Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a housing benefit overpayment. This is because there is no significant injustice remaining and investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council started recovering a housing benefit overpayment which is over 10 years old. He says it ignored evidence he sent and has not apologised or refunded payments. He says it caused him distress and hardship.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X complained the Council started taking deductions from his universal credit for a housing benefit overpayment. The Council said it was for a period in 2015. Mr X said he had left the Council property in late 2015 because it was unsafe. He said he was physically incapacitated and the deductions caused him hardship.
5. The Council replied it had sent letters at the time about the overpayment. It accepted it should not have referred the debt for deductions and it would now write off the outstanding amount and refund Mr X. It had discussed the decision with the officer.
6. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of the matter. He said the Council could not prove he had received notification letters regarding the overpayment.
7. The Council’s final response explained:
• It was not required to prove Mr X received letters. It had evidence they were sent.
• Any dispute regarding rent liability was for Mr X to take up with the rent team.
• It considered the overpayment was correct and recoverable.
• It was not aware of Mr X’s hardship when it decided to recover.
• It should have considered the length of time it had not taken action. It had apologised for this. It had done so now and decided not to recover.
• It did not consider compensation was appropriate
8. I do not consider that there is sufficient injustice to justify the Ombudsman’s involvement. The Council has written off the overpayment and refunded money it had taken. The Council has also discussed the matter with the officer in order to prevent the fault from reoccurring.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient injustice to justify an investigation, and investigation would not change the outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman