Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his mother’s benefits payments when she fell ill. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council stopped his late mother’s, Mrs Y’s, housing benefit and council tax support after she became unwell when abroad. He said the Council sought repayment of the overpaid benefits and later reversed its decision when he told the Council it acted against regulations. Mr X also complained about the Council’s refusal to communicate with the family about the situation, and its handling of his complaints.
2. Mr X said the Council’s actions caused avoidable distress and disrupted their focus on caring for Mrs Y. Mr X wants the Council to take disciplinary action against the staff involved and policy changes to prevent such failings in the future.

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:

• 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.

(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 and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Councils are responsible for administering housing benefit and council tax support. A claimant needs to normally occupy a dwelling as their main home to be awarded housing benefit. The Council’s policy on housing benefit and council tax support payments for pensioners, states it will suspend benefits where a claimant is absent from their property outside the UK for more than four weeks.
7. Mrs Y travelled abroad for medical treatment. Shortly before her planned return, she became ill and could not return to the UK. Mr X informed the Council of Mrs Y’s health condition, and that she remained abroad. The Council suspended Mrs Y’s housing benefit and council tax support, as her absence exceeded the permitted four-week limit outside the UK.
8. Mr X informed the Council Mrs Y’s trip was for medically approved treatment. This extended the allowable temporary absence period to 26 weeks. The Council reinstated Mrs Y’s benefits.
9. The Council stopped Mrs Y’s benefits in line with its policy. It outlined why it suspended Mrs Y’s benefits. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify our involvement. Upon learning Mrs Y’s absence was medically approved, the Council reinstated her benefit, applying the extended temporary absence limit. Therefore there is not enough outstanding significant injustice to justify our involvement.
10. We will also not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s poor communication. The Council apologised for not making more effort to verify proof of authority to act on behalf of Mrs Y. It also admitted it should have made more effort to inform relatives when it sent correspondence to Mrs Y’s address. The Council acknowledged its shortcomings and apologised; therefore further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman