Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her Housing Benefit claim while she lived in temporary accommodation. We found the Council was at fault for errors in assessing Housing Benefit, giving incorrect advice and sending inaccurate suspension correspondence. The Council has already corrected the Housing Benefit award and made a Discretionary Housing Payment to address the earlier shortfall. The Council has agreed to remedy the outstanding injustice.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the way the Council administered her Housing Benefit (HB) claim while she was living in temporary accommodation between May 2024 and January 2025. She says there were delays and errors in processing her claim, including being given contradictory information about her entitlement and arrears. She also complains about the Council’s communication, the suspension of her claim in late 2024, and the impact this had on her wellbeing. Miss X says the issues caused significant distress, particularly as she was vulnerable due to recent domestic abuse and ongoing mental health difficulties.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Miss 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

Relevant guidance and legislation

Housing Benefit

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 but it can also pay Housing Benefit direct to a landlord in some circumstances. In this case, the evidence shows Housing Benefit was credited to Miss X’s rent account.

6. 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.

Discretionary Housing Payment

7. A council can award discretionary housing payments (DHP) when someone needs help with housing costs and is claiming Housing Benefit or Universal Credit which includes housing costs towards rent. (Discretionary Housing Payments guidance manual May 2022, section 2.3)
8. Government guidance allows councils to choose (discretion) when to offer a DHP; there is no statutory right to payment. However, guidance says DHP decisions must follow the ordinary principles of good decision making. This means councils must act fairly, reasonably, and consistently, and must decide each case by considering individual circumstances.
9. The council must tell the applicant about its decision and explain its reasons if the decision is not to make a payment. The guidance says councils should make a decision as soon as it can and avoid unnecessary delay. The decision should tell the applicant how to ask for a review.

Back to top

What happened

10. I have included a summary of some of the key events in this complaint. This is not intended to be a comprehensive account of everything that happened.
11. Miss X moved into temporary accommodation (Property A) in early May 2024 and submitted a Housing Benefit (HB) claim shortly afterwards. The Council had information indicating the accommodation was linked to domestic abuse support.
12. The Council issued an initial HB decision in mid-June 2024, but it later accepted this was incorrect because it had wrongly applied the social size criteria.
13. The Council corrected the social size criteria and recalculated HB in late June 2024, issuing a revised decision and identifying an underpayment for the earlier period.
14. Miss X told the Council in early July 2024 that her earnings were variable (including periods of nil income). The Council sought further verification and reassessed HB in late July and mid-August 2024, issuing further decision notice(s).
15. The Council’s position is that Miss X was entitled to full HB from late July 2024 (subject to an ineligible service charge), but that she did not receive full HB for the earlier period because of excess income assessed at the time.
16. Miss X applied for a Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP) in mid-September 2024. Around the same time, the Council corrected the HB calculation because it had not used the full gross rent, leading to an underpayment being identified and paid.
17. In mid-November 2024, the Council received internal information suggesting another council had placed Miss X in the accommodation, and it also received a DWP change-of-address notification. The Council suspended Housing Benefit and wrote to Miss X saying the DWP had told it she had moved and her benefit was suspended from 15 November 2024 pending confirmation. Miss X replied the same day and the Council confirmed shortly afterwards that it had lifted the suspension.
18. The Council later received further DWP change-of-address notifications in mid-December 2024 and early January 2025 and again suspended Housing Benefit temporarily before reinstating it. The Council says it did not issue a suspension letter on every occasion. A suspension letter issued in early January 2025 contained a clear typing error about the year the suspension applied from, and the Council apologised.
19. Miss X complained to the Council in early January 2025 about the administration of HB, inconsistent information, suspensions, and the impact on her wellbeing. The Council responded at stage 1 (early February 2025) and stage 2 (late March 2025), apologising for aspects of communication and later agreeing a DHP of £886.80 to cover the earlier HB shortfall period.

Enquiries to the Council

20. As part of my investigation, I made enquiries to the Council. Of note:
• It accepted there were initial delays and errors in the administration of Miss X’s Housing Benefit claim after it was received in early May 2024. It said the claim was initially assessed incorrectly because it applied the social size criteria, and it later corrected this.
• It also accepted it made a further correction in late September 2024 because it had not used the full gross rent in the Housing Benefit calculation.
• It said it temporarily suspended Miss X’s Housing Benefit at points in late 2024 and early 2025 after receiving change-of-address notifications from the DWP and information suggesting Miss X may have been placed in the accommodation by another council. It said it had to make enquiries to verify the position and to minimise the risk of overpayment, and it reinstated benefit once matters were clarified.
• It said that once the Housing Benefit corrections were made, payments were made in line with Miss X’s eligible rent, and that full Housing Benefit applied from late July 2024 (subject to ineligible service charges).
• It said Miss X later received a Discretionary Housing Payment of £886.80 following the stage 2 complaint review, to address the earlier shortfall period.
• It said Miss X’s rent arrears did not increase as a result of the short suspension periods. The rent statement shows Miss X had arrears overall during the period.

Back to top

Analysis

Housing Benefit administration and accuracy of assessments

21. Miss X complains the Council took too long to get her Housing Benefit (HB) in place when she moved into Property A, and that it made errors which contributed to confusion and rent arrears.
22. The Council accepts there were initial delays and errors after it received Miss X’s HB claim. In particular, it says it initially assessed the claim incorrectly because it applied the social size criteria, and it later corrected this when the issue was identified.
23. The Council also accepts it later made a further correction because it had not used the full gross rent in its HB calculation. It says this correction resulted in an underpayment being identified and paid.
24. The Council said a further adjustment in mid-December 2024 related to service charge information provided late by the landlord, which it said was outside the Council’s control.
25. I am satisfied these errors amounted to fault. The Council should have applied the correct rules and used the correct rent figures when it assessed Miss X’s entitlement. It was avoidable for Miss X’s claim to require multiple corrections over several months. While Councils can and do revise benefit awards when new information comes to light, the Council’s evidence indicates these were not new-information revisions but corrections of mistakes in how it applied its assessment.
26. Miss X says the Council’s errors and delays added to uncertainty about her entitlement and contributed to the arrears situation and distress at a time she was vulnerable. The Council’s later corrections meant it identified and paid underpaid HB, and the stage 2 complaint review also led to a DHP award to cover the earlier shortfall period. The available evidence suggests the direct financial impact of the assessment errors was largely put right through backdated HB and subsequent financial support.
27. However, even where the Council later corrects entitlement and pays arrears, avoidable errors in administering HB can still cause avoidable uncertainty and distress, particularly where the claimant is worried about rent arrears and the security of their accommodation. I consider that point later.

Information given about liability and responsibility for Housing Benefit

28. Miss X complains the Council gave her conflicting advice about which council was responsible for her Housing Benefit while she lived in Property A. She says she was told at one point that another council was responsible and that the Council had no responsibility, and this added to confusion and distress.
29. The Council’s evidence shows that in mid-November 2024 its Housing Advice team understood (incorrectly) that Miss X had been placed into the accommodation by another council under a homeless duty. On that basis, Miss X was advised to claim Housing Benefit from the other council.
30. The Council then says it made further enquiries and established that Miss X had not been placed by the other council, and that her move occurred via a self-referral route. It says the position was corrected and the Housing Benefit claim was reinstated promptly once this was clarified. The Council apologised for the miscommunication between departments and accepted it should have clarified this before advising Miss X to claim from another authority.
31. I am satisfied the Council was at fault in the way this advice arose. While it was appropriate for officers to make enquiries where there was uncertainty about who should pay Housing Benefit, the Council should ensure information shared between teams is accurate before it is used to advise a resident about which authority is responsible for their claim. Giving Miss X incorrect advice about responsibility was avoidable and indicates a failure of internal communication and checking.
32. The Council’s evidence indicates the error was corrected quickly once identified. However, Miss X was living in temporary accommodation and was already reporting significant worry about rent arrears and the security of her housing. Against that context, being told to pursue another council and then having that position reversed was likely to cause avoidable uncertainty and distress, even if the underlying entitlement position was later restored. I consider this when I assess the overall distress remedy alongside the Council’s handling of the suspensions and its broader communication.

Suspensions of Housing Benefit and associated communication

33. Miss X complains the Council repeatedly suspended her Housing Benefit (HB) claim in late 2024 and early 2025 and that the Council’s communication about this was confusing and distressing. She says this contributed to worry about rent arrears and the security of her accommodation. The Council said repeated notifications are not uncommon where someone is in temporary accommodation.
34. The Council says it temporarily suspended Miss X’s HB on several occasions after receiving DWP change-of-address notifications (ATLAS), and that suspension was a normal control while it made enquiries to ensure entitlement remained correct and to reduce the risk of overpayment. It says the claim was suspended and reinstated over short periods in mid-November 2024, mid-December 2024, and early January 2025, with a further suspension later in January 2025.
35. I accept the Council was entitled to make verification enquiries where it received information suggesting a change of address. However, the Council still needed to ensure its actions and communication were accurate, clear, and proportionate, particularly given the likely impact of suspension decisions on a tenant’s position with their landlord.
36. The Council says it temporarily suspended Miss X’s Housing Benefit on several occasions after receiving change-of-address notifications from the DWP. It says, where it could obtain clarification quickly, it resolved matters without issuing a suspension letter to Miss X, to minimise unnecessary correspondence and distress. I do not find fault with the Council’s decision not to issue a letter on every occasion where it was able to resolve matters promptly.
37. However, the Council did issue a suspension letter in early January 2025 which contained a clear typing error, stating Miss X’s benefit had been suspended from 3 January 2024. Sending inaccurate correspondence about the period of suspension was fault because it risked causing avoidable alarm and confusion.
38. The Council says Miss X’s rent arrears did not increase as a result of the short suspension periods and that Housing Benefit was reinstated once enquiries were resolved. Nevertheless, in the circumstances of this case, the inaccurate suspension letter and the repeated changes to Miss X’s Housing Benefit position were likely to cause avoidable uncertainty and distress, particularly given her vulnerability.

Rent arrears information, liaison with the landlord, and support (including DHP)

39. Miss X complains she was given changing and inconsistent information about her rent arrears and what she needed to pay, and that poor liaison between the Council and her landlord contributed to confusion and distress. She also complains about the handling of financial support to address any shortfall, including Discretionary Housing Payments (DHP). The Council said it engaged with the landlord in response to queries about entitlement.
40. The Council says it does not have direct access to the landlord’s rent account and relies on information provided by the landlord and/or Miss X about rent and arrears. It accepts that different figures were being discussed at different times, but says these reflected different sources and different meanings.
41. The Council’s stage 2 response also indicates there were complications with how the rent account was set up by the landlord (including an issue about rent-free weeks being applied in error), which affected what the rent statement showed at points in time. The rent statement supports that Miss X’s arrears were significant at points during 2024 and reduced materially after substantial Housing Benefit credits were applied following later recalculations.
42. While the Council is right that rent account balances sit with the landlord, it still needed to take reasonable steps to ensure it gave Miss X clear information about what its HB decisions meant in practice and to avoid contributing to confusion between “arrears” and “HB shortfall”. Where a resident is at risk of homelessness and reporting distress, the Council should communicate in a way that helps the resident understand:
• what HB has been awarded and for what period,
• what is not covered (for example, ineligible service charges),
• what is being paid to the landlord and when, and
• what further action the resident may need to take.
43. The Council said its Housing Benefit decision notices set out how it assessed Miss X’s entitlement and signposted her to further information on its website. However, given the repeated reassessments and the changing arrears figures in this case, the Council has not provided evidence to show what it did to help Miss X understand the difference between rent account arrears and any Housing Benefit shortfall, or to address her uncertainty about what she needed to pay. In the circumstances, this was fault.
44. In relation to support and mitigation, Miss X applied for a DHP in mid-September 2024. The Council initially refused the DHP, but following the stage 2 complaint review it agreed a DHP of £886.80 to cover the earlier shortfall period. That action was consistent with the Council recognising the need for support to address the gap between HB and rent during the early period.
45. The eventual DHP award appears to have addressed the financial shortfall for the early period. However, Miss X says the ongoing uncertainty about arrears and the pressure she felt from communications with the landlord and the Council caused distress. I address this point in the following paragraph.

Injustice and remedy

46. I have found fault in several aspects of the Council’s handling of Miss X’s Housing Benefit claim. The Council made avoidable errors in its initial assessments and later had to correct the claim more than once. It also gave Miss X incorrect advice about which council was responsible for her claim, before correcting this. In addition, it sent a suspension letter which contained an obvious date error.
47. The injustice from these faults falls into two broad categories. First, there was financial impact linked to periods where Miss X did not receive full Housing Benefit and where the Council later corrected entitlement. The evidence shows the Council later identified and paid underpaid Housing Benefit and, after the stage 2 complaint review, it awarded a Discretionary Housing Payment to cover the earlier shortfall period. I am satisfied this largely remedied the direct financial impact arising from the Council’s errors.
48. Second, there was a non-financial impact. Miss X was living in temporary accommodation, and the rent statement shows arrears became significant at points during 2024, before reducing materially after substantial Housing Benefit credits were applied. Against that background, repeated changes to her Housing Benefit position, incorrect advice about responsibility, and inaccurate correspondence about suspension were likely to cause Miss X avoidable uncertainty and distress. This is supported by Miss X’s response at the time of the November suspension, where she reported acute distress in reaction to the Council’s message that the DWP had reported a move to a different address.
49. The Council apologised to Miss X through its complaint responses and says it reminded staff to check letters before issuing them. An apology is an appropriate element of remedy. However, given the number of separate faults identified and Miss X’s circumstances, I consider Miss X experienced avoidable distress and uncertainty which was not fully addressed by correcting the Housing Benefit award and awarding the Discretionary Housing Payment.
50. I therefore consider a small symbolic payment is an appropriate remedy to recognise the avoidable distress and uncertainty caused by the Council’s faulty administration and communication.

Back to top

Agreed action

51. To prevent similar occurrences and remedy outstanding injustice, the Council will:
1. Pay Miss X £300 as a symbolic payment to recognise the avoidable distress and uncertainty caused by the Council’s errors in administering her Housing Benefit claim, incorrect advice about responsibility, and inaccurate suspension correspondence.
2. The Council should review and update its checks and guidance to reduce repeat errors in:
1. Housing Benefit assessment set-up (including correct application of the social size criteria and use of the correct rent figure), and
2. the accuracy and clarity of suspension/reinstatement communications.
52. The Council will complete action point a within one month of the Ombudsman’s final decision and action point b within two months of the Ombudsman’s final decision. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

53. Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her Housing Benefit claim while she lived in temporary accommodation. We found the Council was at fault for errors in assessing Housing Benefit, giving incorrect advice and sending inaccurate suspension correspondence. The Council has already corrected the Housing Benefit award and made a Discretionary Housing Payment to address the earlier shortfall. The Council has agreed to remedy the outstanding injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman