Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s handling of his application for a Discretionary Housing Payment. The Ombudsman does not propose to investigate the complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, says there was fault in the way the Council dealt with his Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP) application. In refusing his application, he says it failed to listen to him or meet with him, did not answer his questions, did not take updated information from him and staff wrongly shared his private information.

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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr B. I gave him the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

5. A DHP is a discretionary payment which can be made by councils to those whose benefits do not cover their rent.
6. Mr B applied to the Council for a DHP and submitted information to support his claims. The Council refused his applications and carried out reviews of its decisions as requested by Mr B. At review it upheld the original decisions.
7. Mr B complained to the Council about its handling of his claims. He said the Council had breached his confidentiality; had shown him a lack of respect; had refused to take his phone calls or meet with him and had failed to reply to his last email.
8. The Council responded to his complaint at the two stages of its complaints procedure and addressed the concerns he had raised. It explained it was not a breach of confidentiality for Council staff dealing with his case to have access to all relevant information regarding his claim and that the information had been processed and stored in accordance with normal policy.
9. It explained it did not carry out application assessments face to face and that it had dealt with his claims and reviews via writing and telephone calls in the normal way. It explained it would not arrange a meeting to take further information from him which had not been available at the time of the original assessment as this would undermine the initial process. However, it told him how to proceed if he had new information which he wanted to be considered.

Assessment

10. I understand Mr B will have been disappointed by the Council’s decisions to refuse his application for DHP. However, we cannot review the merits of this decision and I have seen no evidence to suggest there was fault in the way the Council dealt with his case which would warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.
11. If Mr B believes a data breach occurred because private information he provided was unnecessarily passed to Council staff not involved in his case then it is open to him to contact the Information Commissioner about this matter. If he has new/additional information which has not yet been considered by the Council then it is open to him to follow the Council’s suggestion that he submit this is the normal way for consideration.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman