Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay by the Council in responding to a complaint. This is because the Council has provided a proportionate response and there is not enough injustice to require an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, wants compensation from the Council because it upheld his complaint. He says the Council has admitted fault but has done nothing more than apologise and refer to learning from mistakes. Mr X wants compensation for all his stress and anxiety and for being made to feel worthless.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an investigation if we decide:
• if we are satisfied with the actions a council has taken or proposes to take, or

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6 & 7), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code and invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The housing benefit regulations says councils should process a housing benefit claim within 14 days of receiving all the required information.
5. The Council’s policy says it will acknowledge complaints within three working days and reply within 20 working days.
6. Mr X applied for housing benefit in January. He did not provide all the information and some of the information he stated on the application form was wrong. The Council received all the information it needed on 9 May; it made a decision on 12 May and put the claim into payment.
7. Mr X made a complaint. The Council did not acknowledge the complaint within three days and the response was five days late. The Council apologised for the delayed response and said it was caused by a shortage of staff. It explained it was recruiting new staff. The Council said the delay in replying to his complaint had no bearing on the processing of the housing benefit claim. The Council apologised for some spelling mistakes and said it had reminded staff to proof read correspondence. The Council said it upheld some of Mr X’s complaints but it does not pay compensation for every complaint it upholds.
8. I will not investigate this complaint because the Council has provided a fair and proportionate response. It apologised for the delayed response, explained what had gone wrong and the steps it is taking to improve its service.
9. Delays can be frustrating and inconvenient but, once the Council’s response has been taken into account, there is not enough injustice to require an investigation. The delay was short and Mr X has not suffered a financial loss as a result of the delayed response to his complaint. The impact does not require either an investigation or compensation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint because the Council has provided a fair response and there is not enough injustice to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman