Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s recovery of a housing benefit overpayment. This is because at our invitation the Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment to Mr X. We consider this a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council took recovery action for an overpayment from more than 10 years ago by making deductions from his earnings. He says the Council did not provide evidence or a breakdown of the debt. The Council agreed to refund the deduction, but there were delays and it sent it to the wrong address. He also says his complaint was not logged for months. He says this led to financial hardship and distress.

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 provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended).

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. If we were to investigate it is likely we would find fault causing Mr X injustice because:
• The Council apparently took no action for 5 weeks from early March 2025 after Mr X asked the Council to stop the planned deductions from his earnings. He says the Council agreed on 4 March it would cancel the deductions. However, by the time it contacted the employer on 8 April 2025 it was too late to stop the deduction of over £500. This caused him financial hardship.
• There was a significant delay in refunding the deduction of £568 to Mr X. It appears the Council agreed to refund the deduction on 8 April 2025. But Mr X did not receive the refund until around 8 July 2025. The Council explained it had changed its banking provider which caused most of the delay. And it also sent the cheque to the wrong address despite checking the correct address early in the correspondence. The delay caused Mr X financial hardship and distress.
• There was significant delay in responding to Mr X’s complaint made on 15 April 2025. The Council did not respond until 8 August. I note the Council says it did not receive this. However, the email evidence the Council sent shows it was sent to the correct email address. The Council responded from 28 April to Mr X’s emails chasing a response. But it did not register his complaint despite him making several requests for an acknowledgement and a response.

Back to top

Agreed action

5. We invited the Council to apologise to Mr X for the injustice caused by the faults we have identified and pay him £100. The Council should complete these actions with one month of my final decision. The Council has agreed.

Back to top

Final decision

6. We upheld this complaint because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice it caused Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman