Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse Miss Y’s Discretionary Housing Payment application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complained about the Council’s decision to refuse her Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP) application. She said it used incorrect information to assess her eligibility.
2. Miss Y said the Council breached its duties under the Equality Act 2010. She also complained about the Council’s complaint handling.
3. Miss Y says the Council’s actions has caused her severe financial hardship. She wants her application to be reassessed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss Y applied to the Council for Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP). The Council refused her application, and Miss Y appealed. The Council reviewed its decision application, and the independent reviewing panel refused the application.
7. The Council considered the evidence Miss Y provided in line with its DHP policy. The Council told Miss Y she can make a new DHP application if her circumstances change. It clearly set out its reasons to Miss Y as to why her application was refused. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
9. Miss Y says the Council breached its duties under the Equality Act 2010.
10. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.
11. Organisations will often be able to show they have properly taken account of the Equality Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected and these decisions can be challenged, reviewed or appealed.
12. Miss Y has complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman