Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP) application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains the Council asked him for irrelevant details when it assessed his application for DHP and that it contacted his landlord about rent arrears without his permission. He says the Council has worsened his stress-related health issue and he wants it to award him DHP and make a goodwill payment.

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; or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Councils may award DHP where they are satisfied a claimant receiving housing benefit, or the housing element of Universal Credit, needs further financial help with their housing costs. Councils have discretion about whether to make DHPs in any particular case and about the amount and period of any award. So there is no statutory right to receive a DHP. There is also a cap on the total amount of DHPs a Council can fund each year.
6. The Council’s DHP policy says when considering an application, it will need the applicant’s last two months full bank statements for all accounts they hold, showing all income and expenditure. It also says the scheme is discretionary and there is no automatic entitlement to an award, and it will only pay DHP to relieve a short-term financial problem.
7. Mr B applied to the Council for a DHP. The Council asked Mr B for full bank statements for the last two months, as he had redacted the copies he included in his application. Mr B told the Council that it does not need to see what he is buying or where he does his shopping, and he will not provide these details. The Council told him it needs full bank statements so it can properly consider his income and expenditure, and if all expenditure is for priority expenses. It told him if he does not wish to provide this it will be unable to consider his application.
8. The information the Council has asked Mr B for is outlined as a requirement in its DHP policy. It is entitled to ask him for unredacted bank statements so it can understand and assess his income and expenditure. What Mr B spends his money on is relevant to the Council’s consideration of whether to award DHP. So, it is unlikely we would find fault in the way the Council has assessed Mr B’s application, or the information it has asked him for. If Mr B wishes to continue with the application, he may provide the Council with the evidence it has asked him for.
9. Mr B says the information about his income shows the Council his income is low, so he cannot afford his rent and he should automatically be awarded DHP. The Council’s budget for DHP is limited and the process is not automatic, and so the Council will not pay the shortfall of housing costs to everyone on a low income who has applied for DHP. The Council has already given Mr B DHPs for six months for his rent shortfall, but this does not mean the Council will automatically award more DHPs because his income is still low. Even if Mr B provided the Council with unredacted bank statements, this would not mean the Council would automatically award DHP. So even if we did consider there to be evidence of fault in the Council asking for this information, this would not necessarily cause Mr B to be without DHPs.
10. A Council email to Mr B implied the Council was contacting Mr B’s landlord to ask about rent arrears, despite there not being any arrears. The Council has told Mr B it has not contacted his landlord, and it would seek his permission before doing so. It is likely there has been a misunderstanding about this. The Council is now clear it did not contact the landlord. But even if the Council did contact his landlord, it seems unlikely that this in itself would have caused Mr B significant injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman