Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an application for discretionary housing and council tax support. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about the service he received from the Council when he applied for discretionary housing and council tax support. In particular, he complains about an email the Council sent refusing his claim.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the decision email from the Council and the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X applied for discretionary housing and council tax support. The Council refused his claim because his income was too high and he was not getting Council Tax Reduction. Mr X says the response was vile and discriminatory. Mr X appealed.
5. The Council considered the appeal but did not change the decision. But, it failed to send the appeal reply to Mr X.
6. Mr X complained. While the Council was dealing with the complaint it withdrew a court summons for council tax arrears. In response to the complaint the Council explained again why Mr X does not qualify for discretionary support and said there was nothing inappropriate in the decision letter. However, the Council apologised for any offense caused and apologised for not sending the appeal reply. The Council signposted Mr X to advice agencies and sources of debt and budgeting advice.
7. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. I have read the decision letter and there is nothing that is offensive or inappropriate. The decision explained why the Council had declined the claim and explained the purpose of the discretionary scheme. I appreciate Mr X disagreed with the decision and was offended by it but there is nothing in the response that requires an investigation. The Council also acted appropriately by signposting Mr X to sources of support and withdrawing a summons.
8. The Council did not send Mr X the outcome of his appeal. I appreciate this may have been frustrating but there is not enough evidence of injustice to require an investigation. This is because the appeal response confirmed Mr X was not entitled to discretionary support. The Council should have responded but as Mr X did not lose out on any support, and the Council apologised and withdrew a summons, there is not enough injustice to require an investigation.
9. Mr X has raised other complaints with us. For example, he complains the welfare team delayed contacting him and he complains about the Council’s on-going contact regarding his council tax. However, we can only consider complaints that have completed a council’s complaint process and the only issue that has done this is the complaint about the discretionary support. Mr X can raise the other issues as new complaints with the Council. If he is dissatisfied with the Council’s response he can make a new complaint to us.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman