Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s housing benefit claim. This is because there is no significant remaining injustice. Mr X can appeal to a tribunal about the housing benefit decisions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his housing benefit claim. He says the Council failed to understand his self employed income, and its communication was poor. This led to rent arrears. Mr X also complains about the suitability of his temporary accommodation.

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))

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).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Council regarding the matters in paragraph 1.
7. The Council’s final response explained it had assessed Mr X’s claim three times. It had decided Mr X was entitled at one point, but it had revised this and confirmed he was not entitled based on his income. It said it had overpaid Mr X £2600. It apologised for this but explained the next step was for him to appeal if he disagreed. The Council confirmed it would not seek to recover the housing benefit overpayment.
8. The Council apologised that the claim process was confusing. It also apologised for its delays in responding. However, it also said self employed income assessment was complex and could lead to revisions. The Council acknowledged that the self employed income section in its online benefit claim form caused Mr X difficulty. It said it would review this part of its online form.
9. The Council advised Mr X to request a review of the suitability of his temporary accommodation.
10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no significant injustice that warrants our involvement. The Council has accepted its communications could have been better and it will review its online form. However, it has ultimately decided Mr X is not entitled to housing benefit. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal to the Tribunal if he disagrees with the Council’s decision. The Council is not recovering the overpayment so there is no potential injustice caused by errors in the assessment. Further investigation would not change the outcome here. The Council correctly advised Mr X to contact its housing needs team regarding a suitability review.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement. Mr X can appeal the Council’s housing benefit decision to the Tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman