Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling in recovering historic housing benefit overpayments. This is because the Council has already provided a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Ms Y and has agreed to improving its service for others. It is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would add to the Council’s response, or achieve anything more for Miss Y.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complains about the steps the Council took to recover historic housing benefit overpayments. She says the Council failed to follow the correct Direct Earnings Attachment recovery process, which led to confusion and financial uncertainty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
3. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms Y and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms Y contacted to Council to query a Direct Earnings Attachment (DEA) deduction on her payslip. The Council explained that in 2016, the correct recovery process was followed leading to the first DEA for previous overpayments of housing benefit made to Miss Y. A stage was applied to the invoice of DEA which meant no further automated recovery would take place and the debt remained in suspended state. However, in 2025, following a review of DEA cases, the Council identified Miss Y’s case as outstanding. Recovery proceedings were therefore reinstated.
7. Miss Y queried why there was a long break in the recovery. The Council explained the administrative reasons for this. It further explained that whilst there was a long period of time between the Council suspended Miss Y’s account and deciding to take further recovery action, there is no time limit restrictions in doing so. The law allows the Council to recover housing benefit without a time limit, except where debts become non-recoverable for example due to bankruptcy.
8. On reviewing its records, when responding to Miss Y’s complaint, the Council acknowledged that it did not follow its recovery process correctly. It did not send Miss Y an initial letter to advise her of the remaining outstanding overpayment, and it did not respond to her emails. When it became aware of the error, the Council immediately suspended the DEA and agreed to refund the money it had taken.
9. The Council says that the overpayment remains outstanding and has encouraged Miss Y to agree a repayment plan for this. The Council has provided Miss Y with a comprehensive report, detailing the chronology and calculations of the overpayments made to her. It has been clear and concise in its explanation, and I am satisfied there is no dispute that the overpayments are owed. Miss Y could have appealed the Council’s decision in 2015 if she believed she was not liable for repaying the debt.
10. Whilst the Council was at fault for failing to follow the correct recovery procedure, I am satisfied that it provided a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Miss Y. It apologised to her, refunded her the DEA deduction, and agreed to set up a direct payment arrangement for the outstanding debt.
11. The Council has taken learning from Miss Y’s complaint and has committed to improving its service when dealing with historic debt recovery. The Council demonstrated good complaint handling in its response to Miss Y, in line with our published complaint code. I am satisfied the fault has been remedied prior to, and without the need for, our involvement. We will therefore not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling in recovering historic housing benefit overpayments. This is because the Council has already provided a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Ms Y and has agreed to improving its service for others. It is unlikely an investigation would add to the Council’s response or achieve anything more for Miss Y.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman