Housing Monthly Diary Archive

Benefits & Grants

Return To The HMD Archive Index

January 1998
Ombudsman: Extended Payment Time-barred

A man complained that Westminster City Council failed to pass his claim for a Housing Benefit extended payment immediately to the appropriate Benefits Agency office, as required to do by its procedures.He had taken his application form to the one-stop office at Westminster City Hall. The form was not received by the main Housing Benefit section as it should have been.

When the man had not heard from the Council, he made enquiries and was told that his form had not been received. He was asked to complete another form but this was for Housing Benefit and not for an extended payment, although he stated that he was claiming extended payment on this form. This was treated as a Housing Benefit claim, which was denied. By this time it was too late to claim for extended payment.

The Ombudsman's report concluded maladministration causing injustice.

Investigation No. 96/A/4513 (Westminster CC).

February 1998
Hackney and Private Sector Partners

Hackney LBC settled into its first full month of external management of its Housing Benefits service, which had been contracted to Capita. The decision to contract out management of the service followed detail planning, but also responded to critical Ombudsman reports about the Council's internal management of Housing Benefits.

February 1998
Ombudsman: Complaints Against Benefits Section

The Ombudsman concluded that a Housing Benefit claimant had been effectively homeless and reliant on the goodwill of friends, as a result of failures in dealing with his Benefit claim. Lambeth LBC took over 5 months to deal with a renewal claim and failed to keep the complainant properly informed. No payment on account was considered and, as a result, the complainant was unable to pay the rent on his privately rented home and finally had to leave.

Investigation No. 97/A/2342 (Lambeth LBC).

A separate report also found failings in the way that Lambeth LBC dealt with another Housing Benefit claim. The complainant was a writer who had moved to London to work on a book. He made a claim for Housing Benefit but no payment on account was made. Because he had arranged to use a Post Office Box as a forwarding address before he moved to London, the Council was suspicious of the claim.

The Council failed to investigate promptly to establish the validity of the claim and make a complete response and determination to the applicant. Nor did the Council make any payments. The man was unable to pay his rent and finally had to leave his home. He had to live in hotels that he could not afford and was unable to continue work on his book. Consequently, he was forced to sell a valuable archive of information and illustrations. Having no money for a deposit, he was unable to obtain another tenancy and was literally homeless.

Investigation No. 97/A/2024 (Lambeth LBC).

April 1998
News in Brief

• Brent LBC successfully argued for a Confiscation Order in a Crown Court case against a man found guilty of Housing Benefit fraud. It was the first time that such an Order under Section 72 of the Criminal Justice Act had been used. The Order required repayment of £15,000 Benefit within 28 days. Failure to comply would have constituted contempt of Court and the man would then face a jail sentence and seizure of his assets.

• The Government withdrew Clause 72 of the Social Security Bill during its passage through the House of Lords, which would have cut to one month the time for claiming backdated Housing Benefit. The effect is to continue the ruling, whereby tenants can claim up to one year's backdated Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

• The Government launched a new package of initiatives to counter Benefit fraud, which included additional finance to boost the number of inquiry visits made by council officers in London. The package also included a pilot scheme targeting landlord Benefit fraud. It was estimated that counter-fraud activities had saved more than £70 million in benefits in the Capital over the past 4 years.

• A District Audit report revealed £150,000 of Benefit fraud at Newport Council, involving fraudulent claims by its own staff. A number of staff subsequently left the Council's employment.

• According to figures announced in the House of Commons, unclaimed Housing Benefit in 1995/96 (the latest statistics then available) was estimated at between £460 and £760 million.

April 1998
Ombudsman: Failure To Deal With Claims Causes Hardship

The Ombudsman decided that Newham LBC caused a disabled man avoidable hardship by its failure to deal properly with his Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit claim. There were:

• Delays and procedural inadequacies;

• Wrongful handling of the recovery of overpayments; and

• Misleading advice was given to the claimant.

The Ombudsman’s report recommended that the Council should pay £650 compensation to the complainant and improve its procedures.

Investigation No. 95/A/2734 (Newham LBC).

Ombudsman: Failures In Processing Renovation Grants

The Ombudsman found that Newham LBC delayed unreasonably in dealing with a woman's late father's request for a Renovation Grant. As a result, her father lost the opportunity for a grant of up to £50,000.

The Council accepted that there was fault and offered to reach a fair settlement of the complaint. The Ombudsman recommended that, if it could agree with the complainant a valuation of the property based on the current market value, as if the approved works had been completed, the Council should buy the property.

Investigation No. 95/A/3762 (Newham LBC).

Ombudsman: Four Renovation Grant Complaints

In separate inquiries, the Ombudsman decided that there was maladministration in the way that Bristol CC dealt with enquiries from four residents about their Renovation Grants:

• The Council delayed in inviting one man to proceed with his high-priority application, leading to him losing the opportunity to renovate his house.

• In two other cases, the Council failed to explain its queuing system and the implications for the complainants. They too lost the opportunity to apply for grants to which they were entitled.

• In the fourth case, the Ombudsman found no fault and did not uphold the complaint.

Investigation Nos. 97/B/0524, 0827-8, 1146 and 1760 (Bristol CC).

May 1998
Anti-Fraud Rules Revised

The Department of Social Security's response to the Public Accounts Committee's Housing Benefit fraud report revealed a number of proposed new measures in the way that anti-fraud measures should be implemented and savings accounted for.

It was understood that the Department intended to bring in new rules on the savings councils could claim to have achieved through fraud detection. The DSS had already embarked on a review of the current system, with the intention of establishing why 99% of Housing Benefit fraud cases did not end up with prosecutions by local authorities. This directly responded to the charge made by the Public Accounts Committee that the number of prosecutions of fraudsters was incredibly low. The Committee also commented on the possibility of innocent people suffering as a result of over-zealous anti-fraud measures. New guidance was due to be issued by the DSS, aimed at ensuring that there is no unfair treatment of Housing Benefit claimants by fraud investigators.

The DSS had already introduced a number of measures aimed at improving anti-fraud activity, including:

• Plans to involve about 50 local authorities in the summer of 1998 in a review of fraud prevention measures.

• The introduction of new powers under the Fraud Act 1997, including the threat of a cut in subsidy to poorly-performing councils.

• The second national benefit review, from which the first results were shortly due and which would update understanding of the current levels of Housing Benefit fraud.

May 1998
Ombudsman: Claimant Advised Rent Account in Credit

The Ombudsman concluded that Nottingham City Council advised a complainant that his rent account was significantly in credit, when this was not in fact the case. When the true state of the rent account was realised, the Council failed to advise the complainant. He did not pay any rent and the arrears situation grew worse.

The Ombudsman considered that the complainant could have used the perceived respite from paying rent to pay off more quickly his other debts to the Council and his overall debt need not have increased. She, therefore, found the injustice limited to his extra stress, time and trouble in pursuing his justified complaint and recommended that the Council should pay him £100.

Investigation No. 97/C/2697 (Nottingham CC).

May 1998
Ombudsman: Errors in Dealing with Housing Benefit Claim

The Ombudsman issued a critical report against Ealing LBC, after finding that it delayed for two years in paying Housing Benefit to a Council tenant. It subsequently decided to take Court action to repossess her home, even though her benefit claim was outstanding. Once benefit was paid, it neither considered whether she should be held liable for the full amount of the outstanding debts, nor gave her an opportunity to pay by instalments. Instead, the Council proceeded to obtain an Order for Possession of her home and ordered Bailiffs to collect the Council Tax.

There were four Bailiff visits in all on her Council Tax and Community Charge accounts, which took place without proper consideration of her circumstances. Further, the Council sought authorisation to evict the complainant on the basis of an inadequate report to Members. The Council subsequently fettered its discretion in suspending the claimant's transfer application on the grounds of rent arrears and it sent the letter about the suspension to the wrong address.

The Ombudsman recommended that the complainant be paid £2,000 compensation, which the Council might wish to offset against her outstanding debt. He also recommended that the Council should write off the remaining Bailiff costs, consider the effect the suspension of the transfer application may have had on her chance of an offer of rehousing and, if appropriate, make her an offer without delay.

Investigation No. 97/A/0586 (Ealing LBC).

June 1998
Ombudsman: Errors in Dealing with Overpayment

The complainant was in receipt of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. She delayed in notifying Lambeth LBC of a change in circumstances when her daughter commenced paid full time work. However, when she renewed her Benefit claims in September 1996, the Council failed to take any action for eight months.

In April 1997, when the claims were again renewed, the Council assessed her claims and determined that she had been overpaid by £2,240. Her weekly Benefits entitlement was reduced to recover the overpayments.

A Welfare Adviser wrote to the Council to complain, pointing out that the Council was using an incorrectly high deduction to take account of the daughter’s low income. The Adviser also said that, in view of the daughter’s low income, the complainant could not have been expected to know that her Benefits had been overpaid.

The Council did not reply to this letter, or others which followed. It promised to determine the appeal - but did not do so. It also failed to reply to further letters sent. Eventually, the Council did determine the claim and decided that the overpayment was £208.40. The Welfare Adviser wrote again, pointing out that this new figure was still wrong. A review date was requested, but a date for the hearing is still awaited.

The Ombudsman’s report found that the delays, failure to reply to letters and the recouping of money from the complainant’s Benefits before the appeal had been decided were all maladministration. The report recommended that the Council:

• Pay the complainant £500 for distress, time and trouble;

• Hold a Review Board promptly, to determine the appeal;

• Satisfy his office that it has in place an appropriate and effective system for dealing with appeals against Housing and Council Tax Benefit determinations.

The report also recommended that, when the Review Board had made its decision, the Council should inform the Ombudsman, who would then decide on whether the complainant is entitled to any further compensation.

Investigation Nos. 97/A/3765/6 (Lambeth LBC).

July 1998
Ombudsman: Local Settlement to Private Landlord

The Ombudsman decided that Sunderland CC delayed in processing the Housing Benefit claims of a private landlord's tenants.

The delays arose primarily because of action taken by the Council which would, in the medium and long term, improve its service to claimants and landlords. However, some of that action was necessary because of earlier failures to resource its Housing Benefit section properly, and some of the delays were excessive.

The Council agreed to pay the landlord £2 per tenant per week for delays of more than four weeks over the statutory 14 days and £50 for his time and trouble in making his complaint. The Ombudsman considered this a satisfactory settlement to the complaint.

Investigation No. 96/C/3548 (Sunderland CC).

July 1998
Ombudsman: Scheme to be Designed Before Funds Available

In a report on a complaint from a council tenant who was severely disabled following a road traffic accident, the Ombudsman concluded that the former Leicester CC delayed taking action to adapt her home to meet her needs.

Whilst there were insufficient funds available to meet the demand for the necessary aids and adaptations, the Ombudsman considered that the scheme could have been designed before the funding became available, thus reducing the delay that occurred. The report also lists a number of other failings:

• After the scheme had been designed, the Council delayed in submitting it for Building Control approval.

• The applicant was deprived of work the Council itself considered essential for her needs for a year longer than necessary.

• The applicant remains dissatisfied with the works done.

The report recommended that the Council pay the complainant £2,000 compensation and £250 for her time and trouble. It should also satisfy itself that the works carried out were in all respects satisfactory, and review its arrangements for carrying out aids and adaptations to the homes of tenants with disabilities, in order to avoid recurrence of the delays in this case.

Investigation No. 97/B/3498 (Former Leicester CC).

July 1998
Ombudsman: Queuing System for Grant Inflexible

The Ombudsman issued a report concerning a complaint from an owner occupier who was in hospital following a serious road traffic accident. The man and his wife initially wished to be rehoused rather than adapt their home to meet his needs.

The report concluded that:

• From August 1997 the former Leicester CC accepted that the complainant’s requirements had changed. Some adaptations were carried out to enable the man to spend weekends at home, but by May 1998 the family was still in the queue for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) assessment. The man had to live in hospital during the week.

• The Council's queuing system for DFGs provided no scope for the individual circumstances of an applicant to be considered and there was an unreasonable delay in processing the grant enquiry.

• The Council did not advise the applicant of his right to apply formally for a grant.

The Ombudsman concluded that the Council's maladministration had deprived the complainant of essential facilities at home for at least six months and recommended it to pay him £1,000 compensation and £250 for his time and trouble.

The Council was also advised that it should review its arrangements for queuing for DFGs, so that it could give weight to the individual circumstances of applicants. It should also review the information given to those making enquiries for DFGs, in order that they are fully informed of their right to grant aid.

Investigation No. 97/B/3498 (Former Leicester CC).

July 1998
Ombudsman: Misleading Advice Proves Costly to Council

Breckland District Council's bad advice caused a man to lose up to £38,500 in Renovation Grants. In his report, the Local Government Ombudsman, Mr Jerry White, found maladministration causing injustice for the way the Council let him believe that he could substantially demolish cottages without losing his eligibility for the grants.

The complainant, who was renovating the cottages for use as rental properties to fund his retirement, complained to the Ombudsman that the Council gave him misleading advice. To maintain eligibility for a Renovation Grant, properties cannot be substantially demolished, but nothing in the Council's published information on the scheme informs applicants of this fact, or advises them to get written approval for any departures from the scheme.

The complainant sought verbal permission to raise and rebuild unstable walls as part of the renovation. During the investigation into the complaint, the Council and the complainant gave different versions of the events in question, but the Council acknowledges that the complainant left council offices believing that he could demolish the cottage walls without losing his grant.

The complainant demolished the cottage walls and lost his grant for two of the three cottages he was renovating. The construction on those cottages has not been completed.

The Ombudsman found that the Council's misleading advice amounted to maladministration.

To remedy the injustice the complainant suffered, the Ombudsman recommended that the
Council:

• Make the complainant an ex gratia payment of up to £40,000 to make up for the lost grant;

• Reimburse him for the lost rental income on the uncompleted cottages; and

• Make a further payment of £250 to reflect his time and trouble in making the complaint.

Investigation No. 96/B/4978 (Breckland DC).

August 1998
Crown Property Tenants Not Eligible For HB

The tenancies of 20 families were in jeopardy, following the withdrawal of Housing Benefit payments by Edinburgh Council.

The Council had been paying Housing Benefit to the households, who were occupying homes previously owned by the Defence Housing Executive. It was then discovered that Crown property is not eligible for Housing Benefit.

While the Executive and the Council were trying to resolve the problems involved, the Council gave an undertaking that anyone made homeless as a result of Benefit being withdrawn would be rehoused.

August 1998
HB Fraud Reforms Planned

Findings of the second national Housing Benefit Accuracy Review showed that private landlords could be responsible for the loss of up to £110 million in Housing Benefit fraud.

The conclusion was based on proven landlord fraud, costing an estimated £30 million, and suspected landlord fraud, which could cost a further £80 million. However, the Review conceded that the figure could be higher, which was one of the factors that prompted the Government to propose a wider special survey to quantify more accurately the extent of landlord fraud.

When considering all types of Housing Benefit fraud, the Review estimated that proven fraud cost about £180 million per year. In addition, there was strong suspicion of a further £430 million being lost through suspected fraud, which could increase by a further £80 million, if cases where there was a mild suspicion of fraud are taken into consideration.

The Review also revealed that errors by claimants cost about £240 million per year and an £840 million per year loss could be attributed to incorrect payments, which affect about 16% of all Housing Benefit claimants.

September 1998
News in Brief

• Birmingham MDC halved the £2 million owed to it by social housing landlords for overpaid Housing Benefit, by threatening to block housing association new development programmes - which was resolved by agreeing a formula for calculating the time allowed to repay overpayments owing to the Council.

• A partnership operation between Gateshead MDC, Newcastle MDC and Northumbria Police resulted in 24 convictions for Housing Benefit fraud, with another 20 people charged and due to come to Court. It was estimated that the fraud crackdown had saved over £3 million since 1995, with the most common offence detected being claiming Benefit for furnished lettings for property let unfurnished.

• The DSS warned local authorities of possible delays in Benefit payments, due to delays in a programme to upgrade a national database that holds National Insurance details used to determine claimants' entitlements. The DSS estimated that 80% of new claims would be settled without difficulty and it agreed that any subsequent action necessary to recover overpaid benefits would be handled sensitively.

• Wandsworth LBC was due to consider taking its Housing Benefit service back in-house as a measure aimed at tackling its backlog of claims. The Council contracted the service out, but there had been a growing number of complaints about performance levels. The Council estimated that there had been some 2,000 complaints in 1998.

September 1998
Ombudsman: Catalogue of Mistakes

Two full-time students, who were single parents, complained about the way that the Council dealt with their Housing Benefit claims since October 1995. The Ombudsman’s report found maladministration in that the Council:

• Failed to assess the claims on a student basis and continued to pay Benefit on the basis of Income Support;

• Delayed determining the renewal claim made by one of the complainants for 10 months - during which time no Benefit was paid;

• Suspended the other complainant’s claim and did not assess it properly for 18 months; as a result of failing in its assessments, overpaid Benefit to both complainants;

• Sent one complainant and her adviser letters containing confusing, erroneous and conflicting information; and

• Delayed in dealing with requests by both complainants for reviews of the recovery of the overpayments.

Both complainants had mounting rent arrears as a result. One complainant was served with a Notice of Seeking Possession and feared losing her home. The Council’s mistakes also contributed to her decision not to continue with her degree course.

Investigation Nos. 97/A/2733, 3949 & 2368 (Hackney LBC).

September 1998
Ombudsman: Delay in Determining Appeal

The Ombudsman concluded that Westminster CC delayed unreasonably in determining a man’s appeal against its decision on his Housing Benefit claim.

The complainant was a vulnerable person of middle age, suffering from hypertension, heart disease and arthritis. On one occasion, the Council had delayed for over a year in deciding not to recover an overpayment of Benefit. There was also over a year’s delay in notifying the man of unpaid Benefit, and a delay of about ten months in deciding to uphold the appeal against the Council’s decision to restrict his rent.

The Ombudsman recommended that the Council pay £1,500 compensation.

Investigation No. 95/A/4318 (Westminster CC).

September 1998
Ombudsman: Failure to Determine Claim, etc.

For nearly two-and-a-half years the complainant rented a room in a council flat. He claimed Housing Benefit during two periods of unemployment. There was a fault in the Council’s handling of his claim in that it failed:

• To determine a claim submitted in September 1994;

• To seek any further information required; and

• To inform him of his right to appeal.

The Council also failed to pay him Benefit from August 1994 to April 1995 and it delayed unreasonably in determining his claim of June 1996 for the period from October 1995 to April 1996.

Investigation No. 96/A/1512 (Newham LBC).

October 1998
Audit Update Report

The Audit Commission published Protecting the Public Purse: Local Government Fraud Update 1998, in which it found that many councils have adopted the recommendations of previous Audit Commission reports and have worked successfully to address fraudulent activity:

• The number of staff engaged in benefit fraud investigations has trebled since 1993.

• Modern computer techniques have been used to reveal an extra £30 million of fraud over the last two years.

However, the report also finds that new trends are emerging:

• Non-claimant fraud rose by 42% over the last financial year.

• Detected fraud carried out by members of staff and councillors increased for the second successive year.

• Pension schemes and payrolls are being targeted by fraudsters and the value of fraud in these areas rose fourfold in the last year.

• Fraudulent payments to suppliers and contractors remain at unacceptably high levels.

The report recommended all councils adopt anti-fraud strategies and put in place formal whistleblowing arrangements.

October 1998
Benefits News in Brief

• New research from Shelter Scotland found that 89% of bedsits and 50% of rooms advertised by private landlords in the Edinburgh Evening News bar applicants who are unemployed or claiming Housing Benefit.

• New government statistics revealed that Housing Benefit is paid incorrectly to one in six people and losses through clerical error and fraud could now be as high as £840 million per year.

• Following the second damaging report in two months, the London Organised Fraud Investigation Team (LOFIT) was closed down by the Association of London Government. The Government's Benefit Fraud Inspectorate's report concluded that LOFIT had failed to meet any of its objectives, despite a budget of £3 million over three years. The report also criticised management standards and identified a number of areas of waste, including £100,000 spent on computer equipment and software that had never been used. A previous report from the Audit Commission was also critical of LOFIT.

• Speaking at a conference on the New Deal, Housing Minister Hilary Armstrong revealed that the impact of Housing Benefit on young people was one of the areas being studied. Her comments were taken as confirmation of recent suggestions that Housing Benefit reform might target different client groups with separate forms of housing allowances.

• Statistics from the Department of Social Security suggested that the total amount of Housing Benefit unclaimed could be as high as £700 million. Private tenants (including housing association tenants) had lower take-up rates than council tenants, with the worst affected group from all tenancy types being the elderly.

November 1998
New Information Leaflets

A number of new benefits information leaflets came available from Social Security Offices and Post Offices, including:

• SD2: Sick and unable to work?

• SD3: Long-term ill or disabled?

• SD4: Caring for someone?

• SD5: Ill or disabled because of work?

The Benefits Agency also produced new technical guides, which cover individual benefits in detail and are aimed mainly at community advisers. These include:

• HB5: A guide to non-contributory benefits for disabled people.

• IS20: A guide to Income Support.

• RR2: A guide to Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

Additional general leaflets are available from January 1999, including:

• GL15: Help if you live in a residential care home or nursing home.

• GL16: Help paying rent.

• GL17 Help with council tax.

Further information leaflets are also available from April 1999.

The above information leaflets were due to be published in Arabic, Bengali, Chinese, Gujarati, Punjabi, Somali, Urdu and Vietnamese. All new products will be produced in Welsh (bilingual) and leaflets will be available in large-print version and as audio-cassettes in both English and Welsh. Braille copies of information leaflets can also be obtained on request.

November 1998
Ombudsman: Informed Decision Possible

In her report on a complaint against Manchester CC, Ombudsman Patricia Thomas concluded that the Council's failure to respond to requests to pay Housing Benefit direct to a landlord was maladministration but, under the circumstances, this did not cause injustice.

The complaint came from a solicitor on behalf of his client, a bank which had sought to become a landlord. The basis of the complaint was that the Council failed to respond to repeated requests to pay Housing Benefit direct to the bank, once the tenant of the client's property had fallen into arrears of rent.

The Ombudsman's report concluded that the Council's long failure to respond to correspondence from the solicitor was quite unacceptable and did nothing to resolve the question of any entitlement of the bank to receive direct payment of Housing Benefit.

However, whilst recognising the irritation of the solicitor, the Ombudsman did not conclude that any substantive injustice was caused to the bank by the Council's maladministration. Any financial loss sustained by the bank was because its legal entitlement to payment of Housing Benefit by the Council was not established and the Council could not be blamed for that.

The Ombudsman took the view that, as the request came from solicitors, the Council could reasonably expect them to provide all the information needed to come to an informed decision. Therefore, it was not unreasonable for it to decide that it should continue to make Housing Benefit payments to the claimant until such information was provided.

Investigation No. 96/C/4254 (Manchester CC).

November 1998
Ombudsman: Inadequacies of Form for Private Tenant

Ombudsman Patricia Thomas found maladministration causing injustice in her investigation against the former Nottingham CC.

The complaint, from a private tenant, concerned delays in processing a Housing Benefit claim. As the Council had already apologised, the Ombudsman considers this to be an adequate remedy. However, she had still issued the report, in part to draw attention to inadequacies of the Housing Benefit claim forms when used by private tenants.

During the investigation, a Council officer had expressed the view that the DSS nationally-used Form NHB1 (HB) is sufficient for council tenants and owner-occupiers, but it does not provide enough information about private tenants. In particular, it does not ask the claimant for details of rent paid, rent arrears, etc.

In her conclusion, the Ombudsman commented that the Council's view that Form NHB1 (HB) should be redesigned, if it is to be used by private tenants, had some justification.

The Ombudsman also commented:

• The apparent lack of liaison in the production and monitoring of this form and the way it
  appeared to be often discarded or ignored, ran contrary to guidance from central government.

• About avoiding duplication of effort both for claimants and for staff.

Investigation No. 97/C/4168 (former Nottingham CC).

November 1998
Ombudsman: Other Reports in Brief (Housing Benefits)

• Ombudsman Edward Osmotherly found that Lambeth LBC:

Delayed unacceptably in assessing a Housing Benefit claim and making a referral to the Rent Officer; and

Mishandled complaints requesting backdating of the claim and re-assessment of the rent, which contributed to the complainant accruing major rent arrears and being put at risk of eviction.

The Ombudsman’s report recommended that the Council pay £500 compensation for its maladministration, as well as reporting back to him in 3 months' time on improvements introduced to procedures.

Investigation No. 98/A/0061 (Lambeth LBC).

• Ombudsman Patricia Thomas agreed a local settlement by Manchester CC, with regard to a complaint concerning delays in making payments to a landlord of Housing Benefit and failure to deal with claims and complaints in an efficient and timely manner.

The Council accepted that there were failures in the way the case was handled and paid £200 compensation.

Investigation No. 98/C/1008 (Manchester CC).

December 1998
Improvements to Checks on HB Claims

The Government announced its commitment to additional funding to assist local authorities in countering Housing Benefit fraud. A verification system, currently being tested by 85 local authorities as a pilot project, would be extended nationwide over the next two to three years with the support of additional Government funding.

The main changes being introduced by the verification system would be:

• Claimants would have to produce two pieces of identity to make a claim, which would have to be original documents and not photocopies.

• Local authorities would increase the number of home visits made by inspectors to check Housing Benefit claimants.

• People in receipt of Benefits who were thought most likely to commit fraud would have their claims reviewed more frequently.

• Opposers to the new verification system warned that the measures could give claimants of Housing Benefit a poor image in the eyes of the general public.

January 1999
Benefits Advice Leaflets

New advice leaflets from the Benefits Agency include:

• GL16: Help with Your Rent.

• GL17: Help with Your Council Tax (replacing CTB1, which is being withdrawn).

• GL25: How to Prove Your Identity for Social Security.

A number of posters are also available, including:

• CTB1/P: Help with Council Tax.

• RR1/P: Help with Your Rent.

January 1999
News in Brief

• The Government launched a pilot scheme, aimed at encouraging households that are under-occupying accommodation to accept smaller more suitable tenancies by offering Housing Benefit incentives. The pilot is being run in Croydon, Haringey and Newham and it is focused on older people whose households have shrunk because children have grown up and left home. If tenants agree to move to cheaper rent accommodation, they will be allowed to keep 50% of the difference between the new and old rent levels over a three year period.

• New legislation means that Benefit applicants, including those making applications for Housing Benefit, will be required to meet with a personal adviser. The new £80 million scheme is targeted on claimants not in full-time work and advisers are able to draw on the resources of the Benefits Agency, Employment Service and local authority.

Ombudsman: Council Delayed in Carrying Out Assessments

In October 1995, the complainant and her children were living in a privately rented one-bedroom flat. She applied to the Council as homeless on the grounds of overcrowding. It took the Council until July 1996 to complete the assessment of the application and it then concluded that it did not have a duty to rehouse the family.

Solicitors for the complainant challenged the decision and initiated a Judicial Review of it. The Council then agreed to review the decision and, in July 1997, it accepted a duty to the complainant under the Housing Act 1985.

The complainant rejected offers of rehousing made by the Council in August and November 1997. There was an error in the handling of the second offer. In December 1998 the complainant accepted the tenancy of three-bedroom accommodation owned by a housing association.

The Ombudsman finds that there was excessive delay, amounting to maladministration, both in the conduct of the first assessment and in the review of the decision. He also finds maladministration in the handling of the second offer of accommodation.

He concludes that the Council's maladministration caused the complainant injustice and recommends that the Council pay her £1,250.

Investigation No. 97/A/1689 (Lambeth LBC).

Ombudsman: Wrong to Demand Overpayment in Lump Sum

The complainant delayed in informing the Council of a change in her circumstances relevant to her Housing Benefit claim. As a result, an overpayment of Housing Benefit was created.

The Council delayed by about five months in assessing the complainant's Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit for the previous and current periods. In the meantime, the complainant received demands to repay the overpayment of Housing Benefit and received higher Council Tax demands.

The amounts that the complainant was asked to pay were substantially reduced when her Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit were assessed.

The Ombudsman finds that the delay in assessing Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit amounted to maladministration. He also considers it maladministration for the Council to demand repayment in a lump sum.

He concludes that the complainant was caused injustice and recommends that the Council should pay her £300 and review its procedures.

Investigation No. 98/A/1413, 1488 & 2438 (Lambeth LBC).

Ombudsman: Unreasonable Delay in Dealing with Claim

The complainant sold her home and moved into rented accommodation with the intention of buying a new home. While in the rented accommodation, she claimed Housing Benefit, to which she was entitled. She made the claim in February 1998 but it was not determined until May 1998. Even then, the claim was only paid at an interim level and was not backdated to the start of her stay in rented accommodation. It was only after the Ombudsman made enquiries that the claim was backdated and paid at the full rate.

The complainant says that the delay and difficulty in getting her claim determined caused her great stress at a time when she was very ill. She had to borrow money from her sick father and she claims that she had to make a large number of telephone calls to the Council.

The Ombudsman finds that there was unreasonable delay by the Council in dealing with the complainant's claim and that the Council failed to respond properly to her letters and appeals. This caused the complainant unnecessary stress.

He recommends that the Council pay the complainant £400 compensation.

Investigation No. 98/A/2111 (Lambeth LBC).

Ombudsman: Local Settlement Accepted

The complainant submitted a complaint about the way that the Council dealt with claims for Housing Benefit for 39 of his tenants. His complaint is one of three submitted by members of an association of private landlords.

The complainant said that the Council:

• Delayed unreasonably in determining the claims of tenants.

• Unreasonably stopped the Benefit of five tenants during legitimate absences.

• Unreasonably refused to pay the Benefit of 20 tenants direct to him, contrary to their written requests.

• Ignored or unreasonably refused to consider his appeals against demands that he repay 16 alleged overpayments by 14 tenants.

The complainant said that he suffered a significant loss of income as a result.

The Ombudsman did not uphold all the complainant's allegations but the Council acknowledged some delays and other mistakes relating to the first, second and fourth of the allegations listed above.

To remedy the injustice caused to the complainant in some of the cases, the Council has agreed to pay him compensation totalling £565. This is to be offset by the Council against the total overpayment debt currently owed by the complainant, provided that none of the debt is appealable. In addition, the Council agreed to revise procedures concerning appeals made to the Review Board.

The Ombudsman regards these actions as satisfactory settlement to the complaint.

Investigation No. 95/C/4110 (Sunderland CC).

February 1999
Ombudsman: Non-dependant Deductions Against Carer

The complainant had received the care component of Disability Living Allowance since May 1995.

Despite being alerted to this by her Housing Benefit claim form in March 1996, the Council made a non-dependant deduction from her Housing Benefit in respect of an adult son who was living with her.

The Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 say that no non-dependant deduction should be made if the claimant receives the care component of Disability Living Allowance.

As a result of the deduction, the complainant got into steadily mounting rent arrears. Despite repeated efforts by an Advice Centre acting on her behalf, to get the Council to admit its mistake, the Council did not properly reassess the complainant's claim until August 1998.

The Council admitted that it was at fault.

The Ombudsman finds that the Council's action in making the non-dependant deduction and its delay of well over two years in resolving the matter amounts to maladministration. His report notes that the complainant was not only disabled and unwell, but she was also the principal carer for her autistic son. The Ombudsman found that the distress and financial difficulty she was caused as a result of the maladministration were all the worse because of her personal circumstances.

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council pay the complainant £500 in recognition of her injustice.

Investigation No. 98/A/1447 (Lambeth LBC)

March 1999
New Strategy to Prevent Fraud

The Government published A New Contract For Welfare - Safeguarding Social Security, which sets out its strategy for reducing fraud and error in the social security system.

The strategy builds on the work set out in the Green Paper, published in July 1998 - Beating Fraud Is Everyone's Business: Securing The Future. That foundation has led to:

• The requirement, since September 1998, that all document proof must be presented before Benefit payment is made.

• The requirement on Income Support claimants to prove their identity before payment is made.

• Amendments to procedures, which mean that photocopies of documents are no longer acceptable.

• An agreement between the DSS and the Royal Mail, to no longer redirect Benefit cheques.

• The introduction of new procedures to check on new activity in dormant NI accounts and changes to rules to tighten up the issue of new NI numbers.

• Clearer and more effective checks on Income Support claims which, since introduction in October 1997, have already saved £200 million.

• The offer to every local authority of a direct computer link to the Benefits Agency.

• Pilot work by the Contributions Agency on new ways of checking records, which has produced up to 70,000 anomalies per year for fraud investigators to check.

• Linking of computer systems - a trial in Lewisham saved £1.3 million per year in Housing Benefit and paid genuine claims more quickly.

March 1999
Ombudsman: Benefit Payment Delay Led To Arrears

The complainant, a Council tenant, alleged that Ealing LBC delayed in paying Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit and that it sought to repossess his home, even though his Benefit claim was outstanding.

The complainant was managing on a low income and, in order to budget properly, he needed to know how much Benefit he would get and how much rent he had to pay. He told the Council in April 1996 of a change in his circumstances and his claim was suspended. It was 20 months before he received any payment.

The Council had grounds to investigate his claim but it took far too long to decide his entitlement. During this time, the complainant was not told what was happening and his many letters and appeals went unanswered. He was given no opportunity to resolve the difficulties that the Council was causing him.

The failure to pay Benefit meant that the arrears on his rent account mounted rapidly and the Council decided to try to repossess his home. Even once the Council had decided that the complainant was entitled to Benefit, it wrongly recorded on the computer that the claim had been found to be fraudulent.

Ombudsman Edward Osmotherly's report concludes maladministration causing injustice to the complainant and recommends that the Council pay him £1,000 compensation. The report also recommends that the complainant be given the opportunity to put any outstanding dispute about his enefit entitlement to a Review Board and that the Council should correct its computer records.

Investigation No. 97/A/2321 (Ealing LBC).

March 1999
Ombudsman: Delays In Conducting Reviews

The complainant claimed Housing Benefit in March 1997 but Lambeth LBC did not determine his claim until February 1998. The Council paid him £100 to compensate him for the delay.

The complainant did not agree with the determination and in March 1998 he asked the Council to review the decision. In April, when the two-week period normally allowed for a review had expired, his solicitors asked the Council to do the review immediately. The review was not done until November.

The complainant was dissatisfied with the outcome of the November 1998 review, so in December he asked the Council for a further review. Despite proof that the Council had received the request, it has denied knowledge of the request and no further review has been held.

The Ombudsman's report finds that the delay in considering the first and second reviews was maladministration causing injustice. His report recommends that the Council pay the complainant £400 compensation.

Ombudsman Edward Osmotherly's notes that this was not the first time that he had criticised the Council for delays in conducting reviews. His concerns for the failings illustrated by this and other complaints have prompted him to invite Lambeth LBC's Chief Executive and leading councillors to meet him to discuss the continuing deficiencies in the Council's administration of Housing Benefit.

Investigation No. 98/A/2361 (Lambeth LBC).

March 1999
Ombudsman: Decision to Suspend Benefit is a Determination

The complainant alleged that the Council failed to notify him that it had suspended his Housing Benefit payments and that it delayed unreasonably in paying his Housing Benefit for the period 19th March to 30th April 1997. He said that, as a result, he suffered financial hardship.

The Council argued that, under the Regulations in force at the time, it was not required to notify claimants of the suspension of their Housing Benefit and that a decision to suspend does not amount to a determination. The Department of Social Security (DSS) disputed the Council's view.

The Council also maintained that it was awaiting information from the DSS, in order to determine the amended claim.

The Ombudsman's report concludes that the Council's decision to suspend payment of the complainant's Housing Benefit did amount to a determination and he should have been notified.

Further, the Ombudsman considers that the Council should have chased a response from the DSS and can not transfer responsibility for the lack of provision of information on the claim to the complainant, when it had not told the complainant about the suspension or that any information was required.

The Ombudsman concludes that these failures constituted maladministration and recommends that the Council pay the complainant £100 compensation.

Investigation No. 98/C/2366 (Nottingham CC).

March 1999
mbudsman: Fault in Dealing with Improvement Grant

In August 1998, the Council and the complainant asked the Ombudsman to help resolve a long-standing complaint. The Council accepted fault in its administration of the complainant's Home Improvement Grant, which had been approved in 1987.

The fault involved two grant officers. Inappropriate actions by those grant officers has been found in other cases, as well.

The Council's general approach to these cases has been twofold:

• to carry out works to put the dwellings concerned into the condition they would have been in, if the original grant-related works had been carried out properly; and

• to pay compensation, depending on the individual circumstances in each case.

The Council adopted this approach to the complainant's case. Remedial work to his home was completed in August 1998. However, the amount of compensation which the Council suggested was not acceptable to the complainant. Therefore, both parties agreed to refer the matter to the Ombudsman to resolve.

The Ombudsman's report concludes that the Council's maladministration caused the complainant injustice. He recommends that the Council pay the complainant £12,250, comprising reimbursement of his avoidable costs and compensation for the prolonged disruption to his life, the anxiety caused him and the time and trouble to which he was put.

Investigation No. 98/A/1984 (Newham LBC).

March 1999
Ombudsman: Council Justified In Denying Grant

The complainant, a private landlord, was denied a discretionary House Renovation Grant under a scheme set up by the Council to provide accommodation to people on its waiting list.

This was because of its perception that he had blatantly reneged on an agreement made earlier for a similar grant on another of his properties in that he had let the property privately, instead of seeking a Council nomination, at a rent higher than he had agreed to charge.

It is also probable that the property was not unoccupied at the relevant time and would not, therefore, have been eligible for a grant.

The Ombudsman finds a lack of proper record keeping and a probable lack of clarity of information for applicants. These failings were maladministration but did not cause the complainant injustice because he had previous experience of the scheme.

The Council was justified in denying him further grant because of his conduct in relation to the earlier grant.

Investigation No. 97/C/4127 (Derby CC).

April 1999
Preferred Methods of Paying Benefit

A new report - Attitudes Towards Methods of Paying Benefits - presents the findings of qualitative research into claimants' attitudes towards methods of paying Benefit, based on interviews and focus groups involving claimants receiving a range of Benefits.

The research investigated claimants' views of Benefit payment methods and frequencies of payment; and attitudes towards places of delivery - specifically banks, building societies and post offices. Methods of budgeting were also explored.

The main findings of the study are:

• In general, those that received Benefits in cash tended to budget in cash, often on a weekly basis. Those who were better off, or in employment, were more likely to budget using banks or building societies - often on a monthly basis.

• People saw the advantage of order books as providing a guaranteed amount of money on a guaranteed date.

• Automated Credit Transfer (ACT) was seen to have advantages for security and anonymity. But there were a number of reasons why people did not opt to use this method of receiving Benefits. These included the perceived cost of running a bank account, concerns about reliability and, in rural areas, the closure of local branches of banks. Some claimants did not want their money put into their bank account because their accounts were overdrawn and the Benefit would be used by the bank to cover the overdraft.

• Some people suggested paying Benefits through supermarkets, train stations, petrol stations and housing estate offices. Others suggested they would prefer ACT payments through a building society or Post Office account rather than a bank account.

• There was also support for a plastic Benefit card, which could be charged up at a Post Office or Jobcentre and the money withdrawn through a cash machine.

April 1999
Ombudsman: Benefit Should Have Been Paid to Landlord

Despite frequent notification by a landlord that his tenant had failed to make a rent payment and was considerably in arrears, Scarborough BC continued to make payments of Housing Benefit to that tenant. The Council accepts that once the tenant was eight weeks in arrears it should have paid the Benefit direct to the landlord.

Local Government Ombudsman Patricia Thomas finds that the Council's offer to pay £400 to the complainant provides a satisfactory local settlement.

Investigation No. 98/C/1345 (Scarborough BC).

April 1999
Ombudsman: Delays in Processing Grant

The complainant is severely ill, suffers from mobility problems and is housebound. She is also severely depressed, suffers tremors, has breathing difficulties and is unable to feed herself. One of her sons, who lives with her, also has severe disabilities.

The complainant sought grant aid from Birmingham CC to renovate her home. She claims that various letters from the Council were not sent. The Ombudsman is unable to substantiate that and has not been critical of the Council's approach to dealing with grants.

However, there were avoidable delays by the Council, which are noted in the Ombudsman's report.

Ombudsman Patricia Thomas concludes that the avoidable delays by the Council were maladministration. The level of injustice depends on whether or not the complainant proceeds to have work carried out.

The Council has agreed to pay £350 to the complainant for injustice arising from its avoidable delays and the Ombudsman regards that as a satisfactory local settlement.

Investigation No. 97/C/4961 (Birmingham CC).

May 1999
Anti-Fraud Initiatives

A fraud hotline run jointly by the City of Edinburgh Council and the Benefits Agency has been launched, providing a further joint initiative taking place in the city as part of an anti-fraud project called Closer Working in the East of Scotland. The hotline provides a confidential freephone service to encourage the public to give information about those who may be defrauding the benefit system. It builds on the existing Benefits Agency hotline facility, but raises awareness of fraud amongst claimants who receive Housing Benefit andA new DSS website giving the latest information tephen Timms. The new internet site is linked to the Association of British Insurers' new anti-fraud webpage, which allows the public to search the internet for information on combating fraud. The new DSS fraud website internet address is: http://www.dss.gov.uk/hq/bfraud.

Welwyn Council was considering a Housing Benefit amnesty, following its successful prosecution of 2 fraudsters, resulting in custodial sentences. Under the amnesty it was intended that, if a fraudulent Housing Benefit claim were dropped, there would be no questions asked and no enquiry made by the Council.

May 1999
Research and Publications

The National Housing Federation commissioned research, co-ordinated by Paddington Churches HA and funded by interested housing associations, into the extent and effects of poor Housing Benefit administration.

The Child Poverty Action Group published The Welfare Benefits Handbook 1999/2000: price £20. It is available from CPAG at 94 White Lion Street, London N1 9PF.

May 1999
Housing Benefits Statistics

The final results from the August 1998 Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Quarterly Statistical Enquiry were published, revealing the following main findings:

The overall Housing Benefit caseload for August 1998 was 4.43 million, approximately 4% lower than in August 1997, which is a continuation of current trends.

The caseload for rent rebate/local authority tenants fell by almost 5% to 2.63 million. With regard to the rent allowance caseload:

• deregulated tenancies fell by almost 8% to 790,000;

• regulated tenancies fell by 14% to 160,000;

• housing association tenancies increased by almost 7% to 840,000.

May 1999
Ombudsman: Tenant and Landlord Compensated

An employee of a housing association complained on behalf of its tenant about the way that the Council had dealt with his Housing Benefit claim. The Association maintained that it sent the Council the tenant's Benefit claim in May 1997. The Council denied receiving the claim and the tenant's Benefit was not determined until December 1997.

The Association appealed against the Council's decision not to backdate the claim from December to May 1997. The Council refused to consider the appeal because it was made late. Subsequently, the tenant himself wrote to the Council to ask for his claim to be backdated. In March 1999, the Council agreed to do so.

Ombudsman Edward Osmotherly's report found that there was fault in the way that the Council dealt with the claim for backdating and in handling the subsequent appeal. But for the fault, the Ombudsman considered it likely that these matters would have been determined about a year earlier. The delay caused the tenant much anxiety about whether he might lose his home.

The Ombudsman recommended that the Council pays the tenant £150 compensation for his anxiety. He also recommended that the Association be paid £300 to compensate for loss of income and the time and trouble taken in making the complaint.

Investigation No. 97/A/4425 (Hackney LBC).

May 1999
Ombudsman: Failure to Work to Clear Standards

The complainant obtained a Disabled Facilities Grant from Calderdale MDC to enable adaptations to his home to benefit his disabled son.

He complained that the Council failed to ensure that the building adaptations were carried out efficiently and that the Council also failed to deal properly with his complaint about the matter. Ombudsman Patricia Thomas noted that this complaint concerned both social services and housing grants and she did not find maladministration in the way in which the two relevant Council departments sought to collaborate. However, she considered that certain delays in completing the work were maladministration, as was the failure to work to clear standards. Further, there was a failure to consider impartially the complaint about the matter and this was also maladministration.

The Ombudsman, in her report, recommended that the Council should pay the complainant £500 in recognition of the injustice arising from its maladministration.

Investigation No. 98/C/1294 (Calderdale MDC).

May 1999
Ombudsman: Delay in Advising Application Not Complete

In June 1997, the complainant applied to Newham LBC for a Renovation Grant to carry out substantial repairs to her home.

The Council introduced a moratorium on grant approvals on 15 July 1997. In the period leading up to the moratorium, a higher than normal number of grant applications were approved. Some applications which were approved were made after the complainant's was submitted.

A few days after the moratorium came into effect, the complainant was told that her preferred builder was not properly accredited and, therefore, the estimate she had submitted was not acceptable. She returned with an alternative estimate - which she had received previously from a builder who was accredited (she had shown the Grants Officer this estimate in June). However, her application for a grant was refused.

Ombudsman Edward Osmotherly commented on the importance of the date on which an application for grant is complete, as it is from that date that the Council must reach a decision within six months.

He found that the Council delayed unreasonably in telling the complainant that, because the estimate was unacceptable, her application was not complete. But for that delay, it was likely that the complainant would have qualified for a grant. As a result, the complainant has lived for longer than necessary in unsatisfactory conditions.

The Ombudsman recommended that the Council pay the complainant an amount equivalent to the grant she would have received plus £500 for her distress and the time and trouble to which she was put in pursuing her complaint.

Investigation No. 98/A/0276 (Newham LBC).

June 1999
Help to Prosecute Benefit Fraudsters

The Social Security Secretary, Alistair Darling, launched a new pilot scheme aimed at helping Scottish local authorities to prosecute benefit fraudsters. The Government is providing £100,000 to give all Scottish councils access to the expertise and legal services of the Benefits Agency, to help them to get more offenders into court.

The pilot scheme aims to identify current weaknesses in council handling of prosecution cases and to encourage closer working between the DSS and local authorities. It is hoped that the scheme will identify and address the problems encountered by local authorities in preparing cases for prosecution and it could, in the long term, lead to an increase in the number of cases that are successfully taken to court.

All 32 Scottish local authorities are invited to take part in the pilot. A similar pilot scheme had been operating in England and Wales in 142 local authority areas since November 1998.

June 1999
Housing Benefit System Reforms

The Social Security Secretary, Alistair Darling, confirmed plans to scrap the Housing Benefit system, first signalled by Chancellor Gordon Brown in his Budget statement. The most popular option appeared to be a new housing tax credit system for those on low incomes and in work, and rent paid automatically for those on Income Support.

Any move to replace the Housing Benefit system comes under close scrutiny, especially if it involves the demise of 100% Housing Benefit entitlement, unless such measures are supported by additional benefit elsewhere - such as through Income Support.

Moves to reform the Housing Benefit system are aimed at combating fraud, which (for Housing Benefit alone) was estimated at £840 million in 1998. The Social Security Secretary is to introduce a Green Paper on Housing Benefit, marking the next stage of welfare reforms. There has also been a suggestion that the proposed reforms are to be included in the forthcoming Housing Green Paper.

June 1999
Benefits News in Brief

• York Council has introduced an electronic data exchange with the Benefits Agency system, through which it aims to process Housing Benefit claims a week faster than before. The system, pioneered by Lewisham LBC, allows the Council to download information on claimants automatically. This includes details of benefits being claimed and the claimant's address. Up to 20 other councils are expected to join the system in August

• Research on Government Housing Benefit statistics commissioned by the Residential Landlords' Association suggests that more than 300,000 low-income tenants have been forced into the social housing sector by benefit restrictions since 1996. Private Rented Sector Housing Benefit Statistics; Residential Landlord Association; free; Tel. 0161 962 0010.

June 1999
Ombudsman: Claim Abandoned

The complainant applied for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit in April 1997. In November 1997, she was told by Southwark LBC that her claim had been abandoned. The complainant made a further claim which was determined in June 1998. Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit were paid from the date of the original claim. In the meantime, the Council took recovery action for both rent arrears and arrears of Council Tax.

Ombudsman Edward Osmotherly concluded that the Council delayed in dealing with the claims made by the complainant; it made a decision to abandon the claim without proper consideration of the information in its possession; there was poor liaison between the Benefits contractor and the Neighbourhood Housing Office; and Council Tax recovery action was taken, even when the complainant had paid in full.

He further concluded that legal action for rent arrears and arrears of Council Tax was avoidable and that the arrears were caused by the Council's mistakes.

His report found maladministration causing injustice and noted that the complainant feared she would lose her home and was caused great anxiety. He recommended that the Council pay the complainant compensation of £1,000 for her distress and for time and trouble in pursuing the complaint. He also recommended that the Council reviews its procedures for dealing with complaints about Benefits.

Investigation No. 98/A/1487 (Southwark LBC).

June 1999
Ombudsman: Claim Referred to Anti-Fraud Team

The complainant was a single mother who rented her home from her ex-partner - the father of their child. In July 1997, she provided Lambeth LBC with all information necessary to determine her claim for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. She disclosed that her landlord was her daughter's father. Her claim was not determined and no payments on account were made.

In April 1998, her claim was referred to the Council's anti-fraud team, to examine the possibility that the tenancy had been contrived. In November, the anti-fraud team concluded that it was not contrived but the claim was not determined or paid until May 1999. By then, the complainant was owed £16,271 in Housing Benefit.

There was also a delay in determining the complainant's claim for Council Tax Benefit and the Council obtained a Liability Order against her for unpaid tax. The complainant repeatedly tried to find out what was happening but received no response.

She twice complained to the Chief Executive - on the first occasion she was told her claim had been referred to the anti-fraud team and on the second, the Council did not reply. For part of the time, her file could not be found.

The Ombudsman found that the Council's delay amounted to maladministration and that it caused the complainant injustice, for which the Council should pay her £500. He noted that the Council has made administrative changes to deal with some of the problems identified in this investigation. The Ombudsman will monitor the complaints he receives and will call for further changes if necessary.

Investigation No. 98/A/4795-6 (Lambeth LBC).

June 1999
Ombudsman: No Account Taken of Change in Circumstances

The complainants, a couple, were in receipt of Income Support and Housing Benefit. When the husband retired, his pension meant that they were no longer entitled to Income Support. The complainants told the Council of their change in circumstances in May 1996. Having not heard anything, one of the complainants visited the Housing Benefit office. She was told how much they should be paying towards their rent and the complainants paid this accordingly. The Council had not, however, taken account of their change in circumstances and they were paying too little.

The Council did not determine the claim until November 1996, when it said that there had been a recoverable overpayment of £1,287. No appeal was made within the statutory period. In March 1997, one of the complainants asked for the claim to be backdated to cover the overpayment. In April, May, June and August he made fresh approaches to the Council about the overpayment, but the Council did not respond.

In February 1998, a councillor wrote to the Council, as did an advice worker in June 1998. The advice worker was told her letter would be treated as an appeal about whether the overpayment was recoverable but the Council then said that an appeal was out of time and took no further action.

When the Council responded to the Ombudsman's enquiries in October 1998, it said it would consider an appeal. However, the Ombudsman heard nothing further until March 1999. The Council then upheld its original decision. After further enquiries from the Ombudsman's office, the Council said that its original determination of entitlement to Housing Benefit had been invalid. On 27 April, the Council issued a fresh determination, which confirmed its original decision. The complainants have recently appealed against this decision.

Ombudsman Edward Osmotherly concluded that the delay in determining the claim was maladministration, which caused the complainants dismay and anxiety and put them to unnecessary time and trouble. He recommended that the Council should pay them £350 compensation.

Investigation No. 98/A/1952 (Lambeth LBC).

June 1999
Ombudsman: Unreasonable Delay in Paying Benefit

A private tenant complained that Westminster CC delayed unreasonably in paying Housing Benefit to him. The complainant receives Incapacity Benefit and speaks very little English. His landlord would not give him proof of his liability to pay rent, although the rent was registered with the Rent Officer. In May 1995, the complainant renewed his claim for Housing Benefit. In July 1995, the Council wrote to say that it had decided to lapse the claim on the grounds that he had failed to provide evidence of his rent liability, which it needed in order to determine the claim.

In August 1995, the complainant visited the Council's offices and showed an assessment officer the only evidence of rent payments he had - counterfoils showing payments he had made to his landlord's solicitors' bank account over a period of ten years. He also explained the difficulties he had in getting proof of rent payments from his landlord.

In August 1995, the Council agreed to reverse the decision to lapse the claim and told the complainant it would contact the landlord's solicitor to request evidence of rent liability. The Council telephoned the landlord's solicitor to request the evidence but took no further action when he failed to send it. No further action was taken to determine the claim and no Housing Benefit or payments on account were made.

In October 1997, after receiving letters from his landlord about rent arrears, the complainant instructed a solicitor to pursue matters with the Council. The solicitor submitted a new claim for Housing Benefit and pursued the outstanding claim, which had been made in May 1995. In February 1998, the complainant's solicitor received evidence from the landlord's solicitor of the rent liability and payments made by her client and she sent these to the Council.

In May 1998, following enquiries of the Benefits Agency, the Council assessed the claim of October 1997 and awarded Housing Benefit. It also agreed to backdate the award to October 1996, on the grounds that the complainant had good cause for making a late claim. At the same time, the Council determined the original claim made in May 1995. But, due to restrictions in the Housing Benefit Regulations, it could award Benefit for only 52 weeks on this claim (ie, until June 1996). As a result, the complainant did not receive any Housing Benefit for the period from June to October 1996.

The complainant's solicitor wrote to the Council to request a copy of the documents held on his claim file. The Council had no policy on charging for such copies but it asked the solicitor to pay £75 for this information (subsequently reduced to £33). The solicitor considered the charge excessive and decided not to pursue the matter.

While the Housing Benefit claim was undetermined, the complainant received two letters from his landlord, threatening to commence possession proceedings because he owed rent. He still has substantial rent arrears because Housing Benefit has not been paid for the period between June and October 1996.

Ombudsman Edward Osmotherly’s report found that the Council:

• failed to press the landlord's solicitors for the information it had asked for in August 1995;

• failed to make payments on account while awaiting the information from the landlord's solicitors; and

• delayed unreasonably between October 1997 and May 1998 in determining the Benefit claim of October 1997.

The Ombudsman found that this was maladministration causing injustice to the complainant and recommends that the Council should pay the complainant an amount of compensation equivalent to the Housing Benefit he would have received between June and October 1996.

It should also pay him £500 in recognition of his anxiety and time and trouble in pursuing his complaint; pay his solicitor (who acted for no payment) £250; and introduce a policy on charging for copies of documents.

Investigation No. 98/A/0757 (Westminster CC).

July 1999
News in Brief

Latest statistics showed that there were 4.42 million people receiving Housing Benefit and 5.28 million people in receipt of Council Tax Benefit (Hansard 22.07.99: Col 578).

Research from Loughborough University suggests that less than 10% of Housing Benefit claims from people in supported accommodation are made correctly. The research puts the number of claimants in supported accommodation at 447,000, of which Housing Benefit paid in 300,000 cases was found to be meeting the cost of ineligible support services. The report concludes that only 10% of claims were completely sound and another 12-14% were accurate to within £3 per week. A free summary is available - Tel: 0171 962 8558.

A survey carried out by Shelter Scotland revealed a high percentage of social landlords in Scotland wanting to be involved in the consultation process on proposed Housing Benefit reforms, fearing that Scottish benefits issues will be excluded in responses to the Green Paper. Copies of the report, Investing in Modernisation: Overview of Responses to the Housing Green Paper, are available from Shelter Scotland - Tel: 0131 473 7170.

A new report looks at the problems of applying for disabled facilities grants and the varying responses from different local authorities. The report - Disabled Facilities Grants: Is The System Working? - is available free - Tel: 0171 250 3222.

The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate and the Accounts Commission for Scotland announced that they will collaborate to combat Housing and Council Tax Benefit fraud. The collaboration is aimed at avoiding duplication of work and achieving the exchange of best practice.

National Homeless Alliance published The Benefits Guide 1999/2000, which provides information on all key benefits in one book. It also includes details on proposed Government benefit changes. Different sections of the Guide look at specific benefits available, with a separate section devoted to the Housing Act. In addition, attention is given to benefits for people in specific situations (eg the homeless). Further information is available from National Homeless Alliance - Tel: 0171 833 2071.

July 1999
Ombudsman: Maladministration In Seven Cases

The complaint concerned the way that Lambeth LBC dealt with the Housing Benefit of seven residents of a hostel, which provides accommodation for vulnerable young women who have been homeless. The hostel, which is a charity, complained that the Council's errors and delays in dealing with Housing Benefit claims of its tenants had adversely affected the operation of the hostel and that its financial viability was put at risk.

The claims were dealt with by the Specialised Landlord Liaison Unit of the Council. The Ombudsman's investigations revealed that there were delays by the Council in assessing all of the seven residents’ claims:

• Repeated requests were made for information which had been provided already.

• Housing Benefit was not paid for periods covered by a valid claim.

• The Council failed to consider whether payments on account should be made.

• In one case, the Council wrongly paid Housing Benefit arrears to the tenant, instead of the hostel.

The Ombudsman found that the Council acted with maladministration in all seven cases. The Council agreed to meet hostel staff to try to resolve any outstanding matters and said that it has put in place measures to provide better training and management of the Landlord Liaison Unit.

The Ombudsman's report recommended that the Council should pay compensation of £1,000 to the hostel.

Investigation Nos. 98/A/0492 & 2972 (Lambeth LBC).

July 1999
Ombudsman: Further Information Not Needed

The complainant applied to Broxbourne BC for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit in early May 1998. Soon after submitting the application, he suffered a stroke - which paralysed him. While in hospital, he sought the assistance of social workers and Citizens' Advice Bureaux in having his claim paid. The Council sent him another Housing Benefit claim form and Council Tax bills and told him that it needed further information before it could pay his claim. When the Ombudsman intervened, the Council paid the claim (in August 1998), without receiving the additional information.

Ombudsman Jerry White's report concluded that the Council's actions were maladministration causing injustice and he recommended that it pay the complainant £250 compensation.

Investigation Nos. 98/B/2004 & 2071 (Broxbourne BC).

July 1999
Ombudsman: Misinformation Was Maladministration

The complainant had been receiving Housing Benefit from June 1995. In July 1996, as a result of an investigation by an special investigation unit, Brent LBC cancelled the complainant's Housing Benefit back to June 1995 because it believed she was a student and had not declared the fact when she made her claim.

The Council's letter, telling the complainant her HB had been cancelled, failed to tell her the reason for her claim being cancelled, or that there was a recoverable overpayment. Later, when the complainant asked why her Housing Benefit had stopped, the Council misinformed her that it believed she did not live at the address from which she had claimed.

The complainant made written representation to the Council, saying that she disagreed with its decision but the Council failed to treat her representation as an appeal. In May 1996, the complainant made a claim to renew her Housing Benefit. The Council failed to determine the claim within 14 days (or as soon as reasonably practicable thereafter).

The complainant again applied for Housing Benefit - in September 1996. The Council investigate her claim because it suspected that she did not live at the address from which she was claiming.

The Ombudsman's report concluded that there were a number of incidences of maladministration, including:

• Failing to advise the complainant of the reasons for cancelling her Housing Benefit, or advising of a recoverable overpayment.

• Misinforming the complainant of reasons for stopping her Housing Benefit.

• Failing to treat the complainant's written representation as an appeal against the Council's decision to stop Housing Benefit.

• Excessively delaying in carrying out an investigation.

The Ombudsman concluded that the Council's failures greatly protracted the complainant's period of uncertainty about her financial position and caused her avoidable anxiety. He recommended that the Council should immediately consider whether the complainant was entitled to any Housing Benefit for the period between 25 June 1995 and 12 May 1996 and notify her of its decision and the reason for it.

If the Council remained of the view that there is an overpayment, it should consider any representation the complainant wished to make, notwithstanding that she might be out of time for a formal appeal.

The Council should also pay the complainant £300 in recognition of the anxiety and additional trouble she has been caused by the maladministration.

Investigation No. 97/A/3744 (Brent LBC).

July 1999
Ombudsman: Difficulties in HB Led to NOSP

In October 1997, because circumstances changed for the complainant, he ceased to receive Jobseekers' Allowance and began to receive Incapacity Benefit. He did not tell the Council about this until he renewed his Housing Benefit claim in January 1998. Because of the change, the complainant's Housing Benefit claim for the period 27th October 1997 to 1st February 1998 ceased to have effect. The Council did not invite the complainant to make a claim for backdating and accepts that it should have done so.

On 1st June 1998, the Council assessed the complainant's Housing Benefit claim from 2nd February 1998 and decided to pay him Benefit from that date. It decided to recover the Benefit it had paid the complainant for the period 27th October 1997 to 1st February 1998.

In July, the complainant wrote to the Housing Benefit manager to ask why he had increasing rent arrears. The Council did not link that letter to his file and did not answer it. On 5th October 1998, the complainant sent in another Housing Benefit claim form and requested backdating. The Council agreed to backdate his Benefit for the period 27th October 1997 to 1st February 1998 but then, in December 1998, it reversed that decision because it had been made in error - the complainant had not been asked to provide good cause for backdating. He was then asked to provide the necessary evidence.

In May 1999, the complainant was able to do so and the Council decided to pay the backdated Benefit. As a result of the difficulties with his Housing Benefit claim, the complainant received a Notice of Seeking Possession for rent arrears and a Summons for arrears of Council Tax.

Ombudsman Edward Osmotherly found that there was maladministration causing injustice and recommended that the Council pay the complainant £350 compensation.

Investigation Nos. 98/A/2840, 2842 & 3007 (Lambeth LBC).

July 1999
Ombudsman: Ex Gratia Payment Recommended

The complainant was in receipt of Housing Benefit when his wife received a £20,000 legacy in her mother's will. The complainant used part of this money to purchase buses and pay off the debts of his private bus company.

The Council stopped his Benefit, arguing that the legacy exceeded the amount of capital (£16,000) allowed before Benefit entitlement ceases. A Review Board decision determined that the legacy had been distributed over time and, therefore, did not exceed £16,000 and that, in any event, a large part of the legacy was used for business purposes and so should be disregarded for Benefit purposes.

A second Review Board again found in the complainant's favour and concluded that the money should have been disregarded because it was spent on the business. A Council officer ignored the Review Board's determination and there were delays in paying the complainant Benefit.

A third Review Board hearing determined that the complainant should receive the Benefit he was entitled to under law. Between the three Review Board hearings, the complainant continued to suffer from the Council's delay in settling his claim.

Ombudsman Jerry White's report noted that the complainant's case was known to the Council's Chief Executive and that it seemed that no-one in the Council was prepared to intervene swiftly and decisively to give the complainant justice. The report recommended that the Council make the complainant an ex gratia payment of £2,500 for the way in which he had been treated and that it should commission an independent review of its Housing Benefit arrangements.

The Ombudsman concluded that his investigation had exposed fundamental problems with regard to the Council's administration of its Housing Benefit duties. He also commented that it is for elected members of the Council to satisfy themselves that the oppressive and improper action exposed in his report can not recur.

Investigation No. 97/B/5132 (North Dorset DC).

August 1999
Ombudsman: Incorrect Advice Led to Arrears

The complainant alleged that Manchester CC wrongly deducted non-dependant deductions from the Benefit payable to her late mother, for a period spanning the years 1991 to 1996. She also alleged that her late mother, who was in receipt of Attendance Allowance, was given incorrect advice by a council officer about the payment of Community Charge and, in consequence, she fell into arrears. She further complained that the Council unreasonably refused to reimburse monies wrongly deducted from her mother's Benefit payments.

The Council acknowledged that it had been given correct information by the complainant on her mother's behalf throughout the period in question and that it was responsible for the error.

The Council reimbursed the complainant with 52 weeks' deductions but was prevented by the Housing Benefit regulations from repaying the remainder, which totalled £5,654.85. The Ombudsman's investigation showed that the Benefit determinations received by the complainant's mother were not in a form that would have alerted her to the fact that there was an error in the determination, against which she should appeal.

The Council agreed to pay the complainant the outstanding amount of £5,654.85 as an ex gratia payment, which Ombudsman Patricia Thomas accepted as a satisfactory local settlement of the complaint.

Investigation No. 98/C/0620 (Manchester CC).

August 1999
Ombudsman: Failure to Consider Entitlement Led to Eviction

The complainant was in receipt of Housing Benefit in respect of a property rented from a private landlord. He complained that Kennet DC failed to consider his entitlement to Housing Benefit properly between November 1997 and April 1998 and claimed that, as a result of this failure, he was evicted from his tenancy by the landlord.

Ombudsman Jerry White's report concluded that there was maladministration causing injustice in the Council's actions and recommended that it should pay the complainant £2,250 in compensation.

Investigation No. 97/B/4375 (Kennet DC).

August 1999
Ombudsman: Inadequate Information Given to Claimant

The complainant alleged that East Devon DC had consistently failed to explain decisions about his entitlement to Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. This failure included supplying him with inadequate, contradictory and confusing information over a protracted period.

The complainant also alleged that the Council failed in its statutory duty to provide a formal statement of reasons for its decisions and to provide him with access to a Review Board to resolve disputes.

He further complained that the Council recovered alleged overpayment from him in a way which did not accord with statutory requirements. It then proceeded against him in Court to recover an unpaid sum of Council Tax, without explaining to him in any reasonable way how it had calculated his debt.

Ombudsman Jerry White's report found maladministration causing injustice and recommended that the Council should:

• Make the complainant an ex gratia payment of £500;

• Ensure that the figures it uses in calculating the complainant's entitlement to Benefit were up-to-date and accurate and that, if problems should recur, a proper statement of reason (and, if necessary, reference to a Review Board) would be supplied; and

• Refer the complainant's claim in its entirety to an external auditor to establish the correct amount he should be paying and agree that, if any inaccuracies were discovered which had caused him disadvantage, they would be remedied.

Investigation No. 97/B/2820 (East Devon DC).

September 1999
Advice Literature Update

• It was announced that in Winter 1999, Winter Fuel Payments would again be made to pensioners. The amount payable to qualifying households was increased to £100, to help towards the cost of heating. An information leaflet is available - Important Information for Pensioners - Winter Fuel Payments 1999.

• The Government launched its new Tax Credit system, which from 5th October 1999 replaced Family Credit. A number of information leaflets are available from Inland Revenue and Benefits Offices, including:

• WFTC/BK1: Your Guide to Working Families' Tax Credit.

• DPTC/BK1: Your Guide to Disabled Person's Tax Credit.

• CTC/BK1: Working Families’ Tax Credit & Disabled Person's Tax Credit: Information for Childcare Providers.

Two useful four-page fact sheets are also available:

• WFTC/FS1: Working Families’ Tax Credit.

• CTC/FS1: Working Families' Tax Credit (WFTC), Disabled Person's Tax Credit (DPTC), and Childcare.

September 1999
Benefits News in Brief

• Social Security Secretary of State, Alistair Darling, criticised local authorities with high Housing Benefit bills and warned that those that spend most would be closely monitored. He also urged them to take up the Royal Mail's Do Not Redirect Scheme, which returns a Benefit cheque to the local authority anti-fraud sections if a claimant tries to redirect it.

• South Yorkshire Police investigated allegations concerning abuses of Improvement Grants at Doncaster Council. These were believed to include incidents of double-charging and payments for work not done during the period 1993 to 1998.

• A DSS Circular announced an exemption for those living in hostels from new anti-fraud rules, which require claimants to show their National Insurance number to qualify for Housing Benefit. Whilst the exemption solves some problems, the new rules come into effect in all other areas - despite the experience from pilot areas that saw longer delays in processing Benefit claims leading to higher rent arrears. Circular HB/CTB A34/99 - available from the DSS. Tel: 0207 712 2171.

September 1999
Ombudsman: Exceptional Hardship Payment Delays

The complainant asked Alnwick DC for an Exceptional Hardship Payment to cover a shortfall of £8 per week in rent, which Housing Benefit did not cover. She submitted medical evidence to support her claim that she needed two-bedroomed accommodation.

The Council requested evidence about her weekly outgoings, with receipts. The complainant declined to provide this information, on the ground that she was living on Income Support and had no other resources, and that the Council should not need information about how she spent her Benefit. The complainant eventually provided information on a form introduced by the Council, which asked her for a breakdown of expenditure but not receipts. The Council then determined her application and granted her backdated Exceptional Hardship Payments. This was seven months after she had first requested help.

Ombudsman Patricia Thomas concluded in her report that there was maladministration, in that the time taken was unreasonably long and that a decision should have been taken much earlier on the information that was then available. Had that decision been not to grant a payment, the complainant would then at least have had a right of appeal.

Whilst the Ombudsman considers that the complainant had contributed to the delay, she recommends that the Council should pay £100 compensation and consider ways of speeding up its determination of applications for Exceptional Hardship Payments.

Investigation No. 97/C/2914 (Alnwick DC).

September 1999
Ombudsman: Failure in Responding to Information

The complainant was visited by Lambeth LBC's Corporate Anti-Fraud Team in August 1998, to verify his identity and residence in connection with his Housing Benefit claim.

With regard to the visit, the officer did not call on the day notified. The claimant was unable to answer the door because he had no bell and he was unaware, therefore, of subsequent visits (the Council had a previous record about the absence of a bell, when there were difficulties in gaining access on an earlier visit by another officer).

On the advice of the Anti-Fraud Team, the Council cancelled the claimant's Housing Benefit claim. A solicitor wrote to the Council on behalf of the claimant but there is no record that his letter was answered.

The complainant provided further information and visited the Housing Benefit Office. He explained his circumstances. The Council asked him to provide utility bills to verify his residence but he could not do so because he did not pay such bills.

The Council did not reinstate his Housing Benefit claim in full until April 1999.

Ombudsman Edward Osmotherly's report finds that there was maladministration by the Council in failing to respond properly to information provided by the claimant and his solicitor. The Council had also failed to take into account the information on its file about the difficulty there had been in contacting the complainant on an earlier visit.

He recommends that the Council pays the complainant £350 compensation and produce procedural guidance.

Investigation No. 98/A/5071 (Lambeth LBC).

October 1999
Advice Update

Five new benefits leaflets became available from Social Security offices from 25th October 1999, being:

• WK1 - Financial help if you work or are looking for work.
  
  
• WK2 - Financial help if you are looking for work.
  
  
• WK3 - Need help starting work or getting back to work?
  
  
• WK4 - Financial help if you are working or doing voluntary work.
  
  
• GL19 - School leavers and students.
  

Note: WK1 and GL19 are also available in Welsh. Inland Revenue can now provide a free copy of a video that explains the basics of Working Families' Tax Credit and Disabled Person's Tax Credit. The video is also available with subtitles for people with hearing difficulties.

October 1999
Benefits in Brief

• A National Housing Federation survey found that most of the 96 associations participating feel that the benefits system is getting worse and is in need of radical reform. The average time taken to process claims has risen to over seven weeks, whereas they should be dealt with within two weeks. Some anti-fraud initiatives are showing weaknesses and there is generally low confidence in the system. What is Happening to Housing Benefit? NHF: free. Tel: 0171 843 2262.
  
  
• Social Security Minister, Angela Eagle, issued a clear warning to local authorities to get their act together and improve administration of Housing Benefit services. She called for councils to take more responsibility for improving services, reducing arrears and cutting fraud. In response, local authority representatives pointed at the growing burden of red tape and central government demands, which have increased work loads to an already stretched service.
  
  
• The Government released proposals aimed at protecting large, low-income families from expensive water meter charges. From April 2000, families with three or more children will be eligible for help if they are in receipt of one of a number of specified benefits (including Housing Benefit). Their metered water bills will be reduced to the average charge made by their water company. The benefit will also be available to people suffering from medical conditions that require treatment that involves high water use, such as kidney dialysis.

October 1999
Ombudsman: Delays Led to Risk of Eviction

The complainant alleged that, between the end of 1996 and May 1998, the Council:

• Delayed in assessing her Housing Benefit application;
  
  
• Asked for information which it did not need;
  
  
• Wrongly recovered an overpayment; and
  
  
• Failed to deal with her appeals.

The complainant's landlord obtained a Court Order to possess her home for rent arrears, caused mainly by the Council. A bailiff called to evict her but, at the last moment, the landlord halted the eviction.

Ombudsman Edward Osmotherly recommended £1,000 compensation for the unhappiness caused by the Council's maladministration.

Investigation No. 98/A/0224 (Brent LBC).

October 1999
Ombudsman: Catalogue of Errors

The complainant was self-employed. He applied to the Council for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. There was a delay in dealing with the application.

The Council restricted the rent and applied a non-dependant deduction. The complainant appealed against the Council's decision. When the non-dependant moved from the property, Benefit was reassessed. The Council stopped paying Benefit on receipt of information from the employment service that the complainant was advertising for staff. The appeal against the decision to restrict the rent and apply the non-dependant deduction was not progressed.

The Council proposed a local settlement, which it subsequently said it was unable to deliver.

Ombudsman Jerry White's report recommended that the Council should pay the complainant £1,000 compensation. It also recommended that the Council arranges a Housing Benefit review body to hear his appeal and backdate any additional Benefit award with interest.

Investigation Nos. 97/B/3261 & 3384 (East Devon DC).

October 1999
Ombudsman: Appeal Dealt with Unfairly

A Law Centre complained on behalf of the complainant about the way the Council dealt with her Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. The complainant's entitlement to Income Support - and hence to maximum Housing and Council Tax Benefits - ceased in April 1998. She made a new claim for Housing and Council Tax Benefits. She also made a separate claim for extended payments of Benefits.

The Council determined that she had been overpaid Housing Benefit on her previous claim and she appealed against this determination. The Council then told her that she did not qualify for extended payments. She queried this on a number of occasions, but the Council confirmed its decision.

On 19th June 1998, the Council reversed its decision that there had been an overpayment (and, in so doing, says that it dealt with the complainant's appeal), but four days later it reverted to its earlier decision that there had been an overpayment.

The complainant's April 1998 claim, for which the Council had all necessary information by 23rd July 1998, was not determined until early in January 1999. On 5th January 1999, the complainant requested a review of the decision. The review was not carried out until 6th May 1999.

Ombudsman Edward Osmotherly found that the Council delayed unreasonably in determining the Benefit claim of April 1998 and in conducting the review requested on 5th January 1999. He found that the Council dealt unfairly with the appeal against overpayment which the complainant made in May 1998 and that it was also unfair, in view of its own delays, for the Council to cite delay as the reason for denying a further review of its decision of May 1999.

The Ombudsman recommended that the Council should pay the complainant £400 compensation and also review the determination about the overpayment and the decision of May 1999.

Investigation No. 99/A/0201 (Lambeth LBC).

October 1999
Ombudsman: Ex Gratia Payment Equivalent to Benefit

The complainant made a claim for Housing Benefit. After a long delay, the Council determined that she was not eligible. There was a further period of delay in establishing a Housing Benefit Review Board.

The Review Board decided that the complainant should be paid Housing Benefit. The Council exercised its right to have this decision set aside by a further review board.

The second Review Board decided not to set aside the decision of the first Review Board. Regulations provide that such a decision on a set-aside request may not be the subject of further review - the only means of challenging the decision is to seek Judicial Review.

The Council considered the decisions of the Review Boards to be wrong in law. No Housing Benefit has been paid in consequence of the decisions. The Council did not seek a Judicial Review. Instead, it sought to have the matter considered by a third Review Board.

After the Ombudsman had commenced the investigation, the Council received Counsel's opinion that the decision of the second review board, while flawed, did amount to a decision on the set-aside request and could thus not be the subject of further review. The Council withdrew the case from the scheduled Review Board hearing.

The Council has offered to make the complainant a "without liability" ex gratia payment of £150.

Ombudsman Jerry White recommended that the Council should:

• Make the complainant an ex gratia payment equivalent to the Housing Benefit that would have been paid if the Council had accepted the housing costs given in the claim;
  
  
• Determine any further claim by the complainant within the appropriate time limit and notify her of her rights of review; and
  
  
• Pay the complainant £150 compensation.

Investigation No. 98/B/3183 (Harlow DC).

October 1999
Ombudsman: No Procedures for Grant Administration

The complainant was awarded a Housing Renovation Grant. Emergency works were undertaken before the grant works were done and the works schedule, when revised, also revealed inaccuracies. A second schedule of works was approved, incorporating the emergency works and some minor additional items requested by the complainant.

The Council acted as agent for the complainant. She was unhappy with the works done. The builder then refused to finish them. The Council tried to resolve this problem but, when it proved intractable, terminated the agency agreement. Some works remain undone, others need rectification.

The Council:

• Had no formal procedures for administering grant applications;
  
  
• Failed to supervise effectively works in progress;
  
  
• Failed to ensure that the works were completed; and, in addition,
  
  
• Had wholly inadequate records.

Ombudsman Jerry White's report recommended that the Council should:

• Appoint an independent agent to draw up a list of outstanding grant works and those that need to be redone, and meet the reasonable cost of carrying out those works;
  
  
• Make the complainant an ex gratia payment of £750; and
  
  
• Review its procedures to ensure that the failings identified in his report do not recur.

Investigation No. 98/B/0019 (Norwich CC).

November 1999
Ombudsman: Numerous Errors in Dealing with Claim

The complainant alleged that the Council failed to deal adequately with his Housing Benefit claim.

The claim was made in May 1997 but the Council says that the claimant did not provide all the necessary supporting information until the following October. An assessment of the claim was made in November 1997. In the same month, the complainant requested backdating of his claim to February 1997. In March 1998, he sent the Council a letter from his doctor, which provided evidence of good cause for his failure to claim for the period February to May 1997. The Council failed to deal with his request for backdating until September 1998.

An officer from the Corporate Anti-Fraud Team visited the claimant in November 1998 and the claim was then cancelled. In February 1999, the complainant sent evidence of his continuing residence but the Council did not reinstate the claim until June 1999.

Ombudsman Edward Osmotherly found the Council guilty of repeated maladministration in dealing with the complainant's Housing Benefit claim.

There were cumulative delays of 13 months and, because the complainant was forced to attend possession proceedings in Court, the Council caused him severe anxiety which aggravated his depressive illness.

The Ombudsman recommended that the Council should pay the complainant £750 compensation and also review its procedures.

Investigation No. 98/A/4371 (Lambeth LBC).

November 1999
Ombudsman: Delays and Faults in Administering Grant

The complainants complained that the Council:

• Delayed in sending them an application form for a mandatory renovation grant for an unfit property in 1991;
  
  
• Delayed and was faulty in its administration of the grant, once it had been approved; and
  
  
• Refused to extend the deadline for completion of the works for a further 3 weeks in 1996, resulting in the non-payment of the outstanding balance of the grant.

Ombudsman Patricia Thomas found that it was not until September 1992 that the Council began to consider the issue properly. This matter should have been reported to the Council's monitoring officer at the time, but was not.

In August 1996, the Council attempted to cap the grant at £50,000, which caused further anxiety to the complainants. This was maladministration, as the Council should have checked the legal position sooner. Further complaints against the Council for delay, failing to supervise the renovation work and the refusal to extend the deadline were not upheld by the Ombudsman.

She recommended that the Council pay the complainants £5,000 compensation for the worry and expense caused them by its delay, and for their having to live in an unfit property for longer than necessary.

Investigation No. 97/C/2402 (South Lakeland DC).

November 1999
Ombudsman: Grant Withdrawn Without Explanation

The complaint concerns confusion in the way that an application for a Renovation Grant was considered. In particular, it was alleged that:

• Northampton BC failed to make clear to the complainant the difference between a grant enquiry and a grant application.
  
  
• When the Council issued a Schedule of Defects, the complainant understood that a grant for work totalling £4,000 was being offered.
  
  
• The Council unreasonably changed its offer to Home Repair Assistance with an upper limit of £2,000. When the Council subsequently decided that the complainant had increased the damage to his roof - it withdrew the Home Repair Assistance offer and it failed to put the allegation to him, or to give him the opportunity to comment on an independent surveyor’s report obtained by the Council.

Ombudsman Jerry White found that there was maladministration causing injustice and he makes a number of recommendations for actions to be taken by the Council:

• It should commission an independent survey to ascertain whether the roof needs to be renewed or repaired, and whether there is evidence of damage being deliberately caused to it.
  
  
• On receipt of that report, the Council should consider whether the complainant is entitled to grant aid - either as a discretionary Renovation Grant, or as Home Repair Assistance, and:

  if he is so entitled, then offer the assistance and pay the grant once works have been satisfactorily completed, together with an ex gratia payment of £2,000 to compensate him for the avoidable delay in repairing his property; or

  if the complainant is not so entitled, then give him a clear explanation of its decision.

• In any event, the Council should:

  Make an ex gratia payment for the complainant’s confusion and frustration resulting from the Council’s failures to clarify the scope of its assistance and explain properly the grant process, and for his time and trouble in pursuing his complaint with the Council and with the Ombudsman.

  Review its arrangements for grant assistance to owner-occupiers, to ensure that, as far as possible, the shortcomings revealed by this investigation do not recur.

Investigation No. 97/B/5114 (Northampton BC).

Note: December 2000 to January 2001 updates pending

Return To The HMD Archive Index