Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Discretionary Housing Payment as there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council has wrongly rejected his application for a Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP), causing him distress and affecting his finances.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, 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 Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr Y made an application to the Council for a DHP. DHPs are for people who need extra financial help to cover rental costs if housing benefit, local housing allowance, or Universal Credit do not cover the full amount. Mr Y’s application was rejected, but Mr Y asked the Council to review its decision. The Council reviewed the decision but did not accept Mr Y’s application for a DHP.
6. I have referred to the Council’s policy on DHPs, which is available on its website. This policy outlines how the Council will consider the application, including income and expenditure of the applicant and how a decision to reject a DHP application can be reviewed. It can be seen in the Council’s rejection of Mr Y’s appeal relevant factors, as referred to in the policy, have been considered. This includes Mr Y’s previously held savings, and how these appear to have been spent and the time this took. The Council has referred to information provided by Mr Y and explained how this has affected its decision. It also shows where information has not been provided by Mr Y, for example to show that he is in a suitable contract with his landlord to rent the property. It has then explained its rationale for refusing the application on review.
7. As the Council has considered suitable factors and information, we would be unlikely to find fault as there is not enough evidence of fault in the decision-making process to justify investigating further. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman