Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to provide the complainant with a discretionary housing payment on an ongoing basis. This is because the Council has properly considered the request against its policy and there is not enough evidence of fault to cast doubt on the decision made. Further, it is not our role to question the outcome of a properly made decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Miss V) complains about the Council’s refusal to provide her with a discretionary housing payment (DHP) to meet her increasing housing costs. She says the Council has told she would need to seek lower cost housing and that its decision is inconsistent with its established policy.
2. In summary, Miss V says the alleged fault has she is suffering financially which is making worse her mental health. She wants the Council to provide an ongoing DHP to cover the shortfall paying her rent.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 by an organisation to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way made a decision was made. 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

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council has a written DHP policy which states these payments can be made where a resident’s rent is not met in full by housing benefit or universal credit and they have a temporary situation which makes it difficult for them to pay their rent. The Council has considered Miss V’s request for a DHP and determined that her problem is not a temporary issue. It notes Miss V’s request is for the Council to make up the difference between her rent and benefits on an ongoing basis. The Council has therefore assessed the request as not being consistent with its established policy. In my view, the Council has properly applied its policy to Miss V's circumstances and I am unlikely to find evidence of fault with its decision. It is not my role to question a properly made decision.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault with respect to the Council’s consideration of Miss V’s request for a DHP. It is not therefore our role to question the Council’s decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman