Summary: Mr X complains the Council did not deal properly with his Housing Benefit application. The Council is at fault because it delayed reassessing Mr X’s Housing Benefit application. This did not cause injustice to Mr X.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains the Council has not dealt properly with his Housing Benefit (HB) application because it:
• didn’t adhere to agreement made at an October meeting;
• prematurely submitted HB application knowing it would be unsuccessful;
• delayed updating his HB benefit application after further information was submitted as agreed at an October meeting;
• issued bills for housing costs; and
• is denying him HB for his current accommodation despite placing him there.
2. Mr X says this has had an impact on other benefits and caused him financial loss.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
5. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint and considered documents he provided. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response and the supporting documents it provided.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law, guidance and policies

9. Councils are under a legal obligation to share information with the Government’s Department of Work and Benefits (DWP) where it relates to benefits. (Social Security Administration Act 1992 section 127(2), as amended)
10. Applicants will not usually get Housing Benefit if their savings are over £16,000. In some circumstances assets over this amount may be disregarded by the Department for Work and Pensions.

What happened?

11. This is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain everything I reviewed during my investigation.
12. Mr X made a homelessness application to the Council. He was living in hotel accommodation at the time.
13. Mr X expressed a wish to remain in his current hotel accommodation, which the Council agreed to.
14. The Council held a meeting with Mr X to make a housing benefit claim to cover his accommodation costs at the hotel.
15. Mr X was found to not be eligible for Housing Benefit and was asked to pay his own accommodation costs.
16. Mr X submitted further information about his finances to the Council and asked it to reconsider his Housing Benefit application.
17. The Council reconsidered Mr X’s Housing Benefit application and found him eligible.

Analysis

18. The Council held a meeting with Mr X on 10 October 2022. I have seen the signed Housing Benefit application form. I have also seen contemporaneous notes made by Mr X shortly after the meeting.
19. Mr X says the Council agreed not to submit his Housing Benefit application. Mr X’s own notes do not say the Council agreed to this. There is no impartial evidence showing the Council agreed to do this.
20. Mr X wanted the Council to waive the excess capital rule, as he had received benefit back payments and therefore held assets over and above the £16,000 threshold. Mr X’s notes show he did not think his benefit back payments would be waived if they were more than 12 months old and the Council agreed with this assessment. Housing Benefit file records show the Council considered whether it was able to do this and concluded it could not, after receiving guidance from the Department of Work and Pensions. (DWP).
21. Mr X said he had not been advised that he could withdraw his Housing Benefit application. The Council then asked Mr X if he wished to withdraw his Housing Benefit application and he said he did.
22. Following this, the Council:
• withdrew Mr X’s Housing Benefit application and wrote to him confirming this. It told him he would have to pay for the costs of his accommodation.
• offered to reassess Mr X’s Housing Benefit application and asked him to contact it to confirm if this is what he wanted to happen.
• sent Mr X invoices for the costs of his accommodation in early January 2023.
23. Mr X says he provided new information to the Council about his financial situation in late October. I have seen emails that shows the Council acknowledged receipt of new information from Mr X at that time.
24. At the end of January, Mr X’s Housing Benefit claim was agreed and paid covering the entire period between the end of September 2022 and 20 January 2023, because the DWP had decided not to take Mr X’s excess capital into account.
25. The Council wrote to Mr X on 2 February telling him his Housing Benefit had been agreed and there was no balance to pay.
26. On 5 February Mr X emailed the Council telling them he was liaising with the DWP about his benefits directly.
27. As set out in paragraph 9 above, the Council was under an obligation to share relevant information with the DWP. The Council acted in accordance with the law. This is not fault by the Council.
28. Mr B did not suffer any financial loss because his Housing Benefit was paid for the entire relevant period. This is not fault by the Council.
29. The Council’s stage two complaint response stated, “I note that that your re-submission for HB was received at MSDC on the 12th December and not determined until the 31st January. Putting aside the holiday season, there was a delay in determining your reapplication. I have enquired why there was a delay, and this was due to a backlog of work and the holiday period. I apologise there was a delay.”
30. The Council delayed actioning Mr X’s Housing Benefit claim after he had provided (and it acknowledged he had) information showing capital below the threshold. This is fault by the Council. Mr X could have had a decision about his Housing Benefit before invoices were sent to him, but no financial loss was sustained. The Council’s apology is an appropriate remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I have found fault by the Council that did not cause Mr X any significant ongoing injustice. I have now completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman