Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a housing benefit overpayment. Part of the complaint is late and there is insufficient evidence of fault or remaining injustice to warrant investigation of the Council’s more recent actions.

The complaint

1. Ms X says the Council has unfairly sought in 2025 to recover an incorrect housing benefit overpayment from 15 years ago. She says she disputed this in 2011, but the Council did not reply. The Council had now revised and cleared the overpayment, and paid some housing benefit. However, Ms X requested financial compensation for the distress and inconvenience she says this caused her in 2011 and in 2025.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended).
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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or

(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 the complainant. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X complained to the Council regarding the matters in paragraph 1.
6. The Council replied it had treated a loan Ms X received as income. This had led to the housing benefit overpayment in 2011. The Council explained loans could be treated as income or capital depending on the circumstances. It had treated the loan as income based on the information, policy and guidance at the time.
7. The Council had asked Ms X for more evidence in 2025. But shortly afterwards it recognised the situation was open to interpretation and a reasonable alternative conclusion could be drawn. The Council applied its discretion in Ms X’s favour.
8. The Council pointed out the 2011 decision was no longer appealable, and if Ms X had appealed, a tribunal may not have found in her favour.
9. The Council said its decision to revisit the case in 2025 was based on length of time that had passed and interpretation of the available evidence rather than the correction of an administrative error. It did not consider that financial compensation was appropriate in the circumstances.
10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council failed to respond to her dispute in 2011. The complaint is late and there is not good reason for this. It was reasonable to expect Ms X to appeal within 12 months of the matter.
11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council should pay financial compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused in 2025. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and no significant injustice remaining that justifies our involvement. The Council confirms it was not correcting an error, but rather applied its discretion to revise its decision in Ms X’s favour. It asked for information but then decided it could consider the matter and use its discretion. The overpayment was cleared and a payment of housing benefit made. Further investigation would not change the outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because part of it is late and there is not enough evidence of fault or significant remaining injustice to warrant investigation into recent matters.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman