Report on an Investigation into Complaint No 99/A/2636/2637/2767 against the London Borough of Lambeth
7 December 2000
21 Queen Anne’s Gate London SW1H 9BU Investigation into Complaint No 99/A/2636/2637/2767 Against the London Borough of Lambeth
Table of Contents Page Report Summary 1 Introduction 3 Legal and Administrative Background 3 Investigation 4 Ms Orwell claims Housing Benefit 4 The Council writes to Ms Orwell about her rent arrears and Ms Orwell provides proof of her Child Benefit 5 Ms Orwell’s Councillor makes enquiries on her behalf 6 Ms Orwell receives a Council Tax summons 8 Ms Orwell complains to me 8 Ms Orwell’s Housing Benefit claim is determined 9 Interviews with Council Housing Officers 9 The Council’s view 10 The Complainant’s view 10 Conclusion 11 Appendix A - the Council’s letter of 31 October 2000
Key to names used
Ms Orwell the complainant Officer Y a Neighbourhood Officer Officer X the Team Leader Officer Z the Housing Service Manager Report Summary
Ms Orwell (not her real name for legal reasons) claimed Housing and Council Tax Benefit on 9 December 1998. Her claim was not decided until 22 November 1999. As a result, large rent arrears accumulated. In February 1999 the Council sent Ms Orwell a Notice of Seeking Possession of her home and, in a covering letter, threatened that her name might be disclosed to the local press should she not keep to an agreement to clear the arrears. This notice was served in error (Ms Orwell is a Introductory Tenant and required a different form of Notice). In May 1999 the Council sent the correct Notice of Proceedings for Possession. Ms Orwell also received a summons for Council Tax arrears and attended Court in September 1999. There was a further delay before her renewal claim of 1 December 1999 was determined.
Ms Orwell made frequent complaints to the Council. She also complained to her local Councillor, Councillor Benn. He also made persistent complaints on her behalf. Neither Ms Orwell nor Councillor Benn received a substantive response from the Council nor was Ms Orwell’s claim determined.
The Ombudsman finds that there were the following specific faults by the Council:
(jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj) there was gross and unjustified delay in determining the Benefit claims Ms Orwell made in December 1998. It was not decided until November 1999;
(kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk kkkkkkk) there was unreasonable delay in deciding the further Benefit claim she made on 1 December 1999. It was not determined until 16 March 2000;
(llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll) on 23 February 1999 the Council issued a Notice of Seeking Possession wrongly (it was not the correct Notice for a Introductory Tenancy). On 17 May Ms Orwell received a correct Notice of Proceedings for Possession together with a letter. It threatened that her name might be disclosed to the local press if she failed to keep to an
1 99/A/2636/2637/2767 agreement to clear the arrears. There can be no excuse either for the Notices or the letter. The rent arrears were caused by the Council’s incompetence;
(mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm) Capita made repeated requests for the same information while the Council failed to deal properly with the repeated enquiries and complaints from Ms Orwell and Councillor Benn;
(nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn nnnnnnn) there was a lack of clarity about whether a review should or should not be held where a Notice of Proceedings Possession is issued and the arrears are wholly are mainly attributable to the delay in determining a Housing Benefit claim.
(oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooo) Ms Orwell received a summons for Council Tax arrears before the Council had assessed her entitlement for Council Tax Benefit. She took a day off work to attend Court.
Recommended remedy
The Ombudsman finds that the maladministration caused Ms Orwell injustice in recognition of which the Council should pay her £900.
2 99/A/2636/2637/2767 Introduction
1. Ms Orwell’s complaint is that she incurred arrears of rent and Council Tax because of the Council’s failure to determine her claim for Housing and Council Tax Benefits; and that, as a result, she received a summons for her Council Tax arrears and was subject to possession proceedings.
2. For legal reasons, this report does not use the real names of the people concerned1. The complainant, the Council and Councillor Benn were invited to comment on a draft of this report before the conclusions were written. I have taken account of their comments in preparing the final text and reaching my conclusions.
Legal and Administrative Background
3. The Council is required to determine a properly made claim for Housing and Council Tax Benefit within two weeks, or as soon as is reasonably practicable thereafter.2 Since December 1997 the Council has contracted out the administration of Housing Benefit to Capita, a private company. Capita is responsible for the assessment of claims, while the Council retains responsibility for determinations.
4. The Housing Act 1996 empowered councils which are housing authorities to elect to operate an “introductory tenancy regime”. Under this regime, councils may grant an introductory tenancy for a “trial period” of one year. At the end of the trial period, the tenancy becomes a secure tenancy unless the Council has gained possession or is in the process of doing so. Within the trial period the Council may bring an introductory tenancy to an end by obtaining a Court Order for possession. The Court is obliged to make such an order if the Council has served a Notice on the tenant stating that the Court will be asked to make an order; the reasons for the decision to apply for the order; a date after which proceedings for possession may be begun; the tenant’s right to make a request within 14 days of the Notice for the Council to review its decision; and informing the tenant that if he or she needs help or advice about the Notice, the tenant should take it immediately to a Citizen’s Advice Bureau, a housing aid centre, a law centre or a solicitor. Where a request is made for a review the decision on the review has to be taken by a person who was not involved in the original decision and who is senior to the person who took that decision. The tenant has the right to request an oral hearing. A hearing may be adjourned by the person hearing the review or at the request of the
1 Local Government Act 1974, Section 30(3)
2 Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987, Regulation 76 and Council Tax Benefit (General) Regulations 1992, Regulation 66
3 99/A/2636/2637/2767 tenant. The Council must inform the tenant of the decision on the review and - if the decision is to confirm the original decision - the reasons for it.3
5. The 1996 Act does not state the grounds on which a Council may obtain an order to obtain possession of a dwelling held as an introductory tenancy. But DoE Circular 2/97, which offers guidance on the relevant sections of the Act, says:
“18 An introductory tenancy will usually be brought to an end because the tenant has breached the terms of the tenancy agreement. It is important, therefore, that introductory tenancy agreements clearly set out the responsibilities of both the tenant and the landlord.
19 It is envisaged that the majority of possession cases for introductory tenants will relate to persistent anti-social behaviour or rent arrears...... ”
6. Lambeth Council’s housing stock is managed by Neighbourhood Housing Offices. The Housing Department’s central computer system is not fully compatible with the Housing Benefit computer system. There are liaison arrangements between Housing and Housing Benefit officers in cases where Housing Benefit difficulties are contributing to a tenant’s rent arrears. Housing Officers can either send Benefit Officers details of cases about which they are concerned or discuss them with Benefit Officers at regular meetings.
Investigation
Ms Orwell claims Housing Benefit
7. Ms Orwell is a lone parent. She accepted an Introductory Tenancy on 14 December 1998. Her weekly rent was £56.87. She works part-time. She had claimed Housing and Council Tax Benefit on 9 December 1998.
8. On 16 December 1998 the Council wrote to ask Ms Orwell for proof of her Child Benefit entitlement and confirmation of the number of children in her family. On 6 January 1999 her mother took pay slips and a further claim form to the Council’s office. She was told that Ms Orwell was required to provide within 28 days proof that Child Benefit was in payment at her new address, otherwise her claim would be cancelled. On 8 January Ms Orwell’s mother called at the office again and provided more wage slips and proof of her daughter’s entitlement to Child Benefit at her old address. Meanwhile, Ms Orwell had returned her Child Benefit book to the Benefits
3 Housing Act 1996, sections 124 to 130 and Introductory Tenants (Review) Regulations 1997 (SI 1997 No 72)
4 99/A/2636/2637/2767 Agency so that a new one could be issued for her new address. Ms Orwell wrote to tell the Council about this. Her letter is date stamped as having been received by the Council on 20 January.
The Council writes to Ms Orwell about her rent arrears and Ms Orwell provides proof of her Child Benefit
9. On 15 January 1999 Ms Orwell received a letter from a Neighbourhood Housing Officer (NHO) saying that she had rent arrears of £284.35. The NHO advised that if she had claimed Housing Benefit, she should ensure the claim was being dealt with; she should pay her water rates and other charges; and she should keep copies of all letters to the Housing Benefit Office as well as her claim form.
10. On 27 January 1999 Ms Orwell’s mother called at the Housing Benefit Office with details of the Child Benefit award at the new address. Meanwhile, the NHO sent Ms Orwell a further letter saying that her rent arrears had increased to £398.09. Ms Orwell called at the Neighbourhood Office and discussed her case with officers. On 4 February she made a payment of £160. Thereafter she made regular monthly payments of £80.
11. On 19 February 1999 Officer X wrote to ask Ms Orwell to make an immediate payment of £328.70 and warned her that further action would be taken if she did not. On 23 February a Notice of Seeking Possession was served in error (it was not the correct Notice for an Introductory Tenancy). Ms Orwell took it to the Council on 26 February and asked for her Housing Benefit claim to be assessed urgently.
12. On 17 May 1999 Ms Orwell received a letter from Officer Y, a Neighbourhood Housing Officer, together with a Notice of Proceedings for Possession (NPP) under Section 128 of the Housing Act 1996. The letter said that the NPP had been served because of Ms Orwell’s rent arrears and that:
“ The Council has tried to resolve the problem by: rent arrears letters sent to tenant”.
The letter also told Ms Orwell of her right to seek a review and warned:
“If you do not request a review you will not be given another opportunity to put your case as the matter will be referred to court after the notice expires in 28 days and the court are obliged to give us possession of your home.”
“You should be aware that failure to keep an agreement to clear your rent arrears, or your eviction for a breach of the tenancy
5 99/A/2636/2637/2767 condition, could lead to publication of your name and address in the local press and elsewhere.”
The NPP referred to rent arrears of £920.47 and said that the Court proceedings would not begin until after 21 June 1999.
13. Ms Orwell replied. Her letter to Officer Y said that she was paying £80 a month and her arrears were due solely to the delay in determining her Housing Benefit claim.
14. On 4 June 1999 Ms Orwell increased her rent payments to £100. On 10 June she went to the Housing Benefit Office. She was told that her claim was entered on the computer but had not been assessed as proof of her Child Benefit entitlement was needed. Miss Orwell had provided this on 27 January (see paragraph 10) but she gave the Council further copies. She asked for her Benefit to be paid promptly.
Ms Orwell’s Councillor makes enquiries on her behalf
15. On 3 June 1999 Councillor Benn wrote to the Council’s Customer Services Manager asking for Ms Orwell’s case to be dealt with urgently in view of the Notice. He received a reply promising a report from the Director of Finance by 18 June.
16. Councillor Benn wrote again on 18 June. He complained of the unacceptable delays caused by the fault of Capita and said that he hoped the report by the Director of Finance would confirm that Ms Orwell’s claim had been determined and that the Housing Office had been informed that it no longer needed to threaten Ms Orwell with eviction.
17. On 16 July Councillor Benn wrote to the Customer Service Manager asking:
“What on earth is happening with this clearly urgent case?”
18. On 4 September Councillor Benn wrote to the Customer Service Manager to complain that:
“ Capita’s resounding silence in response to my repeated enquiries on behalf of [Ms Orwell] is disgraceful. She has now been summoned to Court for a hearing yesterday (3 September) on grounds of non-payment of Council Tax. In addition to the major anxieties she has been suffering because of Capita’s failure to settle her case, she has now had to lose earnings in order to attend Court. Please have this case settled without further delay and let me know why it has been handled so abysmally”.
6 99/A/2636/2637/2767
19. On 6 November Councillor Benn wrote again to the Customer Services Manager to ask:
“What in heaven’s name is being done on [Ms Orwell’s] case? An answer by Monday, please”.
20. On 15 November 1999 Councillor Benn received an E-mail from the Senior Customer Services Officer. It said:
“Following the various requests for a response you have made on behalf of your constituent, I can inform you that the position as we are aware is as follows.
[Ms Orwell’s] complaint is the subject of an Ombudsman’s enquiry, the response for which is late and has been chased several times by this office. Following your raising of this case ....this response was again chased with a request that a copy be sent to you as well as the Ombudsman.
I will of course keep chasing this with Capita and have today emailed ... the Complaints Manager to emphasise the importance of a very quick response to [Ms Orwell]. As soon as a response is received in this office then I will of course send it over to you.”
21. Meanwhile on 15 November Councillor Benn had written to the local Neighbourhood Office to say:
“ .....[Ms Orwell] must have huge rent arrears by now. On the evidence I have seen, CAPITA are entirely to blame. Moreover, despite numerous reminders, I cannot get a word of explanation for their inaction out of them.
I hope that the situation is well understood by your responsible Housing Officer and that [Ms Orwell] is being dealt with sympathetically. The matter has been causing her great distress.”
Ms Orwell receives a Council Tax summons
7 99/A/2636/2637/2767 22. After Ms Orwell received a summons for Council Tax arrears, she attended Court on 3 September 1999. She took a day off work. At Court she was told that the case would be withdrawn but she was liable for the court costs.
Ms Orwell complains to me
23. On 3 September Ms Orwell made a complaint to me. On 24 September my office made enquires of the Council’s Housing and Housing Benefit departments.
24. On 18 November the Housing department replied. Among other things, the reply said that:
(ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff) a Notice of Possession Proceedings had been served on Ms Orwell on 12 May but a review of the decision had not yet been held because no decision could be reached “until the Housing Benefit anomalies were resolved;”
(gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg) in reply to a formal referral made to Capita on 10 September, Capita had replied that no file or application form could be found in respect of Ms Orwell;
(hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh) seven letters, including the covering letter with the Notice, had been sent to Ms Orwell about her rent arrears;
(iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii) Ms Orwell’s case had been raised on two occasions at the fortnightly liaison meetings with Capita, but without result.
25. The Council provided several documents with its letter. These included an exchange between Officers X and Y. On 7 October Officer X had asked Officer Y: had there been an enquiry to Capita; what was the response; had a review hearing been held and, if not, when was it proposed that it would be held? Officer Y had replied that an enquiry had been made to Capita on 10 September but that no file was found; a claim
8 99/A/2636/2637/2767 form had been sent to Ms Orwell; no review had been held but an interview letter would be sent. Officer X replied:
“When are you proposing to hold a review you have just over six weeks before the tenancy lapses into a secured tenancy.....”
9 99/A/2636/2637/2767 Ms Orwell’s Housing Benefit claim is determined
26. On 22 November 1999 the Council told my office that Ms Orwell was entitled to Housing Benefit continuously from 14 December 1998. She was also entitled to Council Tax Benefit from December 1998 to 4 April 1999. Capita apologised to Ms Orwell for the distress and inconvenience she was caused as a result of the poor service she received, the Notice of Seeking Possession, and two summonses for Council Tax arrears. Capita also apologised for continually asking for the same information over a period of 10 months and for failing to process Ms Orwell’s claim. On 18 November Ms Orwell’s rent account was credited with a payment of £2,020.48. This left a credit of £294.23. Ms Orwell did have some remaining liability for the Council Tax, and she made arrangements to pay this. The Council agreed to waive the legal costs of the summonses.
27. On 9 January 2000 Ms Orwell’s claim for Benefit lapsed despite the renewal claim she made on 1 December. My office made enquires about this on 10 February. On 14 March the Council acknowledged that the claim had not been assessed. It could not explain the delay. Officers later said that the claim was assessed on 16 March. . Interviews with Council Housing Officers
28. Officer Y deals with rent arrear cases. She told my Investigator that she first wrote to Ms Orwell because six weeks had elapsed without any payments of Housing Benefit. Ms Orwell provided evidence to show that she had claimed Benefit and began making payments towards the rent which Officer Y believed were reasonable. So Officer Y had thought a review hearing was unnecessary because the problems were solely due to Housing Benefit delays.
29. Officer Y’s line manager, Officer X, told my Investigator that he believed that reviews should be held irrespective of the cause of the arrears. He thought that the process provided tenants with an opportunity to challenge the Council, for example where there were problems because of Housing Benefit delays, and also provided the Council with an opportunity to respond to criticism and identify administrative problems. If there were delays in determining Housing Benefit, this would be brought out by the review process and could be used as Aa stick with which to beat Capita@. However, he did not regard the steps taken by Officer Y as unreasonable in the circumstances of the case.
30. Officer X said that the liaison arrangements with Capita had been restricted because of Capita’s backlog: last year the Neighbourhood Office was allowed to make 55 enquires a month but currently it can only make 12-15 a fortnight.
10 99/A/2636/2637/2767 31. Officer Z chairs reviews of decisions to issue NPPs. He told my Investigator that he could understand Officer X’s view that reviews should be held in all cases where they are requested. But where there is an undetermined Housing Benefit claim, the review cannot be concluded unless the tenant has made it clear that he or she will not pay his or her share of the rent after Benefit has been paid. The Introductory Tenancy regime cannot work smoothly unless Benefit claims can be determined without unreasonable delay.
The Council’s view
32. On 31 October the Council sent me its comments on the draft of this report. The letter describes action the Council and Capita have taken and are taking to improve Housing Benefit administration. It says that the Council’s policy on issuing Notice of Proceeding for Possession was reviewed late in 1999. As a result, NPPs are no longer served where it is clear that the rent arrears are solely accounted for by Housing Benefit delays. The full text of the letter is attached at Appendix A.
The Complainant’s view
33. Ms Orwell told my Investigator that she claimed Benefit before the tenancy began so as to avoid delays and that she provided all the required information promptly. She explained her situation to Housing Officers and made regular payments towards the rent despite receiving no advice about what to pay. She was extremely distressed to receive the Notice of Proceedings for Possession. She feared that she might be “named and shamed”and believed the Council would repossess her flat. Her mother’s help had been invaluable. Even so, Ms Orwell had to take five days paid leave to try to resolve the matter. She had thought about giving up work. She believes the Council’s failure to determine Benefit claims properly and promptly acts as a disincentive to claimants to seek work. She doubts whether her claim would have been determined without the intervention of my office.
11 99/A/2636/2637/2767 Conclusions
34. This investigation has high-lighted two points of general importance:
(a) the inter-action between delay in deciding Housing Benefit claims and the law relating to Introductory Tenancies; and
(b) the importance of having clear policies on the issue of Notices of Proceedings for Possession when rent arrears are caused wholly or mainly by delay in determining Benefit claims.
35. On the facts of Ms Orwell’s case, I find that there was the following maladministration:
(ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt) there was gross and unjustified delay in determining the Benefit claim Ms Orwell made in December 1998. It was not decided until November 1999;
(uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu uuu) there was unreasonable delay in deciding the further Benefit claim she made on 1 December 1999. It was not determined until 16 March 2000;
(vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv vvv) on 23 February 1999 the Council wrongly issued a Notice of Seeking Possession (it was not the correct Notice for an Introductory Tenancy). Subsequently, on 17 May the Council issued a Notice of Proceedings for Possession together with a letter which threatened that Ms Orwell’s name might be disclosed to the local press if she failed to keep to an agreement to clear the arrears, when it knew that the arrears were attributable to the delay in determining her claim for Benefit;
12 99/A/2636/2637/2767 (wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww wwwwwwwwwwwwwww) Capita made repeated requests for the same information;
(xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxx) the Council failed to deal properly with the repeated enquiries and complaints from Ms Orwell and Councillor Benn;
(yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy yyy) there was a lack of clarity about whether a review should or should not be held where a Notice of Proceedings for Possession had been issued and the arrears were wholly attributable to the delay in determining a Housing Benefit claim;
(zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz) Ms Orwell received a summons for Council Tax arrears before the Council had assessed her entitlement for Council Tax Benefit.
36. As a consequence of this maladministration, there was injustice to Ms Orwell. She was caused prolonged anxiety about the growth of her arrears of rent and Council Tax, despite her efforts to get the Council to deal with the cause of the arrears and its own delay in determining her Benefit claim. She was caused acute worry by the Notice of Seeking Possession, the Notice of Proceedings for
13 99/A/2636/2637/2767 Possession and the summonses for Council Tax. She was caused further distress by the threat that her name might be disclosed in the press. I recommend the Council should pay Ms Orwell £900 in recognition of the injustice caused by its maladministration.
E B C Osmotherly CB 7 December 2000 Local Government Ombudsman 21 Queen Anne’s Gate London SW1H 9BU
14 99/A/2636/2637/2767 APPENIDX A
Letter from London Borough of Lambeth reproduced by the Local Government Ombudsman
31st October 2000
Dear
Re: Draft Report
I confirm that your report is an accurate summary of events.
The introduction of the Academy system has allowed Capita to record the receipt of documents associated with each case. This means that officers are aware of the current situation in respect of any given claim and so can avoid asking the claimant to provide supporting evidence that has already been provided.
A Primary Assessment Team has also been created, whose job is to examine all claims that are received and send out the initial request for any further information still needed to undertake the assessment. Once all the documentation is received, officers from this section pass the file to the assessors, who then complete the assessment process, which enables the claims to be determined. With the agreement of the council, Capita have identified an additional resource to help assess the claims and a significant proportion of claims are now assessed by Capita officers at their Mendip Council site. This is helping to reduce the delays in processing claims.
In addition, Capita is currently reviewing all its working practices and procedures with a view to eliminating unnecessary delays in processing claim. The results of this review will then be implemented in due course, after consultation with the council. The Partnership Board has already approved additional expenditure to enable the filing system to be re-organised and a file tracking system to be installed. This should overcome the problem of not being able to find files, when the new system becomes full operational in December/January 2000/2001.
In addition to Capita’s own review, the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) has recently completed an inspection of the Benefits administration at Lambeth. Its findings will also help to highlight the particular aspects of the service, which need to be improved and both Capita and the Council are committed to implementing it recommendations.
It is recognised that the issuing of the Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP) was procedurally incorrect, as such a notice is only relevant to secure tenancies.
At the time of issuing the notice of Proceeding for Possession (NPP), Council policy as applied in this case was to serve a NPP on Introductory tenants who owed £300 or more in rent to the Council. This policy was subsequently reviewed in late 1999 and the instruction is now not to serve a NPP where it is clear that the debt is solely accounted for by housing benefit delays.
15 99/A/2636/2637/2767 Given the new instructions on not serving a NPP where the debt is solely attributed to delays in the processing of housing benefit claims, the issue of whether reviews should be held or not in these circumstances should not arise in the future. However at the time of the case and subsequent to the serving of the NPP it s recognised that the tenants right to a review of the case was not afforded.
The review was not proceeded with as in the view of the housing office it was recognised that there were outstanding issues relating to housing benefit. They concluded that it would serve no purpose to carry out a review as regular payments were being made into the rent account and it became clear that the tenant was not attempting to evade the payment of rent. Therefore no further legal action was planned in this case.
Procedurally the tenant should have been informed of the decision not to proceed with a review of the decision to review the introductory tenancy, which was enacted by the service of the NPP.
The council has a policy of naming and shaming tenants who are evicted and therefore subject of a Court Order. The standard introductory tenancy rent arrears letters are generic to those who owe rent to the Council and mention the fact that…. “Failure to pay your rent could lead to publication of your name and address in the local press and elsewhere”. As mentioned this can only take place where a tenant is evicted.
In view of the findings of the Ombudsman in this report the Council intends to review the current procedures and arrangements for managing Introductory Tenancies, carry out training and re-issue new revised guidance in light of the review o the current arrangements.
Yours sincerely
16 99/A/2636/2637/2767