Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about how the Council dealt with his application for a discretionary housing payment. This is because there is insufficient evidence that fault by the Council caused Mr A an injustice to justify our further involvement in his case.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr A, says there was fault in the way the Council dealt with his application for a discretionary housing payment (DHP). He also says it failed to comply with its complaints procedure.
2. Mr A says this caused him distress and increased his debts.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

4. 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

5. I have considered the information Mr A provided and the Councils responses. I have also considered Mr A’s comments on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. People can apply to their local council for extra help if their housing benefit or their universal credit housing costs element does not cover their rent. Councils usually make DHP’s for short-term problems only. They will consider if an applicant has enough income to pay their rent themselves. There is no right of appeal to an independent body but unsuccessful applicants can ask councils to reconsider their decisions.
7. Mr A applied to the Council for a DHP and submitted information to support his claim. The Council refused his application because it was not satisfied with the evidence he provided, and he was not in rent arrears. It informed Mr A he could submit a new application.
8. Mr A applied again to the Council for a DHP and asked for this to be backdated to the date of his first application. He provided additional information about his rent arrears and personal circumstances. Mr A says he spoke to the Council and it promised it would backdate the DHP. The Council decided to pay Mr A a DHP of £80 per week for 52 weeks with the expectation he reduced his debt repayments to his creditors. It decided not to backdate the payment but told Mr A where he could get support with debt management.
9. Three days later the Council told Mr A it had incorrectly informed him about the duration of the DHP. It admitted its fault and apologised for its error. It clarified the DHP would last 26 weeks. Mr A was unhappy with the Council’s decision not to backdate the payment and the reduction of the payment period. He asked it to review its decision and questioned if it had considered his loan repayment in its calculation.
10. The Council reconsidered its decision. It explained its reasons for the payment but did not change its decision. Its response was three days late according to its policy. Before Mr A received the response, he complained to the Council about its handling of his DHP application. In error the Council thought the reconsideration response was its response to his complaint. It therefore did not reply to Mr A’s complaint.
11. Mr A then asked the Council for a response to his complaint. It decided to review Mr A’s DHP again as part of its response to his complaint but it did not change its decisions about his DHP payment. The Council explained that, as Mr A’s loan repayment was the same or more than the amount it expected him to reduce his debt repayments by, it did not need to include the loan repayment in the calculation. The Council also told Mr A it would not backdate the payment as he was not in rent arrears for the period in question. The Council apologised for failing to respond to the complaint and its three days late reconsideration response.
12. Mr A remained unhappy and escalated his complaint. But the Council did not change its decision. The Council has told Mr A he can apply for another DHP when his current DHP ends.

Assessment

13. There is no right to a discretionary housing payment. We cannot question whether the Council’s decision on Mr A’s application was right or wrong if there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council has reached it. In this case the Council has considered the information Mr A provided, reconsidered its decision, and explained the reasons for its decision. As there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process, we cannot therefore criticise the merits of its decision.
14. The Council has acknowledged it made an error in notifying Mr A at first that its DHP award was for 52 weeks only to change this to 26 weeks a few days later. However I do not see we have grounds to pursue this matter. As indicated above, I consider the Council was reasonably entitled to decide Mr A’s DHP award should last for 26 weeks. In addition, I do not see that Mr A was caused a significant injustice by the change in the Council’s decision as it corrected its error within a few days.
15. The Council also recognised its fault in not replying directly to Mr A’s initial complaint, and because its response to his DHP review request was sent three days after its timescale for a response. But the Council effectively addressed Mr A’s initial complaint in its response about his DHP application. In addition I am not convinced that Mr A suffered any significant disadvantage because the Council’s review decision was three days late. In the circumstances I consider the Council’s apologies to Mr A are a suitable remedy and so there is no need for us to pursue his complaints about these issues any further.

Back to top

Final decision

16. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with Mr A’s application for a discretionary housing payment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making about the DHP, and no sign that any other fault in its handling of Mr A’s application or complaint caused him an injustice to justify us pursuing his case further.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman