| Publishing organisation: | Scottish Public Services Ombudsman |
| Topic: | Housing benefit, Tenant rent and service charges |
| Determination: | Upheld |
| Tenure: | Assured |
Organisation:
| City of Edinburgh Council |
| Country of relevance: | Scotland |
| Report link: | Click here to view this document |
Mr C was a property owner and landlord to a City of Edinburgh Council tenant, who received housing benefit to enable her to pay rent to Mr C. Mr C said that the tenant failed to pay her rent over a period of more than eight weeks. When he contacted the Council to advise them of this, he anticipated that the rent arrears, and subsequent rent payments, would be paid directly to him, in line with housing benefit guidance published by the Department for Work and Pensions.
Mr C learned that the Council suspended the tenant's housing benefit account while investigating his complaint. Upon reopening the account (in relation to the second suspension), the Council paid over £4,000.00 in housing benefit arrears to the tenant. Mr C said that she failed to pass this money on to him. Mr C told me that, upon raising this with the Council, they accepted that the tenant's account had been incorrectly administered and that the arrears should have been paid to him.
As the money had been paid to the tenant, however, it was Mr C's responsibility to recover it from her. Dissatisfied with the Council's response to his complaints, Mr C brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.
Determination
(a) The Council failed to follow their own, and the Department for Work and Pensions, guidance when administering the tenant's housing benefit account (upheld). The Ombudsman recommended that the Council pay any outstanding arrears for the period 20 November 2006 to 23 September 2007 to Mr C in one single payment.
(b) The Council failed to adequately investigate the tenant's personal circumstances before deciding to pay housing benefit to the tenant (upheld). The Ombudsman had no recommendations to make on this point, as the Council had already reminded their staff of the correct procedure to be followed when establishing a claimant's ability to pay their rent.
(c) The Council's communication was poor (upheld). The Ombudsman recommended that the Council remind their staff of their procedures for advising interested parties of decisions made in relation to LHA accounts.
He also made a general recommendation that the Council should apologise to Mr C for failings identified in the full report.