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

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly consider his discretionary housing payment (DHP) claim for the shortfall between his Universal Credit (housing element) and his rent. He says the Council ignored his health situation, and medical documentation. He says the Council did not engage with him meaningfully because he had made a complaint about an officer. This has significantly affected his mental health.

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)).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Council had paid a DHP to Mr X up to October 2025.
5. In December 2025 the Council refused Mr X’s further application for a DHP. It said it had already paid a DHP for two periods from 2024.
• It had advised Mr X the DHP awards were on the basis he looked for affordable alternative accommodation or budgeted to afford the current tenancy.
• his rent had increased and was high for the area. It was unsustainable because the shortfall was now £950 per month.
• he could negotiate with his landlord to reduce his rent, or move.
• It could consider paying a DHP in exceptional circumstances to assist with a move for a month’s rent in advance or a deposit.
6. Mr X asked the Council to reconsider its decision. He explained his circumstances and that of his family members. He asked the Council to pay a DHP until July 2026. He said the Council could award a DHP in certain exceptional circumstances, such as when a long-term health condition or disability prevents a move to more affordable accommodation.
7. The Council reconsidered its decision but upheld its refusal. It noted his claim and supporting information and sympathised regarding his circumstances. But it said the DHP fund was limited and, except for those who were in exceptional need, DHP’s were not intended to help in situations where the shortfall would continue over a long period of time. It had paid two DHP awards over 19 months to allow Mr X time to move or improve his situation.
8. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation. The Council has explained its decision to refuse a further DHP award. It has reconsidered having received further information and evidence from Mr X but upheld its refusal. DHPs are discretionary and the Council has considered Mr X’s information, government guidance and its own policy when making its decision.
9. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation regarding Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to meaningfully engage with him because he had complained about an officer.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman