Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to write off a debt owed by Mr X, because of a housing benefit overpayment. It is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s actions. Additionally, any fault in the Council pausing recovery action has not caused Mr X a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council had failed to properly exercise its discretion to write off a debt he owed it, because of a housing benefit overpayment. Mr X said the Council should have accepted recovering the debt would cause hardship and cancel it. Mr X said he was unfairly disadvantaged because the Council paused recovery action for reasons outside his control.
2. Mr X said the Council’s actions have caused him distress.

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34(B))
4. 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

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X has been paying back a debt of overpaid housing benefit, to the Council since 2011. In late 2024, the Council paused recovery of that debt, because of a change in Mr X’s circumstances. In mid-2026, it re-started recovery action.
8. Mr X complained about this and from the evidence I have seen, the Council initially offered to arrange a repayment plan with Mr X. It also said it considered:
• The age of the debt and the repayments already made.
• Mr X’s present circumstances.
• The impact the debt recovery action was having on him.
9. The Council declined to write off the outstanding debt and re-iterated its earlier offer for Mr X to agree a repayment plan. It had also paused recovery during the complaint procedures.
10. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at how the Council made its decision. If there is evidence it properly considered the information it had to decide, before making its decision, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether a complainant disagrees with the decision it made.
11. The Council offered Mr X a repayment plan, paused recovery action while it was considering his circumstances and explained, having considered the relevant information, why it would not write off the remaining balance. Because there does not appear to be any fault in the way it made its decision, I cannot criticise it and I will not investigate this complaint. In any case we could not direct the Council to write off Mr X’s debt.
12. Mr X said the Council paused recovery action between December 2024 and June 2026, for reasons that were outside his control and believes he was unfairly disadvantaged here.
13. I will not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint because the Council’s actions here have not caused Mr X a significant injustice. Arguably, Mr X would have had the benefit of there being no recovery of monies for a period and the Council wrote to him when it was re-starting recovery action to explain.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s actions and any fault alleged has not caused Mr X a significant injutsice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman