Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Discretionary Housing Payment because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, disagrees with the Council’s decision not to make another Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP) award and backdate it to November. Mr X does not want to make a new claim.

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 Mr X. This includes the DHP correspondence and policy. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Councils have limited funds to award DHPs. A DHP is a discretionary payment to provide short-term help with housing costs. There is no right to a DHP and applicants are expected to take action to alleviate the need for further DHP support. A DHP might be awarded when there are no other sources of help.
6. Mr X has received two DHPs totalling £2600. He asked the Council to increase the award because he has an on-going shortfall of £400 to pay his rent. Mr X explained the pressures he is experiencing which includes health issues, debt and unemployment. Mr X wants the Council to provide additional DHP support from November.
7. The Council said it had warned Mr X when it awarded the second DHP it was unlikely he would get another one. The Council signposted Mr X to other sources of support and recommended he apply for additional benefits which would generate an additional £400 a month – enough to cover the rent shortfall. The Council said it would consider a new claim so it could assess Mr X’s current circumstances and whether he had taken steps to alleviate his problems and increase his income. The Council repeated the short-term nature of DHPs and said they cannot provide long-term support for a rent shortfall.
8. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. I read the Council’s DHP policy and the Council’s decision reflects the policy. The Council explained why it will not increase the DHP award and why Mr X needs to submit a new claim. I have not seen any evidence of fault to suggest we need to start an investigation.
9. We do not act as an appeal body; it is not my role to re-make the decision or decide if Mr X is eligible for more DHP support. I can only consider if there was fault in the way the Council made the decision and I have not seen any suggestion of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

10. 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