Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Discretionary Housing Payment because we are unlikely to add to the Council’s response and an investigation would unlikely achieve anything further for Mr Y.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains about the Council’s handling of his Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP) applications. He says the Council failed to communicate effectively with him about this.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr Y and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr Y applied for Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP) in June 2025. The Council awarded Mr Y a three-month DHP in July 2025. Mr Y was not satisfied with this and requested a review of this decision. He had a right to do this.
6. Whilst it was reviewing its decision, the Council did not release any payments to Mr Y. It said funds are not released whilst a decision is being reviewed and apologised to Mr Y for this being unclear at the time.
7. The Council reviewed its original decision in October 2025 and awarded Mr Y a higher lump sum DHP.
8. Mr Y says the Council failed to communicate effectively with him about his DHP application. To its credit, the Council acknowledged this. It offered Mr Y a payment of £100 to remedy the uncertainty caused. I am satisfied the Council has provided a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr Y, and an investigation by the Ombudsman would unlikely achieve anything further for Mr Y. We will therefore not investigate this part of the complaint.
9. Mr Y applied for a further DHP in November 2025. The Council refused this and Mr Y appealed its decision. The Council reviewed its decision in January 2026 and upheld its position. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman. The Council had a right to refuse a further DHP to Mr Y, and it clearly explained its reasoning for this. We will therefore not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because we are unlikely to add to the Council’s response and an investigation would unlikely achieve anything further for Mr Y.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman