Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s recovery of a housing benefit overpayment. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to apply a direct earnings attachment to recover the overpayment. The Council has remedied any significant injustice through its complaints process. The outstanding injustice is therefore not significant enough to justify us investigating. We also cannot recommend the Council to take disciplinary action towards its staff.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s recovery of a housing benefit overpayment. He says the Council unlawfully initiated a direct earnings attachment (DEA) to recover the overpayment. He says the deductions were too high and caused him financial hardship and mental distress. He also complains about the conduct of the Council staff member involved in the handling of his case.
2. Mr X wants the Council to reduce the DEA deductions and to refund the amounts it over recovered. He also wants the Council to apologise and to take disciplinary action against the staff member involved in his case.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Councils are entitled to recover outstanding debts owed to them, including through the use of DEAs. The complaint response shows the Council applied a DEA after Mr X defaulted on his payment arrangement. It notified Mr X about this. The Council was entitled to apply a DEA in the circumstances and there is not enough evidence of fault on this point to justify us investigating.
7. Since Mr X complained to us, the Council has reduced the DEA to an amount that Mr X agrees with and has refunded the amounts it recovered over the agreed deduction. It also apologised to Mr X. The Council has therefore remedied any significant injustice through its complaints process. Any outstanding injustice is not significant enough to justify us investigating.
8. Mr X wants the Council to discipline its officers. We cannot make such a recommendation. This would be an internal matter for the Council and not the Ombudsman to decide.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to apply a DEA. The Council has remedied any significant injustice through its complaints process. The outstanding injustice is therefore not significant enough to justify us investigating. We also cannot recommend the Council to take any disciplinary action in relation to its staff.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman