Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a discretionary housing payment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr J complains about the Council’s handling of his discretionary housing payment (DHP) claim. He says the Council was discriminatory and prevented him from making a review request.

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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or

(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 Mr J and the Council. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. A council can award a DHP when someone needs help with housing costs. Government guidance allows councils to choose (discretion) when to offer a DHP; there is no statutory right to payment. However, guidance says DHP decisions must follow the ordinary principles of good decision making. This means councils must act fairly, reasonably, and consistently, and must decide each case by considering individual circumstances. Councils can decide:
• what questions to ask applicants;
• what award to make (if any); and
• how long to make payments for.

(Discretionary Housing Payments guidance manual May 2022, sections 4.24 and 2.14)

5. The Council had previously awarded DHPs to Mr J. He claimed a DHP again in 2024 because he wanted support while he looked for smaller accommodation.
6. The Council refused as it said his circumstances were not exceptional and he could meet his rent liability with careful budgeting. It said DHPs were for short term assistance. It had paid him DHPs in the past but it his circumstances were unsustainable, and it would not be able to offer him further assistance.
7. Mr J complained the Council refused a DHP for invalid and discriminatory reasons. He had asked for the names of the officers who had made the decision, but the Council had not done so. The Council had said he would never be able to apply for a DHP in the future. He said the Council failed to take account of his extra financial costs due to his disability and did not disregard his income from disability benefits.
8. The Council said it was not necessary to name the officers making the decision before Mr J requested a review. It saw no evidence of discrimination, and its reasons were valid. It said it would not refuse any DHP application, but it could have explained more clearly his circumstances were unsustainable in the long term so it would be unlikely he would receive a DHP in the near future. It said the deadline to request a review had now expired.
9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant it. This is because the Council’s decision reflects the guidance and its policy. DHPs are discretionary and Councils can decide whether to award and the length of the award. Councils can take account of disability benefits and consider disability related outgoings on an individual basis. There is not enough evidence to suggest the Council did not do this. Mr J could have requested a review and it was not necessary for him to have the names of decision makers in advance.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr J’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman