Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to award Housing Benefit to his service users. This is because he is not the person primarily affected by the Council’s decision and consequently there is no significant injustice caused directly to him by the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council refused to award Housing Benefit to his service users who he acted as a rent guarantor for. He said this meant his service users could not pay their rent and so Mr X had to pay it instead. He wanted the Council to compensate him for some of the rent costs and explain its decision to him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 the complainant has not been caused a significant personal injustice by the Council’s actions, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council manages and pays Housing Benefit which helps eligible people on low incomes pay their rent. Regulations set out the rules councils must follow for calculating and paying Housing Benefit. Usually the Council pays the tenant Housing Benefit. The tenant is then responsible for paying the rent to their landlord.
7. Mr X complained the Council did not award Housing Benefit to his service users. He said it did not explain the reasons for its decision to him.
8. Mr X was a guarantor for the service users. When they were unable to pay their rent because of the Council’s decision, Mr X had to pay it instead.
9. In its complaint response, the Council told Mr X the decision letters explained the reasons it refused the claim for Housing Benefit and how the service users could appeal the decision. It told him it sent the decision letters directly to the service users because the law says it must send decision letters to the claimants, unless they have an appointee acting on their behalf.
10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council refused to award Housing Benefit to his service users. Mr X is complaining about a secondary impact of this decision, he is not the person primarily affected by it. The people primary affected by the Council’s decision are the service users who claimed Housing Benefit and consequently the Council’s decision has not directly caused him a significant personal injustice. Mr X’s dispute is with his service users.
11. We will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by an organisation. This means we will not normally investigate a complaint where the complainant is not the person primarily affected and is complaining about a secondary impact on them, rather than acting on behalf of the person directly affected.
12. In any event, we could not achieve the outcome Mr X wants. This is because he wants the Council to compensate him for some of the rent costs he had to pay. We cannot tell the Council to do this because we cannot make findings that the Council is liable for the costs. These are legal matters only insurers or the courts can decide. If Mr X considers the Council liable for the rent costs, it is reasonable for Mr X to pursue the claim at court. I have not seen anything to suggest it would not be reasonable for Mr X to take the matter to court.
13. Finally, we will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council did not explain the reasons for its decision to him. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint handling, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he is not the person primarily affected by the Council’s decision and we cannot achieve the outcome he wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman