London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (24 010 236)

Category : Benefits and tax > Housing benefit and council tax benefit

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 22 Oct 2024

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse a Discretionary Housing Payment. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the matter was considered to justify investigating.

The complaint

  1. Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP). He considers the Council racially profiled him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
  2. 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

  1. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
  2. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. The Council’s published policy outlines its eligibility criteria for a DHP award. Relevant to this case, it explains claimants would not be eligible for assistance if their choice of accommodation is considered unsuitable e.g. because alternative cheaper accommodation is available. But where claimants face immediate hardship, it will consider a time limited payment to allow them to find alternative cheaper accommodation.
  2. The Council refused Mr X’s DHP application as his current tenancy was unsuitable due to its high cost. In a further review, it said Mr X had not provided sufficient evidence to show how he intended to resolve his financial situation, so it upheld the decision to refuse DHP.
  3. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision to justify investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings