Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to decline her application for a discretionary housing payment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s decision to decline her application for a discretionary housing payment.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
3. 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))
4. 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

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss X is a council tenant and is the only occupant of a three-bedroom property. The housing element of her universal credit is reduced by 25% because of this.
8. Miss X has complaints relating to her housing situation and discretionary housing payment (DHP) applications dating back to 2021. The Council confirmed these complaints had been responded to at the time. As there are no good reasons for why Miss X could not have brought these complaints to us earlier, we will not exercise discretion to consider the late complaints.
9. I have considered Miss X’s complaint about the Council declining her DHP application for the 2024/25 financial year as this matter occurred within the last 12 months.
10. The Council considered Miss X’s application and outlined its reasons for declining:
• It previously provided DHP awards to support Miss X with moving to another property. However, her situation had still not changed.
• Miss X had not attended property viewings, not answered her phone for views, and declined properties. Therefore, the Council was not convinced she had any intention to downsize.
• DHP awards are not an ongoing benefit entitlement and are meant to be a short term solution to enable the applicant to resolve their situation.
• Previously awards of DHP does not guarantee that a further award will be made later even if the applicant’s circumstances have not changed.
11. An investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault. This is because the Council properly considered Miss X’s application and circumstances before deciding to decline the application. We could not find fault or criticise the decision itself as the Council is allowed to make its decision, which was made in line with its policy.
12. Miss X also complained about the fact one of her rooms has been classed as a bedroom. She feels it does not meet the minimum requirements to be considered a bedroom. The Council confirmed it had attended Miss X’s property to measure the room and to reassess the bedroom. The Council said it was satisfied the room exceeds the minimum statutory size criteria of 50 square feet to be classified as a bedroom. Therefore, an investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman