Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an award from the Household Support Fund. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, says the grant the Council awarded from the Household Support Fund is not sufficient to address the complexities of his mental health needs. He says the Council did not offer tailored support. Mr X wants the Council to review the application and provide more support.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating/ (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the application, award and the policy. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council can provide financial help from the Household Support Fund. Its priority is to provide support with energy costs, but will also provide support for essentials linked to food and water, and wider essentials such as clothing. The policy says the Council can offer support with white goods, furniture and flooring but it will require additional information and its decision will be final. The Council does not offer support for non-essential items such as TVs or tumble driers.
6. Mr X applied for help from the Fund. He described his mental health needs and said financial support with his car insurance, and to buy a dishwasher, would help his mental health; he explained why these items would help.
7. The Council awarded £180 for help with shopping, £250 for gas/electric and £80 for petrol (total £510). Mr X challenged the decision and repeated why he needs help with his car insurance and to buy a dishwasher.
8. The Council reviewed but did not change the decision. It said it had awarded the maximum amount for a single person and provided support with transport in recognition of Mr X’s circumstances. It said it cannot treat a dishwasher and insurance as essential items but said the award will help his overall financial position and may free up funds to spend on other items such as car insurance.
9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council supported Mr X by making an award. I appreciate the Council has not funded the specific items requested by Mr X but, as the policy says the support must be for essential items, I see nothing to suggest fault in the Council’s decision that a dishwasher, and car insurance, are not essential items.
10. I have checked the government guidance for the scheme. It says councils can use the Fund to provide support for essentials linked to energy, food or water (for example, an energy efficient fridge) but dishwashers are not referred to and are not an essential linked to food, water or energy.
11. I appreciate Mr X believes these items are essential to his health, but I have not seen any suggestion of fault in the way the Council reached the decision. We do not act as an appeal body and it is not my role to remake the decision or decide if the Council should provide Mr X with additional support. I can only consider if there was fault in the way the Council made the decision and I see no suggestion of fault. The Council’s decision reflects the policy and government guidance so there is no reason to start an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman