Summary: We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his local welfare fund applications. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains the Council refused his local welfare fund applications and its assessor was unfriendly and asked him for confidential information. He says this caused him financial hardship, frustration and distress. He wants the Council to approve his applications.

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 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))
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, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. I also considered information on the Council’s website about the relevant local welfare funds.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council’s website provides information about its Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP) scheme and the Household Support Fund (HSF). It says a DHP is for limited short-term help to pay rent, and the HSF is to support vulnerable households with essential costs like food and energy. The DHP criteria includes consideration of the applicant’s financial circumstances and level of debt. The HSF information says applicants need to give evidence they do not have funds for the items they request in their application. Both are discretionary awards which the Council can make and which will be decided on an individual basis and on the circumstances of each case.
7. Mr Y applied to the Council for a DHP and for its HSF but the Council refused his applications.
8. In its complaint response, the Council said it had refused Mr Y’s DHP application based on information he provided and which it held about his income and expenditure. It said its assessment found he had enough income to pay his rent. However, it acknowledged Mr Y said he wanted to move home and identified his rent arrears were a barrier to this. It therefore agreed to make a one-off payment to clear Mr Y’s rent arrears at that time.
9. The Council said it refused Mr Y’s HSF application due to unexplained cash withdrawals from Mr Y’s account. It said it requested further information from Mr Y and his social worker about these withdrawals but it had not received an evidenced explanation.
10. The Council also said it was sorry Mr Y found its assessor unfriendly. It acknowledged the assessment questions can be personal but explained this was necessary to make fair and balanced decisions.
11. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council has discretion to decide whether to award a DHP and whether to make an HSF award. It appears to have appropriately considered Mr Y’s applications and supporting evidence before reaching its decisions to refuse his applications. It clearly communicated the reasons for its decisions to Mr Y. The Council also acknowledged Mr Y’s experience of the assessment and it explained why personal questions were relevant to considering applications for discretionary awards. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman