Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council handled her application for a discretionary housing payment. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council refused to award a discretionary housing payment (DHP) for more than 6 months, and the amount awarded did not reflect a recent rent increase. She said the Council asked for more evidence for her application that she felt was unnecessary. She also complains the Council mishandled her complaint.

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 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)
3. 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organization.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X asked the Council to award the DHP for 12 months. She said that to have to apply for the award every 6 months was damaging to her physical and mental health. The government guidance states the length of time over which a payment is made is at the discretion of the local authority. The Council considered Miss X’s circumstances but decided to keep the award at 6 months.
7. As the Council properly considered Miss X’s circumstances before making its decision, we cannot find fault with the decision itself. In addition, the Council’s policy is clear that DHPs are intended as temporary relief and so as the decision to require Miss X to reapply for the award was in line with the policy, I am unlikely to find fault.
8. Miss X complained the DHP awarded did not reflect that her rent had recently increased. The Council advised Miss X the award amount was provisional as it was waiting for information from the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) to confirm the rent increase. The Council said it did not receive this information and have now confirmed Miss X no longer receives an eligible benefit so she no longer qualified for a DHP award.
9. There is not enough evidence of fault as the government guidance states a claimant must provide any information a local authority needs to make its decision. I am satisfied it was reasonable for the Council to request further information, including evidence of Miss X’s rental liability. Therefore, I will not investigate this complaint.
10. Miss X also complained the Council mishandled her complaint. The Council responded in writing to Miss X’s complaint in a timely way and answered each point of Miss X’s complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation. In addition, we do not investigate complaints solely about complaint handling if we are not investigating the substantive issues itself.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman