Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to award another 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). She says the Council has not assessed her income correctly and she does not have enough money to pay her rent.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the Council’s DHP decisions, an email to Ms X’s MP and proof of Ms X’s income. I considered our Assessment Code and comments Ms X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. A council can award a DHP to help people pay their rent. The DHP policy says the awards are a short-term measure and discretionary. Nobody has a right to a DHP and the Council must consider its overall budget when deciding whether to grant a DHP.
5. Ms X moved to her home in 2019. The Council has awarded nearly £7000 in DHPs since then. The Council had told Ms X it might not make further awards.
6. Ms X applied for another DHP in March 2021. She said she had rent arrears of £3250. The Council refused the application. The Council decided Ms X had enough income to cover the difference between the £1375 awarded by Universal Credit (UC) for her housing costs and the rent of £1500. The Council noted that Ms X received non-housing related income from UC, earnings and student finance totalling £2671; it decided this was sufficient for her to pay the shortfall of £125 between her rent and the UC housing costs. The Council also explained that its DHP grant had been cut by 45% and she had already received nearly £7000 in DHPs.
7. Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision. She says the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has wrongly assessed the income from her student loan. Ms X has asked the DWP for a review. Ms X also says she does not receive £1375 in housing costs because the DWP deducts money for her student finance.
8. Ms X says a particular officer always deals with her applications and she does not think this officer has dealt with her fairly. Two different officers carried out a review of the March 2021 application.
9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Ms X disagrees with the way the DWP has assessed her student finance but unless the DWP changes its decision it is not fault for the Council to treat Ms X as having income as stated by the DWP. In addition, the DHP policy does not say the Council will disregard part of someone’s student support. Also, it is not wrong for the Council to treat Ms X as receiving housing costs of £1375 because that is the stated housing costs award. Ms X may receive less but this is because the DWP deducts money for her student finance and wages.
10. The DHP policy says the Council will make a DHP as a short-term award and consider the available budget. In this context the Council is correct to consider the previous awards and the limited funds it has available to make further DHPs awards. In addition, while Ms X is a critical of an officer, this officer agreed DHP awards and is not the only officer involved in considering Ms X’s applications.
11. We are not an appeal body and have no power to award a DHP. I can only consider if the Council followed the correct process and there is nothing to suggest it did not.

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