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 another Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP).

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 DHP policy. I invited Ms X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

DHP policy

4. The government gives each council a limited amount of money each year to fund DHPs. DHPs are discretionary payments to help people, in exceptional circumstances, pay their rent and to make up the difference between their rent and housing benefit. There is no right to a DHP. In deciding whether to award a DHP the Council will consider how much money is available in the DHP budget.

What happened

5. Ms X has a shortfall in her rent and living expenses. To help meet this shortfall the Council awarded DHPs of £4680 between April and September 2019. The award letter in July said that DHPs are offered as a short-term solution and come from a limited fund. It said the Council might not offer a further DHP after the current award ended in September.
6. Ms X applied for another DHP in October. The Council refused the application in November due to the limited nature of the DHP fund. It confirmed the decision in December and said Ms X can reapply in April when the Council will have received new DHP funding.
7. Ms X disagrees with the decision. She says her tenancy does not end until 2021 and reapplying in April 2020 will not help. She says she has been applying for better paid jobs and the Council took too long to assess her application.

Assessment

8. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The policy says there is no right to a DHP and the funding for DHPs comes from a limited fund. The policy also says that the Council will take into account the available funding when deciding whether to award a DHP. The Council has awarded DHPs of £4680 but decided to refuse the October application due to the DHP funding. In addition, the Council had previously warned Ms X that it might not make a further award.
9. The Council’s decision is consistent with the policy so there is no reason to start an investigation. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body and cannot intervene simply because a council makes a decision that someone disagrees with.
10. Ms X complains about the time taken by the Council to make the latest DHP decision. However, she applied in October and the Council made its decision in November. This does not represent a delay which requires an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. 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