Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a housing benefit overpayment. It would have been reasonable for Mrs X to use her right of appeal to the Tribunal.

The complaint

1. Mrs X’s complains the Council miscalculated her housing benefit overpayment. Mrs X also complains the Council communicated poorly in a phone call and did not consider disabilities.

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. 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 we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or, there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
6. 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.
7. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

10. Between 2022 and 2025 the Council carried out several housing benefit recalculations identifying multiple overpayments. Deductions were taken from Mrs X’s ongoing housing benefit claim to go towards the overpayments.
11. In 2025, Mrs X raised concerns about the calculation of the overpayments and requested information from the Council.
12. Mrs X says the Council incorrectly calculated the overpayments, failed to provide sufficient information to verify the calculation, and continued recovery and enforcement action while the amount was disputed.
13. The Valuation Tribunal is an independent body which can determine a dispute about housing benefit overpayment decisions. I see no reason why an appeal (following review) could not be made in this case and so the complaint is out of jurisdiction. Only a tribunal can determine whether there has been a miscalculation in his housing benefit overpayment; not the Ombudsman.
14. Mrs X also complains of poor communication in a phone call where the Council failed to take into account her husband’s vulnerable status and disabilities.
15. The Council say it discussed the phone call with the staff involved but the call was not recorded. It says the correct procedures were followed on the call but is sorry it caused distress. We will not investigate this part of Mrs X’s complaint because the Ombudsman could not add to the previous investigation by the Council.
16. Part of Mrs X’s complaint is about the Council’s failure to fully respond to her information requests/handling of personal data. The Information Commissioner’s Office is the organisation best placed to consider complaints about how organisations handle people’s data and respond to requests for information. In the absence of a wider complaint within our remit, there is not a good reason for us to consider the matter instead.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because it would have been reasonable for her to use her right of appeal to the Tribunal.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman