Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to award another Discretionary Housing Payment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, disagrees with the Council’s decision not to award another Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP). She says her circumstances have not changed and she submitted a doctor’s letter to support the 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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. 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

4. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the DHP policy and letters about the DHP application. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Councils can award DHPs to help some people pay the shortfall between their rent and benefit (housing costs). There is no absolute right to a DHP and councils have a limited amount of money to fund DHPs.
6. The Council’s policy says it may award a DHP if the applicant does not have enough disposable income to meet the rent shortfall. The policy says this will be determined by the Council.
7. Ms X received a DHP in 2023/24 because the Council decided she did not have enough disposable income to pay the shortfall.
8. Ms X re-applied in 2024. The Council assessed her finances and decided not to award a DHP because her income has increased and she can now afford to pay the rent. The Council decided that some of Ms X’s expenditure was excessive and/or not essential.
9. Ms X disagrees with the decision. She says her circumstances have not changed apart from an increase in her Universal Credit to help with health needs. She says she needs an expensive diet for health reasons.
10. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. We are not an appeal body and it is not my role to re-make the decision or decide if Ms X is eligible for a DHP. The Council followed the correct process by assessing Ms X’s income and expenditure to see if she has sufficient disposable income to pay the shortfall. Ms X’s income has increased and the policy does not say the Council should disregard increases in Universal Credit.
11. I appreciate Ms X disagrees with the way the Council assessed the application but as there is no suggestion of fault in the way the Council made the decision there is no reason to start an investigation. In addition, the decision is based on Ms X’s finances which are not affected by the doctor’s letter.

Back to top

Final decision

12. 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