Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s claim for a discretionary housing payment. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its decision making to warrant investigation. The Council’s apology for its delay and incorrect appeal advice is a suitable remedy and there is no significant remaining injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council says the Council has unfairly refused his DHP request. He had asked the Council to pay a DHP because he had rent arrears. He wants the Council to pay him a backdated award of at least £800.

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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complained to the Council regarding the matters in paragraph 1.
6. The Council replied explaining its decision to refuse the DHP was because Mr X was not in rent arrears. It said DHP was intended to help people who had a shortfall in their rent payment and financial difficulty meant they could not afford to pay it. The Council apologised for its delay of three months in responding to Mr X’s review request. It also apologised that it incorrectly advised Mr X he could appeal to a tribunal as this was not a route of appeal. It had carried out is own review in accordance with its policy and had advised him of its decision.
7. We will not investigate the Council’s decision to refuse a DHP and its review decision. This is because there is no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision. The Council explained its reasons, set out the purpose of DHPS and referred to its policy. Where there is no evidence of fault in the decision making, we will not investigate.
8. We will not investigate the Council’s delay in reviewing it decision and its incorrect advice. The Council has taken appropriate action regarding its delay in reviewing its decision and the incorrect advice it gave. There is no remaining significant injustice that warrants investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its decision making to justify investigation. There is no significant remaining injustice from the Council’s delay and appeal advice that warrants investigation. The Council has taken suitable action.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman