Summary: Mr B complained about the Council’s failure to consider backdating a Discretionary Housing Payment and review the amount it awarded. We did not find fault in how the Council considered the amount to award Mr B. However, we found fault in the Council’s failure to consider Mr B’s application to backdate his payment which caused him inconvenience. The Council agreed to reconsider Mr B’s request for a backdated payment to address the injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains about the Council’s handling of his application for a Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP). He says the amount awarded is too low and says it did not properly consider his backdating application. Mr B says this has caused him financial hardship and distress. Mr B says this has affected his health.

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. I have read the complaint and Mr B's comments.
6. I put enquiries to the Council and reviewed its response and documents it provided.
7. I shared with Mr B and the Council my draft decision. I have considered their comments before making this my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

Discretionary Housing Payments Guidance Manual

8. The discretionary housing payments guidance manual issued by the Department for Work and Pensions says councils may award a discretionary housing payment (DHP) where a council considers a claimant needs further financial support. This is towards housing costs. Eligibility depends on the applicant’s entitlement to either housing benefit or the housing cost element of universal credit. The scheme is purely discretionary, a claimant does not have a statutory right to a payment.
9. The Discretionary Financial Assistance Regulations 2001 (as amended) govern the DHP scheme. The Regulations give councils broad discretion. But they must act fairly, reasonably, and consistently, and consider the claimant’s financial circumstances and any other relevant reasons when deciding the application.
10. When someone applies for a DHP they must provide details of their income, capital, expenses, and any other information a council considers reasonable and necessary.
11. A council should consider each application for backdating on its merits. There are no limits on the period for backdating period although it cannot backdate before 2001 (before the scheme began).

The Council’s Discretionary Housing Payments Procedures

12. When deciding a DHP application the Council considers all the claimant’s income and expenses to decide if there is enough income to cover any shortfall in rent.
13. The Council do not take personal independence payments (PIP) or carers allowance into account when considering awarding a DHP.
14. A claimant may ask the Council to backdate a DHP. However, this depends on the circumstances and the request being reasonable. The claimant should show ‘good cause’ to explain why an application is late about and the claimant could not apply earlier.

What Happened

15. In May 2021, Mr B applied to the Council for a DHP. In his application he asked the Council to help with the shortfall in his rent and asked it to backdate this to January 2021.
16. In June 2021, the Council awarded Mr B a DHP between May 2021 until November 2021. It said that it would restrict some expenses that it felt were either unreasonable or too high. It also explained that Mr B had not provided enough evidence to prove some of the amounts.
17. In the same month, Mr B sought a review of the awarded payment. As evidence in support of his application Mr B provided screen shots of his various bills which detailed his regular expenses and outgoings. Mr B said he:

• was struggling to pay the shortfall in his rent;
• was suffering from mental health issues; and
• wanted the Council to consider backdating the DHP to January 2021.

18. The Council reviewed the payment and responded to Mr B saying:

• Mr B had not made his claim for a DHP until May 2021;
• It could not backdate the DHP for such a long period of time; and
• Mr B had failed to seek advice and support in reasonable time.

19. On review, the Council did not uphold Mr B’s application for backdating the payment. The Council told him that as there was no right of appeal, he could apply for a judicial review or complain to the Ombudsman.
20. Mr B contacted the Ombudsman in June 2021. In response to my enquiries the Council accepted it had failed to consider Mr B’s backdating request when assessing his original application. The Council offered to review this provided Mr B supplies it with further information about his income and outgoings.

Analysis

21. Our role is to decide if the Council has calculated the DHP without fault, it is not to decide what the DHP should be. DHP’s are discretionary so we consider whether the Council followed the Government guidance, its own procedures and considered all relevant information when deciding to exercise its discretion. Provided it did so, we cannot question the merits of the Council’s decision or direct it to pay a DHP.
22. The Council has shown it considered Mr B’s application having before it all relevant information including documents from the Department for Work and Pensions, TV licensing and Mr B’s car insurance. It awarded Mr B a DHP for a period longer than the usual DHP payment period after considering his health issues. I am satisfied therefore; the Council has shown it exercised its discretion to decide the amount it would award Mr B without fault.
23. In its response to my enquiries, the Council recognised it acted with fault in overlooking Mr B’s application for backdating the DHP in May 2021. I agree the Council acted with fault. However, on receiving Mr B’s application for a review in June 2021, the Council did consider his application to backdate the payment to January 2021. The Council did not agree to backdate the DHP. It responded to Mr B within twelve days, so without delay. The fault however, caused Mr B inconvenience in having to remind the Council of his application for backdating. The Council should have considered whether it could backdate Mr B’s application when it considered his original DHP application. For that failure Mr B should receive an apology. I find an apology coupled with the Council’s offer to now review backdating Mr B’s DHP, inviting him to present further information to help that further review, is a satisfactory remedy.

Agreed action

24. Within one month of the final decision the Council agrees to;

• Apologise to Mr B for failing to consider backdating his DHP when the Council first received the application and set out what information it needs for the Council to carry out a further review.

Back to top

Final decision

25. In completing my investigation, I find the Council acted without fault in its consideration of the amount to award Mr B. However, I find the Council at fault for failing to consider Mr B’s request to backdate the DHP at the time of his original application. The Council agreed my remedy to address the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman