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, complains about the Council’s decision not to award another Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP). Ms X wants the Council to provide financial support so she can stay in her property until July.

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 DHP policy and the Council’s decision. I considered our Assessment Code and invited Ms X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Council can award a DHP to help someone pay the difference between their Universal Credit (housing costs) and the rent. DHPs are intended to provide short-term temporary support until the person can find somewhere cheaper to live. The Council does not normally make awards for more than three months. The Council will take into account the amount of money remaining in the DHP budget and the impact an award would have on other people who may wish to claim.
5. Ms X received a DHP for her previous two-bedroom home. She moved in April 2021 due to disrepair. She moved to a three-bedroom home with a higher rent. There is a shortfall of about £800 between Ms X’s benefit and the rent. Ms X says she had to take the property as it was the only one available which would allow her daughter to remain at her school and that allowed pets. Ms X intends to move in July when her daughter has finished her exams.
6. Ms X applied for a DHP for her new home. She explained why she had to move to a more expensive home. She provided information about problems her daughter was facing.
7. The Council awarded a DHP from April to July. It declined to make a further award because the property is unaffordable and Ms X chose to move to a home which is too large and more expensive than her previous property for which she had also received support. Ms X had also said she would not leave until next summer. The Council explained it has limited resources and must prioritise applications from people who have not received any support. It said it cannot award another DHP for an unsustainable tenancy. It accepted location is important but said the key factor for renters is affordability. The Council invited Ms X to reapply in February when it would assess if there was enough remaining DHP money to consider another award. It also invited Ms X to reapply in April when there will be a new DHP budget or said she could apply for help with moving costs.
8. Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision and says the Council should support her to stay until the summer.
9. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council’s decision is consistent with the policy so there is no reason to start an investigation. We are not an appeal body and cannot tell the Council to award another DHP when that would be contrary to the policy. I can only consider if the decision is consistent with the policy and it is. Ms X disagrees with the decision but that does not mean the Council has done anything wrong.

Back to top

Final decision

10. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman