Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to recover two housing benefit overpayments from him. With the earlier overpayment, Mr X could reasonably have used his right to appeal to a tribunal when he had that right. With the more recent overpayment, it is reasonable to expect Mr X to use his right to appeal to the tribunal.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council is recovering two housing benefit overpayments from him. The Council originally recovered some of the overpayments from his housing benefit and is now taking money from his universal credit.
2. Mr X also complained that the Council did not properly inform him of the appeal process or of the implications of not appealing in time.
3. Mr X also complained that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has deducted money from his universal credit to give to the Council towards the debt.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. 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)
6. 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

7. I considered information provided by Mr X.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Regarding the original overpayment invoice, Mr X’s right of appeal has expired. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to have appealed the overpayment to the First-Tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) at the time when he had the right, as he appealed a separate decision regarding council tax reduction through the Valuation Tribunal. This means Mr X knew about his appeal rights and was able to appeal at the time.
10. Mr X can still appeal the second overpayment and it is reasonable to expect that he uses his right to appeal. This is because: the law expressly provides this route for such disputes; the tribunal has the expertise to decide such matters and the power to make a binding decision; and Mr X knows about his appeal right.
11. Mr X said that the Council did not properly inform him of the appeal process or of the implications of not appealing in time. As Mr X appealed the council tax decision at the time, on balance, it is likely that the Council would also have told him about his right to appeal the housing benefit overpayment. The Council is not obliged to say what might happen if someone does not appeal in time. It only needs to set out the appeal right and the timescale.
12. Mr X said that he did not appeal in time due to the complexity and his traumatic experience with police. However, Mr X appealed the council tax decision at the time and had a maximum of 13 months to appeal the housing benefit overpayment. I acknowledge the reasons provided by Mr X, but on balance, it is reasonable to expect Mr X to have appealed during that period.
13. Mr X complained the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) deducted money from his universal credit to give to the Council towards the debt. We cannot consider the DWP’s actions. In terms of the Council’s actions, the Council previously deducted money from Mr X’s housing benefit, and when Mr X moved from housing benefit to universal credit, the Council sought deductions from universal credit instead. It is not fault in itself for the Council to recover the debt from a different benefit if it could no longer recover it from the original benefit. This matter is linked to the central point and so it would not be proportionate to investigate this when the central point will not be investigated.
14. Mr X complained about the delays in the Council’s complaint handling process. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.
     

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to recover two housing benefit overpayments from him. With the earlier overpayment, Mr X could reasonably have used his right to appeal to a tribunal when it was available to him. With the more recent overpayment, it is reasonable to expect Mr X to use his right to appeal. There is no fault, in principle, in the Council recovering an overpayment from universal credit. It would be disproportionate to investigate the Council’s complaint-handling in isolation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman