Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to fully consider his circumstances when he claimed a Discretionary Housing Payment. There was fault in the Council’s communications and in its consideration of his backdate request. We recommended a remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council failed to properly consider his Discretionary Housing Payment applications. He says the Council did not take account of all the circumstances. He says this led to stress and financial hardship.
2. Mr X also complained about the Council’s Local Welfare Payments (LWPS) as he said the Council told him he could only make three claims in one year, when he could have made four.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated Mr X’s complaint regarding his claim for DHPs.
4. I discontinued my investigation into Mr X’s complaint about LWP’s because I do not consider that there is evidence of apparent fault by the Council, or that it caused Mr X significant injustice.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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 an organisation’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)
6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

7. I have discussed the complaint with the complainant and considered the complaint and the copy correspondence provided by the complainant. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. I have considered government guidance and the Council’s own DHP policy. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Discretionary Housing Payments (DHPs)

8. DHPs provide financial support towards housing costs and are paid by a Local Authority when they are satisfied that a claimant needs further financial assistance with housing costs and is in receipt of either:
• Housing Benefit (HB) or
• Universal Credit (UC) with housing costs towards rental liability.

(Department for Work and Pensions - Discretionary Housing Payments Guidance Manual updated May 2022).

What happened

9. Mr X and his wife moved into a rented property in the Council’s area in September 2020. Mr X had received a payment of DHP from his former local authority to cover his first full month’s rent and the deposit.
10. Mr X claimed and received Universal Credit which included a housing element. However, the Universal Credit did not cover his full rent which was £1050 per month for the three bedroom property.

DHP claim 2020

11. On 1 October 2020 Mr X claimed a DHP from Wiltshire Council for the shortfall between the Universal Credit housing element and the rent charged. He said he had been fleeing violence in his previous local authority area and had been homeless for some weeks. He had received loans from friends to pay the rent.
12. The Council wrote to Mr X requesting copies of his bank statements. It asked why he had moved into a 3 bedroom property when he had a one bedroom need and cheaper properties were available. Mr X replied sending some bank statements and explained he had moved in a hurry due to being threatened with violence.
13. The Council asked Mr X about the loans from friends and the arrangements to repay. It asked the reason for several large credits and debits in his statements. It also asked for evidence regarding other bank accounts it appeared he had. Mr X called the Council and discussed his claim. The officer said she would discuss his DHP claim with a manager and would look at the decision in a few days.
14. Mr X emailed the Council on 14 October 2020 and thanked the officer for listening. But he then said, “Let your co worker know that she doesn’t need to any more, I can’t be doing with the stress of dealing with it and made to feel like I’m a criminal on the phone, up again all night stressing can’t be getting like this any more. I don’t mind being homeless again as long as we’re safe. I will try and move out and get some of my friends monies back.”
15. The Council noted on its system that the DHP claim was “refused as claim withdrawn by customer after requests for information”. The Council’s letter of 16 October 2020 to Mr X confirming its action stated:

“We have now considered your application against these criteria and in line with our DHP policy and the government instructions but unfortunately whilst we have sympathy with your situation I am sorry to inform you that your request for a DHP has been refused. I must point out that there is no right of appeal against this decision.”

16. When Mr X received the letter, he called the Council about its refusal. Mr X spoke to a manager and gave more information about the circumstances of his move. He said he had no money to pay the shortfall. The Council noted its system to record Mr X’s comments and its officer’s advice to him that he could request a reconsideration of its decision to refuse the DHP in writing. It also advised he could make a complaint in writing.
17. After the call ended, the manager noted that he had just recognised that Mr X had essentially withdrawn his DHP claim on the basis it was causing too much stress. He also noted that he would discuss the case with the officer who sent the letter. However, there is no further record the Council took any actions relating to the “refusal” letter.
18. Mr X did not make a request for the Council to review its decision and did not make a complaint.

DHP claim 2021

19. In late February 2021 Mr X contacted the Council’s complaints team about his financial circumstances, the Council’s payment of LWP and about the Council’s refusal of his DHP claim. The Council registered this as a stage one complaint.
20. The Council replied on 3 March 2021, noting Mr X previously claimed Universal Credit and so would know about the restrictions in bedrooms. Mr X and his wife were entitled to one bedroom based on their household. The maximum monthly UC for a one bedroom property was £520 but his rent was £1050 per month. The Council said it had asked Mr X about large transfers of money in his accounts. But on 14 October 2020 he had emailed and withdrawn his claim for DHP. The Council said Mr X was welcome to claim DHP, but it would still need to request evidence to support his claim. It said it asked all claimants for this evidence.
21. Mr X complained at stage two in early March. He explained his circumstances and said the Council was making him feel like a cheat. He had suffered an injury since he moved and could only walk using crutches. He said he could not get to the bank to get statements. He said the Council’s decisions should be based on his current circumstances not the past.
22. Mr X says he requested a DHP claim form on 15 March 2021, but the Council did not send one. The Council does not have a record Mr X requested a DHP form.
23. Mr X called the Council on 16 April 2021 and discussed the DHP and LWP. The Council noted that it said it would send him a DHP form but he needed to find somewhere cheaper. Mr X asked the Council to reconsider its DHP decision on 19 April 2021. On 4 May 2021 Mr X called the Council and said he had requested a DHP form several times. He said he wanted a different decision maker as he did not feel fairly treated. The Council noted it sent a DHP form to Mr X.
24. The Council replied to Mr X’s stage two complaint on 12 May. It apologised for its delay. It did not uphold his complaint regarding the DHP claim because it said that its enquiries were in accordance with its policy and published guidance. It asked for information from all claimants. It repeated that Mr X could make a claim for DHP. The Council sent two further DHP forms to Mr X on 13 May, one by email.
25. Mr X sent the Council a completed DHP form on 10 June 2021. He asked the Council to backdate his claim to September 2020. He said the Council had told him he did not earn enough to pay his rent.
26. The Council requested evidence of all Mr X and Mrs X’s bank accounts. The Council says that Mr X provided some information but this prompted further requests for information. Mr X explained some transfers of money in and out of his accounts. The Council asked for Mrs X’s statements on 22 June. It later noted that Mr X said he had received extra UC for the second bedroom. However, it also noted Mrs X said he was done with fighting and did not need this anymore. The Council wrote to him saying it understood he wished to withdraw his claim. But it said if he wished to reapply he should contact the Council.
27. On 25 June Mr X said he had not withdrawn his DHP claim. He said he had received the two bedroom rate from UC but it was not enough to pay his full rent. He still wanted to pursue his DHP claim. He said the Council was just delaying and he was being abandoned again. The Council noted he wished to claim DHP, and repeated its request for Mrs X’s statements. It discussed the requests, but Mr X said he had provided all he had.
28. On 29 June the Council told Mr X it had refused his DHP claim because he had not provided all the information it requested. In addition, it considered his income exceeded the expenses he had listed.
29. Mr X discussed the refusal in further telephone calls with the Council. An officer explained the evidence it required. Mr X then provided further documents. On 1 July 2021 the Council said it had reviewed it decision and agreed to pay Mr X a DHP of £55 per week backdated to 1 April 2021 and up to 31 December 2021.
30. Mr X asked the Council why it had not backdated the DHP further to September 2020, as he said his financial circumstances were much worse then. The Council replied that Mr X had not provided the information it required to assess his DHP claim until now. Mr X replied that he had responded to its requests and explained but the Council did not listen to him.

Analysis

31. Based on the information I have seen, I consider there was fault by the Council in the way it communicated about Mr X’s DHP claim. It appears that the Council considered Mr X had withdrawn his claim based on his email in which he said he could not deal with the stress. However, the Council’s notification letter of 16 October 2020 incorrectly stated it had refused Mr X’s claim.
32. In my view the Council’s letter should have confirmed that it considered Mr X had withdrawn his claim, and that it had stopped assessing his DHP. Instead, it said that it had refused but did not explain why. It also stated there was no right of appeal against the decision. The Council is correct to state there is no formal right of appeal to a tribunal regarding a DHP decision. However, Local Authorities should have a DHP review procedure and the DWP guidance manual states that Local Authorities should provide information about their review procedure.
33. In its response to my enquiries the Council said that its letter of 16 October 2020 should have been amended to reflect that Mr X’s claim had been withdrawn, and that as “it appeared to have been refused, [this] later caused confusion.”
34. The Council said in relation to review rights, “The letter does not mention a reconsideration as it was Mr X’s decision to withdraw his DHP application prior to us making a decision. This was due to him being unable/unwilling to provide the evidence requested to allow a decision on his application to be made”.
35. The evidence I have seen shows that the Council recognised soon after it had issued the letter that it was incorrect. But while it noted this, it did not take action to issue a new letter. I have considered whether this fault caused injustice to Mr X. In my view the letter caused confusion because it appeared the Council had refused Mr X’s claim without stating a reason, and not that it noted his withdrawn claim. However, I note that the Council advised Mr X verbally he could request a reconsideration when he called, and also that he could make a complaint. Mr X neither requested a reconsideration nor made a complaint after he called the Council in October 2020. He did not state that he did not wish to withdraw his claim. If he had done so the Council could have considered whether to reopen his DHP claim and assess it or request a further claim earlier. But Mr X did not contact the Council for over four months about his DHP request.
36. Even if the Council had advised Mr X it had treated his claim as withdrawn earlier, I cannot say that Mr X would have attempted to reopen his claim or that he would have provided the information necessary for it to make a decision. And, I cannot say that the Council would have agreed to pay a DHP. Because of this uncertainty I cannot say that Mr X has lost out financially.
37. I have considered whether there was fault by the Council from March 2021 when Mr X contacted the Council again to 1 July 2021. I do not consider there is evidence of fault by the Council in the way it handled his claim. The Council sent Mr X a DHP claim form on 4 May 2021. I have not seen evidence he requested this earlier.
38. There was no fault by the Council in requesting evidence to support Mr X’s claim. The Council needed to consider his financial circumstances. I note Mr X says the Council failed to consider the full circumstances. However, I do not see there is evidence of this.
39. Mr X complains the Council did not properly consider backdating his claim. The Council received Mr X’s DHP claim form on 10 June 2021 and it backdated its award to 1 April 2021. The Council’s policy is that the start date of the will usually be “the Monday after the claim for DHP is received or registered by the Council or the date on which entitlement to HB or UC commenced (providing the application for DHP is received within one calendar month of the claim for HB or UC. However, the council does have the discretion to backdate an award if it considers the circumstances warrant it”.
40. When Mr X questioned the start date the Council commented that he had not provided the information required until now. In response to my enquiries the Council said that it had backdated Mr X’s claim to 1 April 2021 which was the start of the financial year for DHP funding.
41. I consider there is fault by the Council because I cannot see it formally considered Mr X’s backdate request or his apparent request for a review. Mr X asked the Council to start the DHP from September 2020. But the Council did not refer to this in its decision letter and did not explain why it had used 1 April as the start date. I do not consider the date being the start of the financial year for DHPs is relevant. In addition, when Mr X asked the Council why it had not paid from September 2020, the Council did not write with its reasons, did not review its decision or state how he might go about requesting a review.
42. The Council’s DHP policy states:

There are no formal rights of appeal against decisions in relation to DHPs but where a review of the decision is requested, arrangements will be made for considerations to be heard by a panel of senior officers. This will ensure consistent decision making across the service.

43. The Council’s DHP policy does not state how a review request might be made and refers to a review panel. It does not state that the officer should be different to the original decision maker. It does not refer to timescales. However, it is apparent the Council intends that claimants can follow a review process if they disagree.
44. I do not consider the Council’s review process is clear and in this case it does not appear the Council fully considered Mr X’s emails disagreeing with its decision.

Back to top

Agreed action

45. The Council’s letter of 16 October 2020 was unclear and caused confusion and led to uncertainty about whether Mr X would have received a DHP earlier. I recommended that within one month of my decision the Council pays Mr X £150 in view of the lack of clarity and uncertainty.
46. The Council has not properly considered Mr X’s backdate request. I recommended that within one month of my decision the Council should consider his request and write to him with its decision explaining what it has taken into consideration. The Council should provide information about how to request a review of its decision. If Mr X requests a review the Council should consider it and write to him promptly with an explanation of its reasons.
47. The Council’s DHP policy is unclear. I recommended within two months of my decision that the Council reviews its DHP policy particularly with regard to review requests, how these might be made, how they will be considered and the timescales for this.

Back to top

Final decision

48. I found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed the remedies I proposed to remedy the injustice to Mr X. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman