Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of her application for a Discretionary Housing Payment towards the costs of moving home. The Council was at fault because it delayed reconsidering her application and incorrectly reduced the award because she had used a credit card to meet some of her moving costs. This caused Mrs X avoidable distress and uncertainty and may have caused her additional borrowing costs. The Council has agreed to increase the DHP award, pay Mrs X £250 to recognise the distress caused, and consider evidence of any credit-card or overdraft costs she incurred. These actions are a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council's handling of her application for a Discretionary Housing Payment towards the costs of moving home. She says the Council delayed reconsidering her application, repeatedly requested information it already held, communicated poorly and did not properly explain the amount eventually awarded. She also says the Council failed to respond appropriately when she told officers that the delay and resulting financial difficulties were having a serious impact on her wellbeing. Mrs X says this caused avoidable financial hardship, distress and uncertainty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may recommend a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council, including the Council’s chronology, complaint responses and response to our enquiries. I also considered the Council’s DHP policy and our Guidance on remedies.
5. Mrs X and the Council were offered an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Discretionary Housing Payments

6. DHPs are discretionary payments. Councils decide whether to make an award and, if so, the amount to award, having regard to the relevant legal framework and their own policy.
7. The Council’s policy allows it to consider whether assistance may be available from alternative sources. Its policy does not say that borrowing on a credit card should be treated as income available to meet housing costs.

Back to top

What happened

8. Mrs X applied for a DHP in early May 2025 towards rent in advance, a deposit and moving costs. She moved home shortly afterwards.
9. In June, the Council refused the application because information available to it showed Mrs X was not then receiving the housing costs element of Universal Credit.
10. Later that month, Mrs X challenged the decision and explained the position with her Universal Credit. She provided information showing the housing costs element had been adjusted.
11. During July, the Council sought further evidence and Mrs X responded. She then contacted the Council several times during August because she had not received a revised decision.
12. In September, the Council asked Mrs X for further clarification about the costs she had paid. Mrs X responded later that month.
13. Mrs X continued to chase the Council during October because the reconsideration remained outstanding.
14. In October, Mrs X also made a formal complaint. The Council’s records show its complaints team subsequently chased the Benefits service for a decision.
15. Later that month, the Council made its revised DHP decision and awarded Mrs X £3,265.
16. The Council upheld Mrs X’s stage one complaint about the time taken to deal with the DHP reconsideration and offered her £25.
17. At stage two, the Council explained how it had calculated the award. It had allowed some of Mrs X’s moving costs but had excluded £1,497.20 because she had paid that amount using a credit card. It considered this showed she had another means of financing the move.
18. The Council maintained the £25 payment at the end of its complaint procedure.
19. Following enquiries from us, the Council’s Head of Service reviewed the case. The Council accepted it should not have excluded the £1,497.20 Mrs X had borrowed on the credit card because this was debt rather than income available to her.
20. The Council told us:
• It would increase the DHP award to include the amount it had previously excluded because Mrs X had borrowed it on a credit card;
• It would pay Mrs X £250 to recognise the delay and the worry and stress this caused;
• It would consider evidence of any costs Mrs X incurred through use of her credit card or overdraft;
• It has apologised to Mrs X; and
• It would introduce random checks of DHP awards to promote fairness and consistency with its policy.

Back to top

Analysis

Delay in reconsidering the DHP application

21. The Council made an initial decision on Mrs X’s DHP application in mid June 2025. Mrs X challenged that decision at the end of June and provided information showing her Universal Credit housing costs position had changed. I therefore do not consider the Council took nearly six months to make an initial decision on her application. The significant delay arose after Mrs X asked the Council to reconsider its decision.
22. The Council accepts there was delay between late June and the revised decision to late October. I agree. The evidence shows the Council obtained further information from Mrs X in late July. Mrs X then contacted it during August because she had not received a decision. The Council asked for further clarification in early September and Mrs X responded in mid-September. Despite this, she had to chase again several times in October before the Council reached a decision in late October.
23. The Council’s records also show officers were chasing the matter internally. This indicates the delay was not simply because the Council was waiting for information from Mrs X. The records show periods when Mrs X had provided information but no revised decision followed until she contacted the Council again. The Council has referred to staffing changes and difficulties associated with documents being received before they were indexed onto its document-management system. These factors may explain some of what happened, but they do not remove the Council’s responsibility for progressing the reconsideration within a reasonable period.
24. The reconsideration remained outstanding for almost four months. This concerned assistance with substantial costs Mrs X had incurred when moving home and the Council was aware she was concerned about the financial impact of the delay. In these circumstances, I consider the time taken to reach the revised decision was excessive. This was fault.

The amount of the DHP award

25. When the Council eventually reconsidered the application, it awarded Mrs X £3,265. One reason it did not meet more of the costs claimed was that Mrs X had used a credit card to pay £1,497.20 of her moving costs. At stage two of its complaints procedure, the Council maintained that the use of a credit card showed Mrs X had another means of financing those costs.
26. The Council’s DHP policy allows it to consider whether assistance may be available from alternative sources. However, Mrs X had funded some of the costs by borrowing on a credit card and had therefore incurred a corresponding debt.
27. Following our enquiries, the Head of Service reviewed the decision and the Council accepted its original approach was wrong. It acknowledged the credit-card borrowing was debt rather than income available to Mrs X and said it would increase the DHP award to include the £1,497.20 previously excluded.
28. I agree with the Council’s revised position. The original decision treated Mrs X’s ability to borrow money as if this meant she had funds available to meet the moving costs. The Council has not identified anything in its policy which required it to treat borrowing in that way. Its decision to exclude the £1,497.20 on this basis was therefore fault.
29. I have not substituted my own view about what DHP the Council should otherwise have awarded. DHP decisions are discretionary and it is for the Council to decide what qualifying costs it will meet, having properly considered the evidence and its policy. My finding concerns the specific reasoning which the Council has itself now accepted was wrong.

Mrs X’s other concerns about the Council’s handling

30. Mrs X also complains the Council repeatedly asked her for information it already held, did not properly record her correspondence, used an incorrect claim date in some communications, handled her complaints poorly and did not respond appropriately when she told officers about the effect the situation was having on her wellbeing.
31. The records show Mrs X had to contact the Council repeatedly while the reconsideration was outstanding. They also show periods when she had provided information but did not receive a revised decision and subsequently chased for progress. The Council says there can be a delay between documents being received and being indexed onto its document-management system, and relied on this to explain why officers may have requested information again.
32. I do not need to decide whether every individual request for information, failure to respond to an email or record made by the Council amounted to a separate instance of fault. The significant issue is the effect of the Council’s handling as a whole. I have already found that the reconsideration was allowed to remain outstanding for an unreasonable period and that Mrs X had to make repeated contact to obtain progress. The frustration and uncertainty associated with those contacts form part of the injustice caused by that delay.
33. Mrs X also told the Council that the unresolved DHP and her financial circumstances were causing her distress. Her formal complaint in October referred to the significant impact on her mental health. I have taken what Mrs X reported about her wellbeing into account when assessing the distress and uncertainty caused by the delay and whether the Council’s proposed remedy is sufficient.
34. The Council’s complaint responses did not fully resolve the matters Mrs X had raised. At stage one, it offered £25 to recognise the delay. At stage two, it maintained that amount and continued to defend its decision to exclude the costs Mrs X had funded using a credit card. The Council has since reviewed the case, accepted its approach to the credit-card borrowing was wrong and reconsidered the remedy it had offered. I have taken this into account, together with Mrs X’s other concerns about the Council’s handling, when assessing the overall injustice and whether the Council’s proposed remedy is sufficient.

Injustice

35. The delay caused Mrs X avoidable frustration, distress and uncertainty. She had incurred substantial moving costs and was waiting to find out what financial assistance the Council would provide. During this period she repeatedly chased the Council and told it she was experiencing financial and emotional difficulties.
36. The incorrect treatment of the credit-card borrowing also caused an identifiable financial injustice. The Council excluded £1,497.20 from its award for a reason it now accepts was wrong. Its proposal to increase the DHP by that amount is intended to put Mrs X in the position she would have been in had that error not occurred.
37. Mrs X says the Council’s failings caused significant financial hardship and forced her into debt. I cannot conclude that all of the debt or financial difficulty she experienced resulted from the Council’s fault. Mrs X needed to fund the move before the Council completed its reconsideration and had already incurred some of those liabilities. I therefore cannot attribute the underlying moving costs or all of Mrs X’s borrowing to the Council.
38. There may, however, have been additional financial consequences from the Council taking too long to reconsider the application and from initially underpaying the DHP. For example, Mrs X may have incurred credit-card interest or overdraft charges for longer than she otherwise would have done. Those are potentially quantifiable financial losses if Mrs X can provide evidence linking them to the period of fault.

Remedy

39. Our Guidance on remedies says remedies should, where possible, put the person back in the position they would probably have been in but for the fault. It also distinguishes between quantifiable financial loss and symbolic payments used to recognise injustice such as distress and uncertainty. Any remedy should be proportionate to the injustice caused by the identified fault.
40. The Council has said it will increase the DHP award by the £1,497.20 it wrongly excluded. This directly addresses the financial consequence of its flawed decision-making.
41. The Council has also offered to consider evidence of any credit-card or overdraft costs Mrs X incurred. I consider this appropriate because it allows any additional, identifiable financial loss caused by the delay or incorrect decision to be addressed. Where Mrs X provides such evidence, the Council should consider whether the costs would probably have been avoided but for its fault and explain its decision to her.
42. The Council has increased its symbolic payment from £25 to £250 to recognise the worry and stress caused by the delay. The delay in reconsidering the application was significant and Mrs X had to repeatedly pursue the matter at a time when she was experiencing financial difficulties and reporting considerable distress. These are relevant aggravating factors when assessing the injustice.
43. However, the £250 payment is not intended to reimburse Mrs X for the DHP she should have received or any proven borrowing costs. Those matters are being addressed separately by the increased DHP and the Council’s offer to consider evidence of consequential financial loss. The £250 is therefore specifically to acknowledge the avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by the Council’s handling of the reconsideration.
44. Taking account of the duration of the delay, Mrs X’s circumstances, the separate corrective action for the financial injustice, and our Guidance on remedies, I consider £250 is a proportionate symbolic payment for the distress and uncertainty caused.
45. The Council has also apologised to Mrs X and says it will introduce random checking of DHP awards to promote consistency with its policy. The latter is a proportionate service improvement in response to the flawed reasoning identified in this case.
46. I am satisfied that the remedy proposed by the Council appropriately recognises and addresses the injustice arising from its handling of the matter.

Back to top

Action

47. The Council will proceed with its proposal to:
1. pay Mrs X the additional DHP arising from its decision to include the £1,497.20 it previously excluded because she had funded that amount using a credit card, if it has not already done so;
2. pay Mrs X £250 to recognise the distress and uncertainty caused by the delay in reconsidering her DHP application, if it has not already done so;
3. invite Mrs X to provide evidence of any credit-card interest, overdraft charges or similar identifiable borrowing costs she says arose because of the Council’s delay or incorrect decision. The Council should consider the evidence and reimburse any costs it is satisfied Mrs X would probably have avoided but for the Council’s fault. It should provide Mrs X with its reasons for its decision.
48. The Council will complete actions a to c within two months of the Ombudsman’s final decision. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

49. I find the Council was at fault for delaying the reconsideration of Mrs X’s DHP application and for incorrectly excluding costs she had funded using a credit card. This caused Mrs X avoidable distress and uncertainty and may have caused additional financial loss. The Council has agreed to take action which appropriately remedies the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman