Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X’s housing benefit. Miss X could reasonably have used her tribunal appeal right against the decision to pay benefit to her landlord. We will not revisit previous decisions about whether the Council had improper motives, including racial discrimination, and some of those allegations are now late. Miss X can reasonably go to the Information Commissioner about an alleged data breach. It is unlikely we would recommend the Council pay Miss X the £500,000 she wants.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council: wrongly paid some housing benefit to her landlord rather than to her; has had a “campaign of hate” and racial discrimination against her for over 30 years; and breached her personal data by paying the landlord. She says this has caused her stress, financial problems and homelessness.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal, or could have appealed, 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 appeal or to have appealed. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended) The Social Entitlement Chamber (also known as the Social Security Appeal Tribunal) is a tribunal that considers housing benefit appeals. (The Social Entitlement Chamber of the First Tier Tribunal)
4. 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)
5. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
6. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
7. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information provided by the complainant and copy correspondence from the Council.
9. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

The Council’s decision to pay the landlord

10. The law allows the Council to pay benefit to a landlord in certain circumstances. The Council says those circumstances applied in this case. Miss X disagrees.
11. Miss X had the right to appeal to a tribunal about the Council’s decision to pay the housing benefit to her landlord rather than to her. So the restriction in paragraph 3 applies to this point. As the law expressly provides this route for resolving such disputes, we normally expect people to use it. The tribunal has the expertise to decide such matters and the power to overturn the Council’s decisions and make binding orders if it sees fit. The Council told Miss X how she could start a challenge to its decision to pay the landlord. I have not seen any good reason why Miss X could not reasonably have used her appeal right.

Alleged improper discrimination against Miss X

12. Miss X says for over 30 years the Council has had a “campaign of hate” against her, has racially discriminated against her about her access to benefits and has organised crime against her.
13. I shall not consider whether the Council’s recent decision to pay Miss X’s landlord was due to hatred or racial discrimination. Miss X could have put forward such arguments to the tribunal, which had the power to decide whether the Council should have paid the landlord or Miss X.
14. We have previously decided complaints from Miss X that included allegations of improper motives by the Council. We shall not revisit those decisions now.
15. Also, the restriction in paragraph 4 applies to most of the period in which Miss X alleges the Council has acted improperly. I do not see good reason to accept a late complaint about this.
16. Allegations of crime are for the police, not the Ombudsman.

Alleged data breach

17. Miss X says the Council breached her personal data. As paragraph 7 explained, we normally expect people to complain to the Information Commissioner about data breaches. In this case, I do not see good reason for us to investigate instead. The Information Commissioner has the power and expertise to decide such matters.

Other points

18. Miss X wants the Council to pay her £500,000 to resolve her complaint. Even if the points above did not apply, it is highly unlikely the Ombudsman would recommend such a payment. So for this reason also we shall not investigate.
19. Miss X states she is now homeless. She can approach the Council for homelessness assistance. This point does not mean the Ombudsman should investigate the current complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

20. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because: she could reasonably have used her tribunal appeal right against the decision to pay the landlord; we will not revisit previous decisions about whether the Council had improper motives and some of those allegations are now late; Miss X can reasonably go to the Information Commissioner about the alleged data breach; and we are unlikely to be able to achieve what Miss X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman