Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to award a discretionary housing payment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, disagrees with the Council’s decision not to award a discretionary housing payment (DHP). She says the Council has dismissed her health and medical evidence. She wants the Council to award another payment and backdate it.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I considered the discretionary housing payment policy and comments Ms X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Discretionary housing payment

4. DHPs provide financial support to people in significant hardship or in exceptional circumstances to help them meet their housing costs. A DHP is not intended to be a permanent means of support. The policy says people may be asked to provide evidence of any items set out in the application (for example, bank statements).

What happened

5. Ms X moved to her home in 2015. The rent is £90 a month more than the maximum she can receive in housing benefit. Ms X received 11 DHP awards since 2015.
6. Ms X applied for a DHP in April 2019. She provided a bank statement. Ms X had redacted some information on the bank statement. In its place she had hand written that the expenditure was for rent and for bill/groceries. Ms X also provided a tenancy agreement where she had redacted the name of the landlord. Ms X provided further information where she referred to paying for items with her credit card. The Council asked for more evidence about the credit card payments. Ms X provide medical evidence to support her application but did not provide the additional information the Council had asked for. Ms X said the Council’s request breached her human rights. She also says that giving details about her landlord could put her tenancy at risk because her landlord does not want to rent to people who receive benefits.
7. The Council declined to make another DHP award. It said Ms X had received many DHP awards and they were not designed to provide support for prolonged periods of time. The Council also said she had not provided all the information it had asked for in terms of unredacted bank statements and tenancy agreement.
8. In response to her complaint the Council said it had not ignored her medical evidence but, as a DHP comes from public funds, it must have full information before making an award. It suggested Ms X apply for other benefits to boost her income and it offered support from social services. The current position is that the Council will carry out another review of the DHP application if Ms X provides all the information the Council has asked for (for example, unredacted bank statements and information about the credit card expenditure).

Assessment

9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The policy says the Council may award a DHP to people in hardship. It also says people will be required to provide evidence to support their application for a DHP. The Council’s request for Ms X to provide further information, so it can do another review, is consistent with the policy. This means there is no reason to start an investigation. In addition, it is for the Council, not the Ombudsman, to decide if Ms X is entitled to another DHP. I have no power to tell the Council to give Ms X another DHP.
10. Ms X has given many reasons why she does not think the Council can ask for additional information and she says it could put her tenancy at risk. But, it is not wrong for a council to ask for evidence to demonstrate financial hardship and the redacted information may prompt the Council to do further checks to ensure any award it makes is correct. In addition, the Council has told Ms X it will do all it can to ensure the privacy of her tenancy and it is not fault for a council to require sight of an unredacted tenancy.
11. The lack of a further DHP may be causing financial stress but it is open to Ms X to provide the information the Council has asked for and DHPs are not meant to be a permanent addition to housing benefit. Ms X has expressed concern that the Council may not keep her data secure. However, this concern does not exempt her from providing the information and, if there is a data breach, she can complain to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman