Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s to decline a discretionary housing payment application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to reject his claim for discretionary housing payment which he previously received. He says the loss of the £12 a week payment will affect his finances and expenditure on essential items.

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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X was previously in receipt of discretionary housing payment but when the last period of the payment expired, the Council did not renew it. He says he has had no increase in his finances and the payment is essential for his daily life.
6. Mr X asked the Council to carry out an internal review because there is no right of appeal to an independent tribunal as there is with housing benefit. The Council reviewed the decision in June but told Mr X that the payment would not be renewed. It advised Mr X to apply for Personal Independence Payment (PIP) because he has health problems.
7. Discretionary Housing Payments are intended to assist applicants for a fixed period of time when there are facing financial hardship with their housing circumstances. When the period ends someone may re-apply and the Council should consider their circumstances. However, the payments are discretionary and they are not an alternative to housing benefit or intended for permanent assistance.
8. The Council explained to Mr X why it was not renewing the payments and he had an opportunity for the decision to be re-assessed.
9. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s to decline a discretionary housing payment application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman