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

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, disagrees with the Council’s decision to reject his application for another Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP).

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 correspondence about the DHP. I also considered the DHP policy and our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. DHPs are discretionary payments that can provide short-term support with housing costs. They are funded from a limited budget and there is no guarantee of an award. The Council prioritises people who need support while they are trying to move to cheaper accommodation. In assessing a claim, the Council considers the size of any rent shortfall and the financial circumstances of the applicant.
6. Mr X rents a property where there is a shortfall of £350 a month between the rent and the maximum help he can receive from benefits. To help with this shortfall the Council awarded three DHPs since August 2024 totalling £3214.
7. Mr X applied for another DHP and renewed his tenancy for the same rent. The Council declined to pay another DHP. The Council said the tenancy is financially unsustainable, not least because he has renewed it. It explained that DHPs are not intended to provide long-term support. The Council said it would not make another award because Mr X had made repeated applications, there had not been any changes in his circumstances, and the tenancy is financially unstainable.
8. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. I have considered Mr X’s DHP history and the DHP policy and the Council’s decision reflects the policy. I note that DHPs are not intended to provide long term support especially when the rent significantly exceeds the maximum benefit and that the unsustainability has been extended because Mr X has signed a new tenancy rather than moving to a cheaper home. The DHP decision reflects the policy so there is no reason to start an investigation.
9. We are not an appeal body and have no power to award a DHP. It is not my role to re-make the decision or decide if Mr X is eligible for anther DHP. I can only consider if there has been fault in the way the Council reached 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