Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse to award any further support under its discretionary housing payment scheme. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse to award any further support under its discretionary housing payment scheme.

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 the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council operates a discretionary housing payment (DHP) scheme. It has a policy which details how this scheme is operated and how factors will be considered when deciding if a DHP can be awarded.
7. The policy details that the DHP scheme is primarily a short time emergency fund and should not be considered a long-term solution. In term of eligibility for a DHP, the policy notes:
• the Council must be satisfied the occupant is entitled to housing benefit or universal credit that includes a housing element towards rental liability; and
• has demonstrated they are unable to meet their housing costs from their available income.
8. The policy also details that DHPs cannot cover increases in rent due to outstanding rent arrears.
9. The Council declined to award Mr X a DHP because his rent liability was fully covered by the housing element of his universal credit. The Council acknowledged Mr X had provided evidence that his monthly direct debit was for a higher amount, but said he needed to discuss this with his landlord.
10. Mr X said the Council failed to consider his priority debts or costs he incurs due to his disabilities. The Council explained the DHP scheme is not intended to provide additional financial support due to costs incurred because of a disability. The Council signposted Mr X to apply for additional benefits, such as personal independent payments.
11. An investigation is not justified as there is insufficient evidence of fault with the way the Council made its decision. The Council has properly considered all the information Mr X provided with his application and outlined its reasons for why it has refused the application. The evidence shows the Council decision to refuse is in line with its policy. As there was no fault in the way the Council made its decision, we cannot find fault with the decision itself.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman