Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to award a Discretionary Housing Payment to the complainant. 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). Ms X is paying back an advance of Universal Credit at £95 a month which means she cannot afford the shortfall in her rent of £85 a month.

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 and invited Ms X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

DHP policy

4. DHPs are discretionary payments to help people pay their rent. The Council can award a DHP if someone has a shortfall between their rent and the amount they receive from Universal Credit (UC) for help with their housing costs. The policy says the Council will not award a DHP if the shortfall is due to someone repaying advance payments of UC. The policy also says the person must demonstrate they have a financial need and provide evidence.

What happened

5. Ms X pays rent of £595 a month. She receives help with her housing costs through UC. Ms X had an advance payment of UC which she is repaying at £95 a month. There is a shortfall of £85 a month between the rent and the amount Ms X receives from UC to pay the rent.
6. Ms X applied for a DHP to help pay the shortfall. She provided evidence of some expenditure including internet costs and fuel. Ms X indicated she should not have to provide proof of financial hardship because anyone who is unemployed and getting UC will be in financial hardship.
7. The Council decided not to award a DHP because the £95 Ms X repays each month cannot be taken into account. It also found that the financial information Ms X had provided showed she had enough surplus income to pay the shortfall. It also said that Ms X had explained that someone had paid her car insurance for her, that she was not currently making payments towards a laptop that had been bought for her, and she had not provided evidence of gym membership.

Assessment

8. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Ms X is repaying £95 a month because she received an advance payment of UC. This repayment makes it harder to pay the £85 shortfall. But, the policy says a DHP cannot be made to cover repayments of UC. In addition, Ms X did not provide evidence to show that, discounting the £95, she cannot pay the £85 shortfall. The Council’s decision is consistent with the policy so there is no reason to start an investigation. In addition, we are not an appeal body and have no power to award a DHP.

Back to top

Final decision

9. 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