Summary: Mr Q’s representative complained on his behalf about the Council’s handling of his application for Housing Benefit. They complained the Council had significant delay, did not keep him properly updated, and incorrectly refused his claim. We cannot say whether the Council’s refusal of his claim was the correct decision because it has been appealed to a tribunal, however we find the Council at fault for delays, poor communication and poor complaint handling which caused significant uncertainty, frustration and time and trouble. The Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment for the injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr Q complains about the Council’s handling of his application for Housing Benefit he made in April 2024. In particular he complains the Council:
1. Had poor communication and did not keep him properly updated.
2. Had significant delays in processing and making a decision on his application.
3. Made the wrong decision when it refused his application for Housing Benefit.
4. Had further delays and poor communication after he lodged an appeal in January 2025.
2. Mr Q said this has caused him distress and financial hardship, as he has not had Housing Benefit since he made the application, leading to rent arrears. He wants the Council to grant his application, backdate payments to April 2024, and to apologise.

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. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended)
5. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal or a government minister or started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6), as amended)
6. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. I have investigated parts a) and b) of Mr Q’s complaint. These are about the Council’s communication and the time it took to make an appealable decision.
8. I have not investigated part c) of Mr Q’s complaint. This is about the Council’s decision to refuse his application. This is because Mr Q appealed the decision to the tribunal and I cannot investigate for the reason explained in paragraph 5.
9. I have not investigated part d) of Mr Q’s complaint. Mr Q’s representative said the Council had further delays, poor communication, and did not arrange the appeal tribunal in a timely manner after an appeal was made in January 2025. This is because we do not normally investigate new matters that occur after a complaint is made to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Mr Q and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. Mr Q 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

Relevant Law and guidance regarding Housing Benefit

12. 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.
13. 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 tribunal. The law says people should appeal within one month of the date of the decision they think is wrong. Because the person can appeal, we would normally decide not to investigate complaints about these decisions.

What happened

14. This is a summary of the key events. It is not a complete chronology of everything that happened. Where necessary, I have expanded on some of these events in the “Analysis” section of this decision statement.
15. In April 2024 Mr Q applied to the Council to claim Housing Benefit. He provided his current address, and other information.
16. A few days later the Council sent a letter to Mr Q. It told him he needed to complete an online claim form. The Council sent the letter to the wrong address.
17. In April Mr Q asked for help from an organisation that provides benefits advice. A person at the organisation became Mr Q’s representative and helped him to communicate with the Council.
18. At the end of May Mr Q telephoned the Council. It has a record of asking him to complete an online claim form.
19. In July Mr Q telephoned the Council. It has a record of advising him it had not received a claim form.
20. At the end of July Mr Q completed the online claim form. The Council received it. He provided his current address and other information again.
21. A few days later in July the Council sent a letter to Mr Q. It told him it required more information from him to commence his claim. The Council sent the letter to the wrong address again.
22. The Council did not progress Mr Q’s claim.
23. In September Mr Q and his representative spoke to the Council by telephone. The Council realised it had previously sent the letters for Mr Q to the wrong address. Mr Q’s representative said the Council assured them it would send Mr Q a letter to the correct address asking for more information to process his application.
24. The Council has a record of reissuing the letter requesting information from July to Mr Q’s correct address. The record states the Council’s intention to allow Mr Q more time to provide the information.
25. Four days later, the Council sent a letter to Mr Q at his correct address. It said he was not eligible for housing benefit because he had failed to provide the information it had requested in an earlier letter. It told Mr Q he could appeal the decision.
26. Later in September Mr Q’s representative wrote an email of concern to the Council. They described their concerns with the way the Council had handled Mr Q’s claim. They asked for it to be reviewed and reinstated as a matter of urgency. They provided the information and documents the Council had requested, and more information in support of the claim.
27. The Council did not complete Mr Q’s claim.
28. At the end of October Mr Q’s representative made a formal stage one complaint to the Council. They said the prolonged delay and lack of resolution since the initial application in April had caused significant distress and financial hardship for Mr Q.
29. At the beginning of November the Council responded to Mr Q’s representative’s email of concern from September, and the later complaint from October. It detailed more information it needed from Mr Q before it could proceed with his claim.
30. Later in November the Council formally responded to the stage one complaint. It agreed it had delayed Mr Q’s claim by sending letters to the wrong address. It apologised for the delays. However, it said Mr Q would have to apply for a different benefit if he required assistance with paying his rent. This implied the Council had decided Mr Q was not entitled to Housing Benefit.
31. Mr Q’s representative promptly replied to the Council. They explained Mr Q was not eligible for the different benefit. They requested the Council process his application for Housing Benefit and provide a decision urgently. The Council treated it as a stage two complaint escalation.
32. The Council responded to the stage two complaint in early December. It said it believed it had made the correct decision. However, it did not explain why.
33. At the end of December the Council wrote to Mr Q and said it had decided to award him Housing Benefit backdated to the previous April. However, on the same day it wrote him another letter that said it had decided to suspend his Housing Benefit. It said this was because there was doubt about his entitlement. It did not specify the reason for the doubt.
34. At the beginning of January 2025 the Council wrote to Mr Q and said it had decided to terminate his Housing Benefit award. It said it had awarded it at the end of December in error. It explained the reason it believed Mr Q was not entitled to Housing Benefit. It explained he had the right to appeal the decision to an independent tribunal. It did not offer Mr Q the option to ask the Council to review its decision.
35. It also wrote a letter to Mr Q’s representative in response to the complaints they had raised. It provided more information on the reason it believed Mr Q was not entitled to Housing Benefit. It apologised for the delays in responding and the error in awarding Housing Benefit.
36. Later in January Mr Q’s representative lodged an appeal on his behalf. They complained to the Ombudsman at the beginning of February.

Analysis

Complaints of poor communication and delay.

37. The Council received Mr Q’s application in April 2024. It did not make a final appealable decision on the application until January 2025, nine months later.
38. During that period I find Mr Q was responsible for a small proportion of the delay. This was the period between the end of May 2024, when the Council verbally advised him to complete an online form, and the end of July when he submitted it.
39. However, I find the Council was responsible for the rest of the delay for the following reasons:

• It sent important letters to Mr Q in April and July 2024 to the wrong address.
• It rejected Mr Q’s claim in September because he had not provided information requested in a letter the Council knew he had not received.
• It did not respond to Mr Q’s representative’s email of concern, and relevant information and documents, sent in September, until November. This was after the formal complaint made in October.
• It implied it had decided Mr Q was not entitled to Housing Benefit in its stage one response in November. However, the response was not an appealable decision.
• Its stage two response in December was not clear. It upheld an earlier Council decision, but failed to explain why. It was not an appealable decision.
• Its decision to award Housing Benefit in December was made in error and immediately suspended. The decision to suspend Housing Benefit was not an appealable decision.

40. The Council’s communication was not timely or clear. It fell below a reasonable standard and was a failure to keep Mr Q properly updated. This was fault.
41. The Council’s actions also caused seven months of delay of the nine month period between the initial application and its decision. The Government publishes statistics on the speed of processing Housing Benefit. On average it takes councils between 20 and 25 calendar days. The Council took significantly longer than average in this case. This was fault.
42. The Council’s poor communication and delay caused injustice to Mr Q. It frustrated his right of appeal and caused significant distress in the form of frustration and uncertainty. I recommend the Council apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mr Q of £300 for the injustice caused.
43. The Council’s complaint responses of November and December did not identify it had failed to give an appealable decision on Mr Q’s application despite the significant delay. This failure was poor complaint handling which was fault. It caused Mr Q’s representative injustice in the form of time and trouble. I recommend the Council apologises for the injustice caused.
44. In response to the draft decision the Council commented it is committed to improving its service delivery and complaint handling processes. It said it will take steps to:

• Review and strengthen its procedures for Housing Benefit applications.
• Improve communication standards and response times.
• Ensure clearer and more timely complaint resolution.

Back to top

Action

45. Within four weeks of the date of the final decision the Council should:
1. Apologise to Mr Q for the distress caused by the delay and poor communication. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apologies I have recommended in my findings.
2. Apologise to Mr Q’s representative for the time and trouble caused by the flawed complaint handling.
3. Pay Mr Q £300 to acknowledge the uncertainty and frustration caused.
46. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

47. I find fault regarding the Council’s standard of communication and delays causing injustice for the reasons laid out in the analysis section of this decision. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman