Summary: Mr B complained that the Council refused his applications for discretionary housing payments (DHPs) for help with housing costs and for a deposit on a flat. We found no grounds to question the Council’s decision in relation to Mr B’s applications for DHPs for help with rent but the Council was at fault in refusing his application for a DHP for a deposit on the grounds that the property was outside its area. In recognition of the injustice caused by this, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B and review its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that the Council refused his applications for discretionary housing payments (DHPs) for housing costs between March and November 2020 and that it refused his request for a DHP for a deposit on a flat in January 2020.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered all the information provided by Mr B, made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided. I have also considered the discretionary housing payments guidance manual issued by the Department for Work and Pensions.
5. Mr B and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Discretionary housing payments

6. The discretionary housing payments guidance manual (‘the guidance’) issued by the Department for Work and Pensions says a discretionary housing payment (DHP) may be awarded where a council considers a claimant requires further financial assistance towards housing costs and is entitled to either Housing Benefit (HB) or the housing cost element of Universal Credit (UC). The scheme is purely discretionary, a claimant does not have a statutory right to a payment.
7. The legislation governing the DHP scheme is the Discretionary Financial Assistance Regulations 2001 (as amended). The Regulations give councils broad discretion but they have a duty to act fairly, reasonably and consistently. In reaching a decision they must consider the claimant’s financial circumstances and any other relevant factors.
8. When someone applies for a DHP they must provide details of their income, capital, expenditure, and any other information the Council considers reasonably necessary.

The Council’s DHP policy

9. The Council’s policy says the DHP scheme is designed to help people who need additional financial help with their housing costs. It says ‘housing costs’ are not defined in the Regulations but the Council defines these as including rent payments in advance and deposits where a property is found within the local housing allowance rates and deemed to be affordable to the tenant.
10. The policy explains that the scheme is discretionary and the claimant has no statutory right to a payment. It states the scheme should be seen as a short-term emergency fund, unless there are exceptional circumstances.
11. The policy states that the Council’s overriding objective for a DHP award is homelessness prevention and to maintain the customer’s tenancy. So, DHPs may not be awarded if these objectives cannot be met.

Applications for DHPs for help with rent payments

Key facts

12. There is a complex history to this matter. The following summary of events is intended only to set out the key facts and does not describe everything that happened.
13. In January 2020 Mr B moved house and applied for a DHP to help with his rent payments. He says the Council delayed in making the payments so he was forced to move out of the property in February 2020. He then stayed at four different Airbnb’s and applied to the Council for a DHP respect of each of these.
14. The Council wrote to Mr B requesting further information before it could complete the assessment of his application including Universal Credit (UC) statements, copies of tenancy agreements and bank statements.
15. Because of errors made by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) only the April 2020 UC statement showed Mr B’s correct address and the correct amount he was paying for rent. He provided a copy of that statement to the Council and, in July 2020, he received a DHP for April 2020. He was unable to submit the remaining UC statements for the period in question until they had been amended by the DWP.
16. It took several months for the DWP to provide statements showing the correct rent amount. Meantime, the Council rejected Mr B’s application as he had failed to submit the requested information within six weeks.
17. In February 2021 Mr B finally received UC statements from the DWP showing the correct rent amount and submitted these to the Council. The DWP was unable to change the address on the statements. The Council told Mr B to submit his UC journal to substantiate this. Mr B did so but the Council rejected his application stating that the UC statements were provided too late.
18. Mr B appealed again explaining the delay was caused by the DWP.
19. The Council refused Mr B’s appeal. It explained a DHP could only be awarded to help prevent homelessness. It said Mr B had claimed DHP’s for his previous address. As he was now living at another address, a DHP could not be awarded as this would not prevent homelessness.
20. Mr B appealed again explaining the delay in providing the UC statements was caused by the DWP.
21. The Council responded on 5 March 2021 explaining that, although Mr B had provided the requested UC statements in February 2021, by then his circumstances had changed and he had left the accommodation he was claiming the DHP for. In this situation, a DHP could not be awarded. The Council could not make a DHP for a property that the claimant was no longer living at as this did not prevent homelessness.
22. Mr B requested a further review of the Council’s decision. The Council responded on 4 June 2021. It accepted the delay in providing the UC statements was caused by the DWP and was not Mr B’s fault. But it explained that, in line with its DHP policy, it’s overriding objective for DHP awards is homelessness prevention and to maintain the customer’s tenancy. As Mr B was no longer at the accommodation for which he had applied for a DHP, the Council remained of the view that a DHP should not be awarded because prevention of homelessness or sustainment of the tenancy could not be achieved.

Analysis

23. The Ombudsman is not an appeals body, so it is not our role to substitute our view for that of the Council. DHPs are discretionary but we will consider whether the Council followed Government guidance and its own procedures and whether it considered all relevant information when reaching its decision. Provided it did so, we cannot question the merits of the decision.
24. I am satisfied the Council considered Mr B’s circumstances when deciding to refuse his applications. It gave reasons for its decisions that complied with both Government guidance and its own policy including its stated objective to prevent homelessness. The guidance says Councils can set their own objective/s for payment of DHP’s.
25. Having considered all relevant information, it was a matter for officers’ professional judgement whether an award should be made. In the absence of administrative fault in the way officers considered Mr B’s application, we cannot question their decision not to award a DHP unless it is perverse. I do not consider this to be the case. Although it was not Mr B’s fault that there was a delay in providing the UC statements, the fact is that once these were provided several months had passed and he was now living in a secure tenancy at a different address. DHPs are intended to be emergency payments to help with housing costs, so there are no grounds to criticise the Council’s view that a payment was not appropriate given the amount of time that had passed and the fact that Mr B was no longer living in the properties for which he had claimed the DHP. I am satisfied the Council was entitled to refuse the applications in the exercise of its discretion.
26. Mr B says the Council refused his application because a DHP would not prevent homelessness but did not consider whether he had qualified for the DHP for the months in question. He says his applications had already been approved and the Council was only waiting for the information from the DWP. Yet, when this was received, it refused his application because he was now living at another address.
27. The Council must take into account various factors when considering an application for a DHP and is entitled to refuse the application if it does not meet its stated objective/s. Contrary to what Mr B says, the Council had not already approved his applications. It had acknowledged receipt of them and requested further information. It then rejected the applications because the information was not received within six weeks. The Council did not make a decision on the applications until it received the outstanding information in February 2021. It was entitled to take the view that the applications did not meet its objective of preventing homelessness. Mr B was living in Airbnbs when he made the applications but, when the Council decided the claims in February 2021, his circumstances had changed and he was in settled long-term accommodation with a tenancy agreement and was not therefore homeless or threatened with homelessness.
28. Mr B says the Council failed to act consistently because a similar situation had arisen 12 months previously and it had made a DHP. While we seek consistency, the Council was entitled to decide that the applications did not meet its objective to prevent homelessness. There are many considerations when deciding whether to approve an application and the Council is not bound by previous decisions.

Application for DHP for deposit assistance

Key facts

29. In February 2020 Mr B asked the Council about applying for a DHP for assistance with a deposit on a flat. He says it agreed he could apply for help with a deposit on a flat anywhere in London. Mr B later found some flats available to rent in another part of London. He contacted the officer who had been dealing with his claims (Officer X) seeking reassurance that he would be able to apply for a DHP even though they were not in the Council’s area. Officer X explained the evidence he would need to provide.
30. On 27 March 2020 Mr B sent an email Officer X. He said the DHP form stated, “confirm that the property is within LHA rates for the borough it is in”. He asked, “Does this mean I can apply for assistance for any flat inside or outside of Southwark as long as it is within the LHA amount?”. Officer X responded on 30 March 2020 saying, “the property could be anywhere if it is within LHA rates”.
31. On 15 May 2020 Mr B sent an email to Officer X saying, “I found two possible flats to rent finally, one in Covent Garden and one in Soho. Both are priced below the LHA for the borough.… I just wanted to make sure everything was still okay with regard to the deposit before I sign the tenancy agreement”. Officer X replied saying “I am glad to hear that you have managed to find some places that you might be able to rent. I have provided information to you already on what documents will be requested”.
32. In reliance on the information provided by Officer X, in December 2020 Mr B signed a tenancy on a flat outside the borough and applied to the Council for a DHP. The Council responded requesting various documents which Mr B provided.
33. On 15 February 2021 the officer dealing with the claim (Officer Y) wrote to Mr B explaining the Council could not award him a DHP because “you no longer live in Southwark and we do not pay DHP if you do not have a current tenancy in the Southwark Borough”. The officer advised Mr B to apply for a DHP in the borough in which he was living.
34. On 18 February 2021 Mr B wrote Officer X saying “it was my understanding, based on the conversations you and I have had over email over the last year or so, that in my particular circumstances so that would be able to help with a deposit assistance in this instance (regarding of the borough). However, I received the attached letter from [Officer Y] which turns me down because the tenancy is outside of Southwark Council”.
35. Mr B appealed on 2 March 2021 explaining that Officer X had advised he could apply for a DHP for a deposit whether he was living in Southwark or not.
36. Officer Y responded repeating the information set out in the decision letter and explaining that Mr B would need to state the reason he was appealing.
37. Mr B responded the following day saying, “in all of my discussions with [officer X] I was never told that I would be outright rejected for DHP (whether it be used for help paying rent or help with a deposit) if the accommodation is in a borough other than Southwark”. He attached copies of the emails between himself and Officer X. He also asked, “if my application was denied simply because it was for a flat outside of Southwark Council, why did the council bother to request all of the documentation for the address knowing full well already it was out of the borough?”
38. On 14 June 2021 the Council responded to Mr B’s appeal confirming its original decision stood and a DHP would not be paid. It stated, “you applied for a deposit when you were no longer resident in the London Borough of Southwark. As such, your claim could not be considered.… The discretionary housing payment fund is issued from the Department for Work and Pensions to every local council in the country to assist those who are resident in their borough. As such, the borough in which you currently reside is the local council who can consider your claim”.

Analysis

39. Mr B says the Council misled him into believing he could apply for a DHP for a flat outside its area. In reliance on this advice, he signed a tenancy on a property in another borough. But the Council then refused his application because the flat was in another council’s area.
40. The guidance states, “if the deposit or rent in advance is for a property outside of your area this does not prevent a payment being made if the claimant is currently in receipt of HB or UC within your area”.
41. So, Officer X’s advice to Mr B was correct. The Council can make a DHP for a deposit on a property outside its area provided the claimant resides in the Council’s area at the time of the application. Even if Mr B was not claiming UC within the Council’s area at the time, the fact remains that the Council led him to believe he could apply for a DHP for a deposit on a flat outside its area and did not inform him that he would have to be claiming UC in its area to do so.
42. I find the Council was at fault in refusing Mr B’s application on the grounds that it could not make a DHP for a property outside its area. Mr B acted on the Council’s advice in signing a tenancy for the flat and suffered distress and inconvenience in having to repeatedly appeal to the Council and, ultimately, complain to the Ombudsman.
43. It is not our role to reach a decision on Mr B’s application, and I cannot say for certain that, if the Council had considered the application properly, it definitely would have made a DHP. However, it should now review its decision on the application in light of the above.

Back to top

Agreed action

44. The Council has agreed that, within one month, it will:
• apologise to Mr B for the distress and time and trouble he suffered because of the fault identified;
• review its decision on Mr B’s application for a DHP for a deposit and notify us of the outcome; and
• provide a copy of this decision to officers as a reminder that DHP’s can be awarded for deposits on properties outside the Council’s area.

Back to top

Final decision

45. I find the Council was at fault in refusing Mr B’s application for a DHP for a deposit on a flat on the basis that the property was outside its area.
46. I find no grounds to question the Council’s decisions in relation to Mr B’s applications for DHP’s for help with rent.
47. I have completed my investigation on the basis that the Council has agreed to implement the recommended remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman