Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision not to award him discretionary housing payment, causing him to fall into rent arears. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council as it has not properly considered Mr X’s transport costs and wrongly advised him public transport costs are not allowed for people not working. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and reconsider his application for discretionary housing payment.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision not to award him discretionary housing payment.

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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of this complaint I considered the information provided my Mr X. I made enquiries to the Council and considered the response received. I sent a draft of this decision to Mr X and the Council and considered comments received in response.

Back to top

What I found

6. Discretionary housing payments (DHPs) are financial payments that a council may provide to someone who needs help to meet their housing costs. (Discretionary Housing Payments Guidance manual: March 2018)
7. Although the regulations that govern DHPs give council’s a very broad discretion, Government guidance stresses that a council must make decisions in accordance with ordinary principles of good decision making. Councils have a duty to act fairly, reasonably and consistently. A council must decide each case on its own merits and decision making must be consistent throughout the year. (Para 1.9 Discretionary Housing Payments Guidance manual: March 2018)
8. When an applicant has applied for a DHP, the Council must tell him/her of the decision in writing or electronically (if the claimant agrees). The information should include explanations and/or reasons for non-payment. A council must provide a decision as soon as is reasonably practicable. (Para 3.16 Discretionary Housing Payments Guidance manual: March 2018)
9. The Council’s Reasonable Expenditure Guidance allows for the Council to consider transport costs as an expenditure. The guidance allows the Council to award £13 per week for public transport costs, based on the weekly cost of a bus ticket.

What happened

10. Mr X lives in a property with two bedrooms but only needs one bedroom. Mr X currently has to top up his rent by £70 per month as housing benefit does not cover the full amount.
11. The Council had been paying Mr X DHP to top up the shortfall in his rent but stopped in March 2019.
12. Mr X made a new DHP application in April 2019. The Council refused Mr X’s application for DHP and provided him with a decision in late April 2019. The decision said the Council could not award Mr X DHP as he needs a long term solution to his housing costs and DHP should only be used as a short term solution. The Council also said it had paid Mr X DHP since 2013.
13. In early May 2019 Mr X wrote to the Council asking for it to review the decision. Mr X provided an income and expenditure form he completed. Mr X sent a further letter to the Council as he had not received a response.
14. The Council reviewed its decision not to award Mr X DHP in July 2019 and told Mr X it would not change the decision.
15. Mr X wrote to the Council on 26 July 2019 asking it look at the decision again. The Council wrote to Mr X in late October 2019 saying it upheld the decision to refuse DHP for the following reasons:
• The Council said it considered the income and expenses form Mr X provided and thinks Mr X can afford the shortfall in his rent. It does not allow public transport as a reasonable expense for someone who is not working. The Council did not take into account Mr X’s travel expenses. It calculated his income exceeded his expenses by £100 per month and decided Mr X could afford the £70 per month shortfall in his rent.
• Mr X has received DHP since 2013 and the purpose of DHP is to provide a short term solution to rent shortfall while a longer term solution is sought.
• Mr X has not provided evidence he has been seeking to reduce his rent shortfall and the Council previously offered him a smaller property which he did not move in to.
• The Council considered Mr X’s medical issues but decided these did not mean he had to remain in the same property or that the property needs adaptations.
16. In November 2019 Mr X provided the Council with further proof of income, a P60 and a benefit award letter. The Council told Mr X there was no further review of DHP. Mr X remained dissatisfied so complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

17. Mr X says the Council did not properly consider his medical issues and did not properly calculate his income and expenditure when deciding not to award him DHP.
18. From the evidence seen, I consider there was fault in the decision making process. The Council wrongly told Mr X it did not consider transport expenses for people not working and decided on that basis not include Mr X’s transport costs in its assessment on this basis. In response to my enquiries the Council said there was no blanket policy not to allow transport costs for those not working.
19. Mr X told the Council he has public transport costs of £44 per month and uses public transport for shopping and to attend medical appointments. The Council’s reasonable expenditure guidance allows for £13 per week for public transport costs. Had the Council considered Mr X’s transport costs or applied the figure in its guidance it would have reduced his monthly surplus to below £70, suggesting he could not make up the rent shortfall.
20. In relation to the medical evidence Mr X supplied I am satisfied the Council received this and considered it as part of the decision.
21. As I have found fault I need to consider whether this caused an injustice to Mr X. I cannot say whether Mr X should receive DHP as this is a decision for the Council. However, Mr X cannot be sure the Council made the correct decision as it did not consider his transport costs or provide him with a valid explanation as to why these were not considered.

Agreed action

Within one month of my final decision, the Council agreed to carry out the following and provide evidence to the Ombudsman it has done so:

• Apologise to Mr X for wrongly telling him the Council does not consider transport expenses for those not working.
• Reconsider Mr X’s application for DHP and write to him with the outcome, backdating his claim to April 2019 should the Council decide to award Mr X DHP.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council which caused injustice to Mr X. The Council has agreed to the above actions to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman