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

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council failed to properly consider his claims for a discretionary housing payment for rent in advance and a deposit. He says the Council did not take account of his disability, his mental health needs, or his reasons for moving. He also says the Council was wrong to refuse on the basis that he applied for the DHP after moving, his rent and deposit were paid by other means, and the tenancy was unsustainable due to the rent level. Mr X says the Council’s decision led to severe financial hardship.

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. 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. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complained to the Council regarding the matters in paragraph 1.
6. The Council replied that DHPs were not automatic. The Council said
• It required a clear link to homelessness prevention or inability to secure accommodation without support when considering rent in advance and deposit claims.
• There was no statutory right to backdating a DHP claim.
• Mr X had decided to enter a tenancy before making and application for a DHP.
7. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at the Council’s decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how the Council made its decision.
8. The Council assessed Mr X’s application based on the information and evidence he provided and decided it should not award a DHP. It considered relevant factors. It reviewed the decision but did not change its view. The Council explained its decision. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of procedural fault by the Council to question the merits of its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

9. 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