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

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains about the Council’s response after she asked for help from the Household Support Fund (HSF). She is unhappy with the support provided and says the Council did not explain the income thresholds or consider disability needs.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the correspondence about the application. I also considered the HSF policy, government guidance and our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Council provides help to financially vulnerable people from the HSF. It can provide help with food (£60 for a single person), £100 for energy costs, and help with exceptional costs. The Council assesses each application individually and uses discretion to decide what help it can provide.
5. Ms X owns her home. She applied for help from the HSF because one room was in a dangerous condition. The Council initially rejected the application because it said Ms X had asked for non-essential goods, did not meet the income threshold, and had not demonstrated she was in a crisis.
6. Ms X said she could not afford to get more evidence. The Council paid for a surveyor to survey Ms X’s home. The surveyor found that parts of the property were dangerous and he recommended props to remove the immediate risk of a ceiling collapse. The Council awarded Ms X £200 so she could hire props.
7. Ms X is unhappy with the suggestion of props, the amount of the award and that the Council has not explained the income threshold it uses to assess eligibility. The Council told Ms X it did not need to consider the income threshold because it had accepted she was eligible for help. It said the props were recommended by the surveyor to prevent a crisis and it would not make an alternative offer.
8. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. It exercised discretion to pay for a survey and accepted that funding the props would alleviate the potential crisis of a ceiling collapse. Ms X disagrees with the solution (the props) but it is not wrong for a council to follow the professional judgement of a surveyor as to what is needed to prevent a crisis. Ms X disagrees with the amount of the award but the Council paid for the survey and gave £200 for the props. The policy provides for one-off payments to prevent a crisis, and this is what the Council provided. The decision reflects the policy so there is no reason to start an investigation. We do not need to investigate the income threshold because the Council accepted financial hardship and awarded £200.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman