not start an investigation for the following reasons.
9. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice. It is standard practice for councils to show benefit awards to two places and the regulations state councils should round to the nearest penny. Mr X has not stated the Council has paid the wrong amount of money and any discrepancy would be minimal (matters of pence).
10. If Mr X thinks any decision he receives is wrong he can appeal to the tribunal. It is reasonable for Mr X to appeal because the tribunal is the appropriate body to consider housing benefit disputes, including whether the amount of benefit awarded is correct.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice and because there are appeal rights Mr X could use.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman