Summary: We found fault on Ms J’s complaint about the Council failing to give her information, or signpost her, to the Discretionary Housing Payment fund when she presented as homeless and in need of financial help to pay a deposit to secure another property. It failed to properly explain to her why she was not eligible in its decision letters. The agreed action remedies the injustice this caused.

The complaint

1. Ms J complains about the Council for:
1. failing to properly assess her request for help with money for a rent deposit under it’s the Self-Help Private Renting Scheme;
2. trying to get the property’s agent to sign a contract so only it would provide all future tenants, which they refused; and
3. leaving it too late for it to consider her application under its Discretionary Housing Payment fund.
2. As a result, she suffered stress, inconvenience, and frustration while having to find the money for the deposit herself.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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)
4. 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)

Back to top

Discretionary Housing Payment Policy (2021/2022)

5. The Council offers help if a person needs additional financial help with their housing costs. It is extra money it can pay on top of a claimant’s normal housing benefit/housing element of universal credit if it decides they need extra help.
6. The scheme is discretionary and is a short-term emergency fund. They are usually awarded for short periods to those taking steps to help themselves by looking for work or somewhere else to work, for example. Funding is limited and when it has run out, the Council will not accept further applications. They are not automatically renewed.
7. Its overriding aim is homelessness prevention and to maintain a person’s tenancy.
8. To qualify, a person needs to be entitled to, and in receipt of, housing benefit or housing element of universal credit and need financial assistance with housing costs.

Back to top

The Self-Help Housing Solutions Private Renting Scheme

9. This scheme is to help prevent homelessness and provides financial support to those in need to secure private rented accommodation. It is available to any applicant who makes a homeless application.
10. It provides financial support to landlords or estate agents to encourage them to take its applicants who it asks to give a minimum contract of 6-12 months with rent at the local housing rate.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered all the information Ms J sent, including the Council’s response to my enquiries. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Ms J and the Council. I considered the Council’s response.

Back to top

What I found

12. Ms J lived at a friend’s flat until she was told she would need to leave. Towards the end of 2021, she asked the Council for help through a rent deposit, bond, and guarantee scheme as she could not pay the deposit for a new rented flat she had found. She had looked at a government website which mentioned this kind of help.
13. The Council replied saying to get this help, she would have to be threatened with homelessness. She needed to make a homeless application first. Ms J replied saying she was threatened with homelessness.
14. She complains the Council put her through ‘The Self-Help Housing Solutions Private Renting Scheme’ (the Scheme). She claims the estate agent for the new property was unfamiliar with it. The Council said it could not help until the agent agreed to complete some documents. The agent refused to sign the documents which meant she lost the property. She says she later found out it refused because the Council was trying to get the landlord to agree only it would provide all future tenants for the property. She provided no evidence showing this and the Council denied it.
15. When the agent refused to agree, she contacted the Council about help from its Discretionary Housing Payment fund (DHP fund) instead. By this time, due to the time the Council had taken with the other scheme, she could not apply for help from it. This is because it takes 28 days to process an application but, she needed the deposit money within a few days to secure the property.
16. Ms J believes the Council should have directed her to the DHP fund sooner. She also believes it should not have tried to negotiate a separate agreement with the agent while dealing with her application under the Scheme.
17. The Council confirmed Ms J contacted it in September 2021 saying she faced homelessness and needed help paying the deposit on a property she found. She was seen and asked to provide documents to prove homelessness on a couple of occasions. She was also advised about the Scheme.
18. When she returned the documents, the Council issued her with a Personal Housing Plan and documents about the Scheme. The Council accepted she was homeless and owed her a duty to relieve her homelessness. This meant it was under a duty to take reasonable steps to help her secure accommodation that became available to her for at least six months.
19. In December, she sent the Council information about the agents. The Council said it needed a copy of the tenancy agreement and some documents all parties had to sign for the Scheme. When she sent the information, the Council replied to tell her the agent was happy to proceed. The Council would send the agents the documents.
20. Ms J then told the Council she was becoming a tenant on an existing tenancy. She argued the agent did not need to sign the documents because the tenancy already existed. The Council explained it was a new tenancy to her, even if she was joining one in place of the previous tenant. Without the signing of the documents, it would not pay any deposit.
21. In January 2022, she applied for help from the DHP fund having found information about it. A few days later she sent a letter saying she needed the deposit in three days’ time. Applications can take up to 28 days to process. The following day, she sent a letter from the other tenant, who was also her son, which said she had to pay the £692 deposit and a rental payment of £600 or she would need to leave the property. She would have to leave in a few days. The Council could not accept this letter as it was not from the agent.
22. The Council claimed a few days later, Ms J provided a receipt when asked about the deposit. The Council said this did not show the amount paid, was not addressed to her but to the property, and did not match the rent deposit amount she paid.
23. An email from an officer the same month told her the Scheme was the only one available.
24. In February, the Council wrote to Ms J explaining it could not award her the DHP. This was because her circumstances were not exceptional as the criteria for an award was for a claimant to have extenuating circumstances and to be suffering exceptional hardship in meeting the shortfall in rent.
25. In March, the Council wrote to her after she asked it to look again at its decision to refuse her DHP application. It explained the overriding aim of the fund was to prevent homelessness. It could not make an award it if it is unable to prevent it. The Council decided a payment would not have prevented her homelessness. This means it would not make her a payment. The decision also noted she had got the funds to pay for the property herself and it did not reimburse funds already spent.
26. When she complained, the Council explained how the Scheme worked. To be eligible, she needed to be threatened with homelessness. It gives help with the deposit or an incentive payment to the landlord. If the Council agrees to house one of its clients, the Council pays up to four weeks rent as a deposit and up to five weeks as an incentive. The payments are at its local housing allowance rates. It did not ask the landlord/agent to enter in to a long-term business agreement with the Council. It did ask them to sign standard documents it legally needed to start a new tenancy. These included the energy performance certificate, for example.
27. The Council confirmed it only had contact with the agent directly and this was in December 2021.

My findings

28. The government website Ms J first went to suggested contacting a local council about possible rent or deposit guarantee schemes if facing difficulty paying the deposit before moving in to a property.
29. I make the following findings on this complaint:
1. Ms J first approached the Council about the need for financial help towards the end of September 2021 because she was being made homeless and needed a deposit for alternative accommodation she found. She was correctly told she needed to make a homeless application the same day.
2. The following month she again emailed the Council about schemes it might have for help with deposits. The Council’s reply at this point only referred to the Scheme, not the DHP fund.
3. In response to my draft, the Council said Ms J did not meet the criteria for the DHP. This is why she was not given this as an option. It explained she did not meet the criteria for the fund. The criteria she had to meet was i) be entitled to and in receipt of housing benefit or the housing element of universal credit and ii) need financial help with housing costs. There is no evidence Ms J received housing benefit or the housing element of universal credit.
4. The initial DHP decision issued in February 2022 refused her application because her circumstances were not ‘exceptional’. It failed to tell her she was not eligible as she failed to meet the criteria. This was because she did not have an active housing benefit claim and nor did she receive the housing element with her universal credit claim. This is fault.
5. The DHP review decision letter sent in March dealt with the substance of her appeal but, also failed to explain she was not actually eligible to apply for it. This is fault.
6. I consider the failure of both letters to properly explain she was not eligible to apply for the DHP caused her an injustice. Had this information been clearly communicated to her from the start, it might have helped her accept the DHP decision and avoided her spending time and effort challenging it. When considering her injustice, I have also noted that despite the failure, she remained ineligible for a DHP.
30. I found no fault on her complaint the Council was trying to get the agent to agree to only house its applicants in the future. The evidence shows the Council sent documents to the agent, copies of which I have seen, which it refused to sign. There is no evidence of it trying to get the agent to reach an agreement as claimed by Ms J.

Back to top

Agreed action

31. I considered our guidance on remedies.
32. I took account of the Council confirming:
1. it will now conduct information sessions so officers are reminded of DHP. These will help them suggest it as an option at an early stage. It will also ensure it provides claimants with advice about funding options and make appropriate referrals as part of their Personal Housing Plan; and
2. it has ensured DHP decision letters now clearly tell applicants they are not eligible to apply and why.
33. The Council agreed, within four weeks of the final decision on this complaint, to send Ms J a written apology for its failure to explain in its decision letters that she was ineligible to apply for a DHP and why.
34. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I found fault on Ms J’s complaint against the Council. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman