Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainant a discretionary housing payment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of Mr X being caused a significant and personal injustice as a result of the alleged failing. It is also unlikely we could add to the Council’s proposed outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Mr X) complains about the Council’s decision to not provide him with a discretionary housing payment (DHP). He says the Council’s decision was based on him having savings which he could use. However, Mr X says he does not have this amount in savings and that this has led to the Council wrongly assessing his application for a DHP. In summary, Mr X says the alleged fault has meant he does not have enough money to pay his bills which is causing him to incur debt. He also says the problem is affecting his wellbeing. As a desired outcome, Mr X wants the Council to approve his application.

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 an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (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. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. A DHP may be awarded where the Council determines that a housing benefit or universal credit claimant requires further financial help towards their housing costs. A DHP can be awarded to help cover shortfalls between the rental liability and payment of housing benefit or payment of universal credit (housing element). Importantly, it is not our role to say whether Mr X is eligible for a DHP. Our role is to assess whether the Council has properly considered his application. If we found fault in the way the Council made its decision which, in turn, has caused Mr X to suffer an injustice, our recommendations would likely be limited to the Council carrying out a fresh review of the application.
5. In deciding whether to award a DHP, the Council will consider any savings or capital that might be held by the claimant. The evidence shows the Council refused Mr X’s application for a DHP based on him having a certain amount in savings. It said the savings figure it identified had been taken from his universal credit journal evidence. Mr X says the amount of monies identified were not savings, but a final salary payment he received which have since been spent. The Council told Mr X that if he does not have this amount in savings, then he will need to advise the Department for Works and Pensions so that they can update his universal credit records. It said Mr X can then submit a new application and supply documentary evidence of his most recent savings.
6. The Ombudsman is only required to accept a complaint where the complainant has been caused a significant and personal injustice because of fault by the Council. This means Mr X would need to show he has suffered serious loss, harm or distress due to fault by the Council. While I recognise what Mr X says about the figure identified not being savings he can draw on, the Council has told him how to rectify the figure with the DWP and that he may then submit a new DHP application. As I cannot say whether Mr X is eligible for a DHP and because the Council has confirmed he can make a new application with evidence of the corrected savings amount, I do not consider this to be a matter which has caused him a sufficient enough injustice which warrants our involvement. It is also unlikely we could add to the outcome proposed by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate. This is complaint because there is insufficient evidence of Mr X being caused a significant and personal injustice as a result of the alleged failing. It is also unlikely we could add to the outcome proposed by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman