Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a decision to stop her housing benefits as she had a right of appeal, and we consider it reasonable to expect her to have exercised those rights. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigating the other parts of her complaint.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains that the Council stopped her housing benefits for unclear reasons and without contacting her first.
2. Miss X also complains that the Council asked her to provide documentation to prove that she still lived at the property. She said the Council discriminated against her because it did not ask for documentation from another person who lived at the property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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. 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)
5. 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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Miss X complains the Council decided to stop her housing benefits in May 2025 for unclear reasons. I will not investigate this part of her complaint because Miss X had a right of appeal against the decision and it is reasonable to expect her to have exercised those rights.
9. However, I also note her benefits were reinstated after roughly two weeks because she provided proof that she still lived at the property.
10. Miss X said the Council should have contacted her before it stopped her benefits. I have not found enough evidence of fault to investigate this part of her complaint because the Council was not required to give prior notice to Miss X before deciding to stop her housing benefits.
11. Miss X also complained the Council asked her to provide evidence that she still lived at the property. She says the Council never asked for documentation from another person who lived at the same property.
12. While I note her concerns, I have not seen enough evidence of fault to justify investigating this part of her complaint because the Council has a duty to pay housing benefits correctly. Therefore, it was entitled to ask Miss X for documentation to check her entitlement to housing benefits before it could reinstate her claim.
13. Furthermore, the Council apologised to Miss X for any distress or confusion caused by its request for documents and explained it could not comment on another person’s housing benefit case.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss X complaint because she had appeal rights against the decision to stop her benefits and it is reasonable to expect her to have exercised those rights. I have not found enough evidence of fault to justify investigating the other parts of her complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman