The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a housing benefit suspension because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council unnecessarily suspended his housing benefit without telling him. He says the Council failed to check information he had provided. Mr X wants the Council to change its procedures and apologise.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 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.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code.
My assessment
In June Mr X told the Council he would be moving. The Council processed the information and Mr X received housing benefit for his new address.
In November the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) notified the Council of the move. The Council, using an automated system, suspended the claim on 27 November to stop any potential overpayments.
Mr X contacted the Council on 5 December because he had not received the benefit payment that was due. The Council checked the claim and immediately lifted the suspension. The Council told Mr X, on 5 December, that it had lifted the suspension and a payment would be made. The Council sent the payment by BACS on 6 December. Mr X’s bank received it on 11 December.
In response to his complaint the Council explained that it uses an automated system and, when it receives notifications which suggest an overpayment could occur, the system applies an automatic suspension. The benefit is suspended until officers check the claim. The Council apologised for wrongly stating it had sent a letter telling Mr X about the suspension and explained it does not send letters when there has been a change of address. The Council said it can take up to five working days for a bank to receive a payment sent by BACS.
Mr X says the system is inadequate because the Council suspended his benefit without checking his claim and without telling him. He said the suspension caused a great deal of worry and distress and he relies on the benefit to help pay bills and living expenses. Mr X says the Council should apologise and change its procedures.
I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council processed the change of address Mr X provided in June. The suspension was automatically applied due to the notification from the DWP and to prevent a potential overpayment. The Council then manually checks claims to see if a suspension should be lifted. The Council would have checked Mr X’s claim and would have seen it already knew he had moved – but Mr X called before the Council could do this as part of its usual procedures.
I appreciate Mr X thinks the system is wrong but, given the volume of housing benefit claims and notifications, I can understand why the Council has an automated system and why some notifications lead to an automatic suspension. Mr X disagrees with the way the system works but it is for Council to decide how to administer its benefits system and I have not seen anything to suggest we need to question it. If Mr X thinks the Council should change the procedure he could raise it as an issue with local councillors.
I also will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of injustice. I acknowledge Mr X felt worried and stressed but, even though the Council did not send a letter, he knew on the same day that the Council had lifted the suspension and would immediately put the claim back into payment. Mr X received the payment about a week later than expected but, while he says he needs the benefit to help pay his bills, he has not said he incurred any bank charges. In addition, the Council explained what happened and why, and apologised for some inaccuracies in some of the complaint replies.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman