Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about housing benefit and council tax reduction. It is reasonable to expect Miss X to use, or to have used, her tribunal appeal rights. It is reasonable to expect Miss X to take court action for the alleged damage to her health. It would be disproportionate to investigate other parts of the complaint in isolation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of her housing benefit and council tax reduction.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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. 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)
5. 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)
6. The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability and council tax support or reduction.
7. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
8. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered information provided by the complainant.
10. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

11. In May and June 2024 the Council contacted Miss X saying it had overpaid her housing benefit and had also reduced her council tax by too much. The Council wanted Miss X to repay over £3,000 housing benefit and pay over £700 more council tax. The Council says these decisions resulted from changes in Miss X’s circumstances dating back several years. Miss X states she was unaware of any such changes at the time, and it was not her fault if she received more housing benefit and council tax reduction than she should have. So she argues she should not have to repay the money.
12. It is clear the central point of the complaint is Miss X’s disagreement with the Council about whether she should repay money. The Valuation Tribunal could consider the dispute about the council tax reduction decision. The Social Entitlement Chamber could consider the housing benefit dispute. So the restrictions in paragraphs 3 and 4 apply.
13. If Miss X has appealed to a tribunal on either point, we cannot consider the matter, as paragraph 4 explained.
14. If Miss X has not used her tribunal appeal right on the housing benefit or council tax reduction matters, the restriction in paragraph 3 applies. The law expressly provides these appeal rights for such disputes, so we normally expect people to use those rights. The tribunals have the expertise to decide such matters and the power to make binding orders, unlike the Ombudsman. Miss X knew about her appeal rights because she told the Council she intended to appeal. In the circumstances:
• On the council tax reduction point, it is reasonable to expect Miss X to have used her appeal right when she had it. That appeal right might now have expired if Miss X has not already appealed to the Valuation Tribunal, but the evidence suggests Miss X knew about the right when she had it.
• On the housing benefit point, the appeal timescales are different. Miss X is still within the maximum limit of 13 months from the Council’s decision to appeal to the tribunal. It is reasonable to expect Miss X to use her appeal right. Even had this appeal right expired, it would still have been reasonable in the circumstances to expect Miss X to have appealed when she had the right.
15. Miss X also complained about the Council’s communications with her about the alleged debts and its related actions. Those points are secondary to Miss X’s disagreement with the Council about whether she should repay the money. In the circumstances, it would be disproportionate to investigate the peripheral points when we cannot investigate the central point about whether the Council should recover money from Miss X.
16. Miss X says the matter has damaged her health and she wants the Council to compensate her for this. It is not our role to award compensation. This is really a claim of personal injury. The courts can consider that, so the restriction in paragraph 7 applies to this point. The possible cost of court action does not in itself automatically mean the Ombudsman should investigate instead. Liability and compensation for personal injury are not straightforward legally. It is more appropriate for the courts than the Ombudsman to decide this. So it would be reasonable for Miss X to go to court for a decision on this point.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. It is reasonable to expect Miss X to use, or to have used, her tribunal appeal rights. It is reasonable to expect Miss X to take court action for the alleged damage to her health. It would be disproportionate to investigate other parts of the complaint in isolation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman