Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his father, Mr Y about the Council’s delay in determining his housing benefit claim and resolving his council tax support. We found fault causing distress and uncertainty to Mr Y. The Council offered to apologise to Mr Y and make a symbolic payment of £300. We considered this to be a fair and proportionate remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained on behalf of his father, Mr Y, that Birmingham City Council (the Council):
• delayed unreasonably in determining Mr Y’s appeal against the refusal of his housing benefit claim;
• failed to award council tax support for Mr Y’s previous property from 2 February to 31 July 2024 and for his new property from 1 August 2024; and
• gave Mr X incorrect information and failed to update him as promised during this period.
2. Mr Y says he was caused significant distress and inconvenience. He received a notice to quit from his landlord due to rent arrears and his council tax account was passed to enforcement agents.

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. 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

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr X and Mr Y had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing benefit appeals

7. 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.

Council Tax Support

8. Council tax support (CTS) is a discount, not a benefit. It reduces the amount of council tax a person has to pay.
9. If a council gives someone too much CTS it can reduce the CTS and increase how much council tax the person owes. We call these changes ‘CTS reversals’. Sometimes a council creates reversals because it has miscalculated the CTS. It might have ignored information it had or used information it should have not used.

What happened

10. Mr Y moved into his current property on 1 August 2024. The landlord was his son, Mr X who lived at a different address. Mr Y applied for housing benefit and council tax support. On 5 August the Council refused the housing benefit claim on the basis that he was living with a close relative who was also his landlord.
11. Later in August the Council awarded CTS for Mr Y’s new property but stopped his previous claim in error from 18 February 2024 rather than 31 July 2024. This created a council tax debt for his previous property.
12. On 23 August Mr Y requested a review of the decision to refuse housing benefit. On 18 September the Council reconsidered the decision but did not change it saying Mr Y was living with his landlord who was a close relative and there was no evidence of a commercial basis for the tenancy.
13. On 26 September Mr Y appealed the decision. On 10 October he contacted the revenues service at the Council to query why he had received a council tax bill for the previous property. On 16 October he complained to the Council about the delay in dealing with his appeal.
14. On 17 October the Council reviewed the case and requested further information about the tenancy. Mr Y provided some information on 3 November. On 5 November the Council requested further information as not everything it originally requested had been supplied.
15. On 6 November the Council also responded to Mr Y’s complaint saying it was not upholding the complaint because the Council was still waiting for the information regarding the tenancy agreement and the house to fully consider the appeal.
16. On 12 November the revenues service advised Mr Y to contact the benefits service about the council tax bill.
17. Following further intervention by Mr Y’s MP, the Council sent Mr Y a reminder to supply the requested information. Mr Y responded saying it was unreasonable to ask him to supply this information and it should contact his landlord, Mr X. The Council did this shortly afterwards.
18. Mr Y also escalated his complaint and requested a final response. The Council treated this as a request for an appeal and did not escalate the complaint to stage two.
19. Mr X provided further information and the Council decided on 6 January 2025 to uphold the refusal of housing benefit as the tenancy was not on a commercial basis.
20. On 4 February Mr Y appealed the decision and provided more information on 12 March 2025.
21. On 26 February Mr Y contacted the benefits service to query the council tax bill.
22. On 28 March Mr X complained about the delay in dealing with the appeal and the fact the council tax bill had now been referred to an enforcement agent. The Council passed the appeal to the appeals team and acknowledged Mr Y’s query about the council tax bill.
23. On 8 April the Council amended Mr Y’s CTS award for the correct dates in 2024, which reduced the council tax bill to zero.
24. On 11 April the Council responded to the complaint. It confirmed the appeal had been passed to the appeals team, the error with the CTS had been resolved and the enforcement agents had returned the case.
25. On 12 May Mr Y received a notice of seeking possession from his landlord, Mr X.
26. On 13 May the Council reviewed the case and decided to award housing benefit in full, from August 2024. The money was paid to Mr Y on 13 June 2025.
27. Mr X had complained to us in April 2025 and we decided to investigate the case in June 2025.

Council response to my enquiries

28. The Council acknowledged that the original decision on the housing benefit claim (5 August 2024) was wrong as the Council had failed to note from the information on the application form that Mr Y did not live at the same address as his landlord, Mr X. It should have considered at that point whether the tenancy was on a commercial basis and requested the relevant information from Mr Y. It did not do so until 17 October. It also missed an opportunity on 18 September to notice the error and request the correct information.
29. The Council also acknowledged that its revenues service should have liaised with its benefits service following Mr Y’s contact on 10 October regarding the erroneous council tax bill he had received.
30. It also said it should have escalated Mr Y’s complaint to stage two in December.
31. It offered to apologise to Mr Y and make a symbolic payment of £300 to acknowledge the distress caused to Mr Y. It has also identified training needs with specific staff members and improved liaison links between the revenues and benefits services.

Findings

32. I welcome the Council’s acknowledgement of fault causing injustice and its offer of a remedy, along with some service improvements.
33. I agree the Council took too long to consider Mr Y’s case under the correct regulation and obtain the evidence it needed to make a decision. If it had acted correctly in August 2024, it is likely Mr Y’s case could have been decided between two and three months earlier. The failure to act sooner caused Mr Y distress and uncertainty. I do not find fault with its requests for information to establish if the tenancy was on a commercial basis. As the landlord was Mr Y’s son, I also do not find fault with the Council asking Mr Y in the first instance to provide the information.
34. I also agree the Council should have acted sooner to correct the mistake regarding the CTS and to consider Mr Y’s complaint at stage two. If either of these actions had been taken earlier it is likely the mistakes with both the CTS and the Housing Benefit would have been resolved sooner, reducing the distress caused to Mr Y.
35. The offer of an apology and £300 is in line with our Guidance on Remedies and I consider it is a proportionate way of remedying the injustice.

Back to top

Action

36. I recommended within one month of the date of my final decision that the Council apologises to Mr Y and makes a symbolic payment of £300.
37. The Council has agreed to this and should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

38. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman