Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to award a 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 a Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP). She wants the Council to award a DHP.

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))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the DHP and complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Ms X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

5. DHPs are discretionary payments councils can make to help some people with housing costs. There is no right to a DHP. The Council’s DHP policy says it may issue a DHP for a deposit or rent in advance if a DHP is needed to secure a tenancy. A DHP awarded for a deposit or rent in advance will be paid to the perspective landlord.
6. Ms X moved to a different council area in April. Her Housing Association housing officer told Ms X she would be able to get a DHP to help with the deposit and rent in advance. Ms X accepted a new tenancy in April, from a private landlord, and borrowed money from a relative. She says she had to act quickly to secure the tenancy. She borrowed money for the deposit and to help cover the rent for a period when she was liable for rent on the new and old property. Ms X borrowed money thinking it would be a short-term loan that she would be repay from a DHP.
7. Ms X applied to her new council for a DHP. The new council awarded a DHP but said she would have to apply to the old council for the other elements of the claim. Ms X applied to the Council (Shropshire) in July. She explained she had borrowed money from a relative and needed a DHP for the elements not covered by the DHP from the new council. Ms X says the application was late because she did not know she needed to apply to Shropshire until getting the decision from her new council.
8. The Council decided not to award a DHP. The main reasons for the decision are that Ms X did not apply until July, she does not need a DHP to secure a tenancy, she has no rent arrears and her tenancy is not at risk. The Council said it does not award DHPs to repay loans.
9. Ms X says the application was only late because the new council delayed signposting her to the Council. She agrees she does not need a DHP to secure the tenancy and accepts she has no rent arrears; but she says her tenancy is at risk because she has to repay the relative and may have to use money she would use for her rent. She says she is entitled to a DHP, as evidenced by the award from the other council.
10. I appreciate Ms X disagrees with the decision but we are not an appeal body and have no power to decide if she should be awarded a DHP. The Council’s reasons for rejecting the application are consistent with the policy so there is no suggestion of fault and no reason to start an investigation. Ms X says her tenancy may be at risk but it is not fault for the Council to take a different view.
11. The other council awarded a DHP but each council has its own policy and assesses each application individually. A decision made by one council is not binding on others. In addition, there is no right to a DHP. Ms X could make a complaint to the new council if she thinks it delayed assessing her application or delayed signposting her to Shropshire.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We 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