Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay recovering a housing benefit overpayment. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council is unfairly seeking to recover a housing benefit overpayment from more than 15 years ago. She said it was unreasonable, the Council should have been able to trace her sooner and it had not taken into account that she left the property due to domestic abuse. She also complains the Council did not accept her stage two complaint as it was slightly late and then made deductions from her earnings causing financial hardship and distress.

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).

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. Mr X complained to the Council regarding the matters in paragraph 1.
5. The Council replied it had sent an overpayment notification letter to Ms X 15 years earlier. She had made two payments but then stopped. She had not given her forwarding address, so it had tried to trace her but was unsuccessful. It was not until 2025 that it traced her new address. It explained it could legally pursue recovery of the overpayment as the statute of limitations did not apply. It said she could complain at stage two of its procedure within 30 days.
6. Ms X complained at stage two six months later. The Council refused to accept her stage two complaint as it was over 30 days since its stage one response. It also said Ms X had not raised any new issues to justify extending the 30 day limit.
7. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigation. Councils can pursue recovery of old overpayments. The Council had tried to trace Ms X. Ms X was aware of the overpayment as she had made two payments at an early stage. It was her responsibility to advise of her new address and to appeal if she disagreed with the decision. The Council explained why it would not accept her stage two complaint. This is in accordance with its complaint procedures. It also considered it had already answered the complaint and Ms X had not raised new issues that justified extending its limit.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman