Summary: Miss X complained about the way the Council handled her application for a discretionary housing payment. She said the Council did not properly consider the information she provided, or if it should award a long-term or indefinite award. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the way the Council handled her application for a discretionary housing payment. She said the Council did not properly consider the information she provided, or if it should award a long-term or indefinite award. Miss X said this caused her stress and impacted her mental health and she wanted the Council to make a long-term award.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the documents provided by Miss X and I discussed the complaint with her on the telephone.
5. I read the documents the Council provided in response to our enquiries.
6. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation and policies

Discretionary Housing Payments

7. A council may award discretionary housing payments (DHP) when someone needs help with housing costs and is claiming Housing Benefit or Universal Credit which includes housing costs towards rent. The Discretionary Housing Payments guidance manual May 2022 sets out how councils should consider and administer DHPs.
8. The guidance gives councils choice (discretion) about when to offer a DHP; there is no statutory right to payment. However, guidance stresses that DHP decisions must follow the ordinary principles of good decision making. Councils must act fairly, reasonably, and consistently, and must decide each case on its merits. Councils can decide how long to award a DHP for.

Council’s policy and procedure

9. The Council’s policy states awards will be decided on a case-by-case basis and subject to change if the claimant’s circumstances change.
10. In awarding a DHP the Council will consider a number of factors, including:
• if the claimant has reduced their outgoings or tried to increase their income;
• if the claimant has explored other alternative suitable accommodation, both in the social rented and private rented sectors;
• the medical circumstances of the claimant; and
• if the claimant has agreements for satellite or cable TV/mobile phones/gym fees and if they are tied into the contracts.
11. In making a repeat claim the claimant will usually have to show they have reduced their outgoings, or looked for suitable alternative accommodation if appropriate, before the Council will make a further award.
12. The Council’s procedure says it will make a time limited awards if the claimant’s circumstances are about to change which will result in an increase in benefit. It may make awards of up to 12 months to claimants whose circumstances are unlikely to change and where a short-term award will cause them undue stress.

What happened

13. Miss X lived with her partner in a rented three-bedroom property. At the end of 2021 Miss X’s partner died. Miss X also contracted an illness. Due to her change in circumstances Miss X applied to the Council for a DHP. The Council awarded a DHP for six months, from February 2022 to August 2022.
14. Miss X applied again for DHP in July 2022. She provided information about her finances, housing situation and a letter from her doctor about her health. She said she had applied for a personal independence payment (PIP) benefit.
15. Council records show it considered the previous award, that Miss X had applied for PIP, her health conditions and her income and outgoings. The Council decided to award DHP again from August 2022 to November 2022. It recorded Miss X’s outgoings were still very high and she could reduce them. It decided it would reduce the award by five percent. It recorded it would reduce the amount with each award if Miss X had not shown evidence of trying to reduce her outgoings.
16. The Council wrote to Miss X and told her the amount and period of the award and her right to a review of the decision. The letter explained the way Miss X could reduce her outgoings or manage her budget. It said it may only consider further applications if Miss X had tried to reduce her outgoings or increase her income.
17. In September 2022 Miss X’s representative, Miss L complained to the Council. She said the letter to Miss X was ‘threatening, unsympathetic, reckless and shocking’. She said Miss X completed the actions to reduce her outgoings after her first application and it had not acknowledged this. She said Miss X could not move house as it would cause expense and would impact her mental health.
18. The Council responded to Miss X. It said the letter was not intended to be threatening but to provide information on further financial support. It explained how it considered the cost of utilities and TV packages when awarding DHPs.
19. Miss L complained to the Council again. She said it had not considered if a long term or indefinite award of DHP was appropriate for Miss X.
20. The Council responded to Miss L in November 2022. It said it could not share Miss X’s financial information with Miss L. It explained what it considered when deciding how long to award DHP for.
21. Miss L applied for a DHP for Miss X’s again in October 2022. She said Miss X had been assessed to have limited capability for work and work-related activity.
22. The Council considered the previous awards, that Miss X had been assessed as having limited capability for work, and her income and outgoings. It decided that because Miss X’s health had deteriorated it should continue to pay the DHP for three months and it would not reduce the amount as it had previously intended. It recorded if Miss X reapplied it would need to reconsider the amount it awarded.
23. The Council told Miss X that DHP was not a long-term solution, and it may only consider further applications if Miss X had tried to reduce her outgoings or increase her income. It said that any future award would likely to be reduced as the amount of DHP was high.
24. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response Miss X complained to us in January 2023.

My findings

25. We are not an appeal body. We cannot question the Council’s decision because someone disagrees with it. We can only decide if there was fault in the way the decision was reached.
26. The records show the Council considered the information Miss X provided. It also considered the amount and length of time it should award the DHP for. The Council decided the case on its merits and in line with the regulations and its own policy and procedure. It explained its decisions to Miss X, how she could make changes to her outgoings and how it may consider future applications. There was no fault in how the Council reached its decision.
27. Miss L complained about the Council’s award letter to Miss X. The letter contained the Council’s decision, how Miss X could reduce her outgoings and other sources of financial support she could consider. The tone of the letter was appropriate and it contained suitable advice and guidance for Miss X. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I have completed my investigation. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman