Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s pursuit of a housing benefit overpayment. We cannot question whether Miss X is liable for the overpayment, and the delay in pursuing the debt did not cause sufficient injustice to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council delayed pursuing a housing benefit overpayment and sent her a warning letter about possible enforcement action.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. 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, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
5. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So, where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
6. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. The Council told Miss X there had been an overpayment of housing benefit which she would need to repay. Miss X appealed to the tribunal, which decided she was liable to repay the overpayment. Her later appeal to the Upper Tribunal was refused in 2022.
10. We cannot consider the calculation of housing benefit or whether an overpayment is payable because these matters fall within the tribunal’s jurisdiction. In this case, the tribunal has already decided Miss X should repay the overpayment. However, we can look at the Council’s actions in recovering the overpayment.
11. In 2025, the Council wrote to Miss X, by email and post, requesting repayment and inviting her to arrange a repayment plan within 30 days. Miss X says she did not receive this letter. When Miss X did not contact the Council, a warning letter was sent.
12. Miss X complains the Council delayed pursuing the debt. The Council apologised for the delay. While I recognise the delay caused Miss X uncertainty, an apology is an appropriate remedy and there is insufficient remaining injustice to warrant investigation.
13. Miss X also complains the Council warned her a Direct Earnings Attachment might be sought if she did not agree a repayment plan. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council advising Miss X of the possible recovery methods.
14. Part of Miss X’s complaint concerns the Council’s handling of her personal data. The Information Commissioner’s Office is best placed to consider complaints about data protection, and without a wider issue within our remit, we will not consider this matter.
15. Finally, we will not investigate how the Council handled Miss X’s complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaint handling when we are not investigating the substantive issues.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. We cannot question whether Miss X is liable for the overpayment, and the delay in pursuing the debt did not cause sufficient injustice to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman