Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a housing benefit overpayment. This is because the decision about the debt is out of jurisdiction, as there was a right of appeal. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision on how to recover the debt.

The complaint

1. Miss X says the Council’s housing benefit overpayment decision was wrong, and it should not continue to recover the debt via the deduction of earnings order. She says the Council is responsible for the overpayment, and the recovery of the debt will cause financial hardship

Also include what she wants as remedy

. She wants the Council to write-off the debt and remove the deduction of earnings order.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X complained to the Council about the matters in paragraph one.
7. The Council replied it decided there had been an overpayment of housing benefit and Miss X failed to appeal this within the time limits. It then applied a deduction from earnings order (DEO) as Miss X had not stuck to previous payment plans.
8. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council overpayment decision as she had a right of appeal to a tribunal which it is reasonable to expect her to have used.
9. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation into the Council’s decision on how to recover the debt. This is at the Council’s discretion. It has tried other methods of recovery first and has asked Miss X for evidence of her finances to consider her claim of financial hardship. We cannot question or criticise the Council’s decision to use a DEO even though Miss X strongly disagrees. Because the Council has followed the right process to make its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there was a right of appeal which it is reasonable to expect her to have used to challenge the overpayment. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation into the Council’s decision on how to recover the debt.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman