Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council handled a housing benefit claim. Any investigation will not lead to a different outcome. Moreover, there is not enough evidence of significant injustice to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms Y says the Council:

• Failed to tell her she was entitled to a spare room subsidy for a carer when it knew she received Personal Independence Payments (PIP). As a result, she had to claim discretionary housing payments (DHP) for years.
• Failed to disregard PIP and Income Employment and Support Allowance when deciding whether to award her DHP.
• Refused to award her DHP on a long-term basis and instead she had to apply for it every year.
• Asked her to provide a doctor’s letter which costs £25 but she cannot afford this as she is on benefits.
• Failed to respond to her complaint properly.

2. Ms Y also says the refusal to renew the DHP means she now has rent arrears.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome,

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Ms Y and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council says Ms Y’s appeal against its housing benefit (HB) decision was successful and her claim was amended to allow for a second bedroom. It also says it backdated any underpayments to April 2021.
8. Therefore, the Council has achieved the outcome Ms Y wanted which was for the Council to allow her to claim for a second bedroom.
9. Any further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.
10. Furthermore, any shortfall in rent prior to the Council allowing Ms Y’s appeal was met by the DHPs it had agreed.
11. I recognise Ms Y’s comments about having to apply for DHP every year. But HB claims have to be renewed as well. I recognise the Council asked her to get a letter from her doctor in support of her application. However, she did not end up paying for this letter since the Council upheld her appeal without it. So, Ms Y did not suffer any financial loss which requires remedying.
12. Therefore, there is no significant injustice in what happened to warrant an investigation.
13. In cases where we do not investigate the matters in a complaint, we do not separately investigate the Council’s complaint handling process.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms Y ’s complaint because any investigation will not lead to a different outcome. Moreover, there is no significant injustice to warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman