Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to decline her application for Discretionary Housing Payment. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs X, complained about the Council refusing her application for discretionary housing payment, even though it has awarded this in previous years. She says without the payment she will struggle to afford basic necessities.

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’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered all the information which Mrs X submitted with her complaint. Mrs X has been given an opportunity to comment on a copy of my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mrs X applied to the Council for Discretionary Housing Payment which she has received in previous years. The award is made on an annual basis and on this occasion the Council told her that she was not eligible because her earnings showed she had sufficient to pay her rent without discretionary assistance.
6. Mrs X disagreed with the decision and asked for a review. The Council reviewed her case and told her that she did not qualify for the award on this occasion due to her earnings being sufficient. She complained that she would struggle to pay her current rent and that it was unreasonable for the Council to expect her to move to cheaper accommodation.
7. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. In this case the Council considered her income and concluded that she could afford to pay the shortfall in benefits without discretionary assistance. The benefit is discretionary, and it is for the Council to administer according to its local policy.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman