Leicester City Council (19 018 432)
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to reject her application for Discretionary Housing Payment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision to warrant an investigation. Ms X also complained about the Council’s decision to reject her application for Council Tax Discretionary Relief. The Ombudsman will not investigate this part of the complaint because the Council has agreed to my recommendations to take appropriate and proportionate action to remedy the injustice to Ms X.
The complaint
- Ms X complains the Council has not applied its policy for Discretionary Housing Payments (DHPs) and Council Tax Discretionary Relied (CTDR) correctly.
- Ms X also complains over the way the Council has looked at her complaint and the information it has provided to her.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
- The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability and council tax support or reduction.
- 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 a council’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)
- We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:
- it is unlikely we would find fault, or
- it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
- it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
- I have considered Ms X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information she provided. I have written to Ms X with my draft decision and given her an opportunity to comment.
What I found
- Ms X become homeless in July 2019 and entered temporary accommodation.
- In September 2019 Ms X arranged to move into a housing association property and applied for DHPs and CTDR.
- Ms X moved into the property in September 2019.
- The Council rejected her application for DHPs and CTDR in October 2019.
- Ms X made a second application for DHPs and CTDR in November 2019 but the Council rejected this in December 2019.
DHP
- Discretionary Housing Payments (DHPs) are payments councils can give to people who they decide need extra help to meet housing costs. Payment of DHPs is discretionary, however only claimants in receipt of housing benefit are eligible for DHPs.
- The Council’s policy says decisions on whether to pay a DHP will be sent in writing within four weeks of the Council receiving the necessary supporting information.
- The Council rejected Ms X’s applications for DHPs as Ms X could move into the property without the need for rent in advance. The Housing Association allowed for repayment of the advance rent while Ms X is living in the property.
- We look to investigate issues of fault in the way a Council has assessed a claim. The Ombudsman cannot query the decision a Council makes simply because Ms X disagrees with it.
- In this case there is no suggestion of fault. The Council considered Ms X’s circumstances, her income, expenditure and savings. It refused DHPs because there were no barriers to her entering accommodation and affording her rent based on her income. This is consistent with Council policy.
CTDR
- Council Tax Discretionary Relief (CTDR) is a reduction to council tax for people who are struggling to pay for their council tax. This is means tested based on a person’s ability to pay.
- A decision on CTDR should be made within two weeks.
- The Council rejected Ms X’s applications for CTDR as Ms X had no balance owing on the first application and, upon review of her financial situation for the second application, could be deemed to afford her council tax.
- A decision about CTDR can be appealed to the Valuation Tribunal. It is reasonable to expect Ms X to exercise her right to appeal.
- The Council did not direct Ms X to the Valuation Tribunal to appeal her complaint. The Council’s policy also makes no reference to a person’s right to appeal the Valuation Tribunal.
- The Council has agreed to my recommendation to send Ms X a revised decision which directs her to the Valuation Tribunal in order to resurrect her appeal rights. The Council has also agreed to update its policy.
Agreed action
- The Council has agreed to complete the following actions:
- Send Ms X a revised decision in relation to her application for Council Tax Discretionary Relief which directs Ms X to the Valuation Tribunal;
- Update the Council policy about Council Tax Discretionary Relief in order to include a person’s right to appeal decision to the Valuation Tribunal.
Final decision
- My decision is that the Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to reject her application for Discretionary Housing Payment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision to warrant an investigation. Ms X also complained about the Council’s decision to reject her application for Council Tax Discretionary Relief. The Ombudsman will not investigate this part of the complaint because the Council has agreed to my recommendations to take appropriate and proportionate action to remedy the injustice to Ms X.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman