Summary: We will not investigate Miss C’s complaint about the homelessness support provided by the Council and its decision to refuse her Discretionary Housing Payment application. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss C complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP) application. She says it did not do enough to help her find suitable housing and then refused her financial help to secure housing she found herself. She says this means she remains at risk of homelessness. She wants the Council to approve her DHP application and support her to access secure housing.

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 reviewed the Council’s Discretionary Housing Payment policy.

Back to top

My assessment

6. A Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP) is a local welfare payment to help with housing costs, such as rent deposits and rent in advance. Applicants must receive either Housing Benefit or the housing element of Universal Credit.
7. In December 2024, Miss C’s landlord served her with a section 21 eviction notice. She then approached the Council for homelessness assistance.
8. The Council accepted Miss C was threatened with homelessness so it completed a personal assessment of her housing situation. The Council then issued her with a personalised housing plan.
9. Miss C said the Council did not give her meaningful support to find housing and only provided a list of letting agencies that accept tenants who claim Universal Credit. She said she managed to find a private rented property by herself.
10. Miss C then applied for a DHP to help with the property’s rent deposit and advance. When the Council refused her application, she requested a review. The Council upheld its decision to refuse her DHP application.
11. In its response to Miss C’s application and review request, the Council said its policy is to only consider providing a DHP where the applicant’s tenancy is sustainable. For Miss C’s new property, it said there was a shortfall of over £600 per month between her Universal Credit housing element and her rent. It said her declared income would not cover the shortfall and her tenure was therefore at risk, so it refused her DHP application.
12. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council accepted a duty to prevent her homelessness and did provide some support. Although Miss C is unhappy with the support provided, Miss X found alternative accommodation and it was her decision to sign the new tenancy agreement. The Council was also entitled to refuse her DHP application because it is a discretionary local welfare payment. It has explained its reasons which are consistent with its policy. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s handling of this matter to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss C’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman