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

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council has not properly considered his discretionary housing payment (DHP) claim because it has taken account of his award of Personal Independence Payment (PIP). Mr X says the Council should not take account of PIP because the benefit is for disability.

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. The Council refused Mr X’s DHP application in late 2025.
7. Mr X asked the Council to reconsider its decision. He said the Council should not take account of PIP as income because this benefit was for his disability.
8. The Council replied requesting further information and evidence from Mr X about his income and expenditure.
9. In January 2026 the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint that PIP should not be taken into account as income. The Council said that PIP was often disregarded as income against the costs of disability. The Council explained it was required to consider each claim on a case by case basis. The Council said it had asked Mr X for further information and evidence on 13 January 2026 but he had not provided it. It said it would consider his review request once he had provided the outstanding information.
10. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigation. The Council has explained it can consider disregarding PIP. It has asked Mr X for further information in order to consider his review request.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman