Chelmsford City Council (23 015 221)

Category : Benefits and tax > Housing benefit and council tax benefit

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 12 Feb 2024

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Discretionary Housing Payment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, disagrees with the Council’s decision not to award a Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP). She says the Council refused her claim for reasons not stated on the website and has ignored that she struggled when she was unemployed. Ms X wants the Council to award a DHP.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the DHP policy and the information Ms X submitted to support her claim. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. The Council’s website explains that people can apply for a DHP if they receive help with their rent through Universal Credit (UC) and the rent is more than the support from UC. The page also explains that the amount of a DHP that someone might get depends on various factors.
  2. A DHP is a discretionary payment to help some people pay their rent. There is no right to a DHP. The DHP policy explains the Council’s priority in awarding a payment is to avoid homelessness. The Council will award a DHP if it is satisfied the applicant needs further help with their housing costs.
  3. Ms X became unemployed in September. She got a new job in November. Ms X received UC, Jobseeker’s Allowance and help with her rent. The help with the housing costs did not cover all the rent. In November Ms X applied for a DHP. She explained she needed help for the time she was not working. She said her new income was slightly more than her basic bills but she would still struggle. Ms X provided payslips, fuel and bank statements, and said she did not have any rent arrears.
  4. The Council assessed the application but decided not to award a DHP. It acknowledged her period of unemployment caused problems but said the documents she submitted showed she had been able to pay her rent, had no arrears and was not at risk of homelessness. It explained the primary aim of a DHP is to help people remain in their accommodation. It said the website explains who can apply for a DHP but does not say a DHP will be awarded on that basis.
  5. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. I appreciate Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision and says that, despite having no rent arrears, she has been struggling. However, I have considered the DHP policy, the evidence submitted by Ms X, and the Council’s reasons for refusing the application, and I see no suggestion of fault in the way the Council made its decision. The policy states the primary aim of a DHP is to avoid homelessness; Ms X does not have rent arrears and is working again, so I can understand why the Council decided she is not at risk of homelessness. The policy explains there is no right to a DHP and it is for the Council to decide if someone needs further help with housing costs. The decision to refuse a DHP flows from the policy and the evidence; it was a discretionary decision the Council was entitled to make.
  6. We are not an appeal body and I have no power to award a DHP. I can only consider if there was fault in the way the Council made its decision and I see no suggestion of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We 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

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings