Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a claim for a discretionary housing payment. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly consider his claim for a discretionary housing payment. He says the Council ignored certain outgoings and changed its grounds for refusal. He says this has caused him stress and uncertainty.

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. A council can award discretionary housing payments (DHP) when someone needs help with housing costs and is claiming Housing Benefit or Universal Credit which includes housing costs towards rent. (Discretionary Housing Payments guidance manual May 2022, section 2.3)
4. Government guidance allows councils to choose (discretion) when to offer a DHP; there is no statutory right to payment. However guidance says DHP decisions must follow the ordinary principles of good decision making. This means councils must act fairly, reasonably, and consistently, and must decide each case by considering individual circumstances. Councils can decide:
• what questions to ask applicants;
• what award to make (if any); and
• how long to make payments for. (Discretionary Housing Payments guidance manual May 2022, sections 4.24 and 2.14).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Council regarding the matters in paragraph 1.
7. The Council replied it had initially refused Mr X’s application because he did not provide all the information required. It said its policy required a new claim in these circumstances. However, it said it used its discretion to review his application when he provided further information.
8. The Council said its decision to refuse a DHP remained because taking account of his income and outgoings he had more income going in than out, and was not in hardship. The Council explained it had not accepted some outgoings. The Council provided a copy of its calculation showing his income and expenses.
9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigation. The Council took account of information from Mr X, relevant guidance, and its own policies.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman