Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to properly consider her application for a Discretionary Housing Payment. Miss X also complained the Council failed to respond to her request for a review of her application. We did not find fault with the Council’s decision not to award Miss X a Discretionary Housing Payment. We found fault with the Council for delays in completing the review of Miss X’s Discretionary Housing Payment but this did not cause Miss X a significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council failed to properly consider her application for a Discretionary Housing Payment. Miss X says the Council decided to reject her application on inaccurate information.
2. Miss X complained the Council’s application form says it awards Discretionary Housing Payments for “shortfalls” but only considers a person’s income and not their outgoings so disputes the validity of this term.
3. Miss X also complained the Council failed to respond to her request for a review of her Discretionary Housing Payment application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have considered all the information Miss X provided. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
8. Miss X provided comments on my draft decision which I considered before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Discretionary Housing Payments

9. The Discretionary Housing Payments guidance manual issued by the Department for Work and Pensions says a Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP) may be awarded where a council considers a claimant requires further financial assistance towards housing costs and is entitled to either Housing Benefit (HB) or the housing cost element of Universal Credit (UC). The scheme is purely discretionary, a claimant does not have a statutory right to a payment.
10. The legislation governing the DHP scheme is the Discretionary Financial Assistance Regulations 2001 (as amended). The Regulations give councils broad discretion, but they have a duty to act fairly, reasonably and consistently. In reaching a decision they must take into account the claimant’s financial circumstances and any other relevant factors.
11. When someone applies for a DHP they must provide details of their income, capital, expenditure and any other information the Council considers reasonably necessary.

Council Discretionary Housing Payment Policy

12. The Council’s policy says it targets Discretionary Housing Payments (DHPs) at people in various categories including those who only need short-term help or supporting those looking for work.
13. The Council says it will consider an award under short-term help where a short-term difficulty has, or is, causing a problem in meeting housing costs. One example provided by the Council of this would be an unavoidable priority debt preventing a person from meeting their rent.
14. The Council’s policy says that it can help cover shortfalls caused by circumstances which, in the Council’s opinion, a person reasonably incurs or is practically unavoidable. One example given by the Council is a reduction in Housing Benefit, or the housing component of Universal Credit, resulting from non-dependent deductions. The Council will consider this when a non-dependent cannot contribute equivalent to the deduction being made. To consider this, the Council will need evidence of why the non-dependent cannot cover the cost of the deduction; for example payment of court charges.
15. The Council says that following an application it will decide whether to award Discretionary Housing Payments based on the evidence provided by the applicant and the information it already holds on record. The Council says it will consider the full circumstances and evidence before reaching a decision.
16. The Council should consider relevant factors such as a person’s income, expenditure and the size of any shortfall between a person’s eligible costs and the amount of their housing benefit or Universal Credit.
17. The Council’s policy confirms that since the decision is discretionary, there are no appeal rights available to a person. However, the Council allows a person to request a revision of a decision if they are dissatisfied with the outcome.

What happened

18. On 12 May 2022, Miss X applied for a DHP of £22.05 per week from the Council to cover her rent shortfall while she looked for work. Miss X said:
• She received the housing component of Universal Credit.
• She needed the DHP because of non-dependent deductions to her Universal Credit and her gas and electricity debts.
• She lived in social housing with rent of £465.05 each month and she had no arrears on her account.
• Her income totalled £1,063.20 from her Universal Credit (including child benefits).
• Her expenditure totalled £946.07 including debt repayments.
19. Miss X spoke with the Council on 15 July 2022 about her DHP application. The Council asked Miss X to provide any details about her rent arrears, if these existed. Miss X did not provide any evidence to show rent arrears.
20. On 29 July 2022, the Council completed its review of Miss X’s application and told her she was unsuccessful in her application. The Council wrote to Miss X on 1 August 2022 to explain its decision. The Council said:
• Miss X’s rent account was £35.76 in credit [on 29 July 2022].
• Miss X’s monthly shortfalls were because of the non-dependent charge on her Universal Credit. The non-dependent could contribute towards these costs.
• Because of the above it had decided not to award a DHP.
• Miss X could seek help for her utility bill debt elsewhere and provided information about this.
21. Miss X sought a review of the Council’s decision on 3 August 2022. Miss X said the Council had not properly checked her income and outgoings against the evidence she provided. Miss X said she was being deducted £77.87 from her Universal Credit for a non-dependent living at her property and this non-dependent was on low income of £426 per month. Miss X said the Council should not have excluded her from a DHP payment because of the non-dependent and said the Council made its decision with bias. Miss X also told the Council grant schemes for her utility debt were not available and provided evidence of the money she owed to her energy provider.
22. On 1 November 2022, Miss X complained to the Council about its failure to complete a review of her application. Miss X reiterated the non-dependent living at her property only worked 12 hours per week at £9.50 an hour and could not afford to cover the £77.87 non-dependent reduction.
23. The Council provided Miss X with a response to her review request and complaint on 11 November 2022. The Council said:
• It upheld its previous decision not to award a DHP.
• It made this decision based on the evidence and information Miss X provided.
• It had reviewed Miss X’s application and considered her household income was enough to cover any shortfall she was seeking a DHP for.
• It expects non-dependents to contribute to a household irrespective of whether they are working. Since the non-dependent at Miss X’s household was working it expects they would contribute towards costs.

Analysis

24. The Council’s policy says it targets DHPs for people who need short-term help or are looking for work. The guidance says that a person is eligible for consideration of a DHP if they are entitled to the housing component of Universal Credit.
25. As Miss X receives the housing component of Universal Credit and is looking for work, she was entitled to consideration of a DHP. The Council acted correctly to accept and consider Miss X’s application.
26. While Miss X was entitled to consideration for a DHP, she was not entitled to automatically receive a payment. DHPs are fundamentally discretionary payments and the Council must consider each application on its own merits.
27. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body, so cannot comment on the merits of judgements and decisions made by councils in the absence of fault in the process. Neither are we a court, and so cannot determine or define the law.
28. The Ombudsman must decide if the Council has considered the relevant legislation, policies and information in making its decision. If the Council has considered the relevant policies and reached a suitable decision in line with these policies, the Ombudsman cannot find fault.
29. The Council’s policy says it will consider the full information a person provides, and the information it has on record. The Council also says it will consider a person’s income and expenditure when reaching a decision.
30. The Council has shown consideration of Miss X’s income through her Universal Credit with its records stating Miss X’s Universal Credit payment is £1,012.09 per month (once child benefits and the non-dependent deduction is applied). Miss X’s application form says her Universal Credit income is £985.33 (once child benefits and the non-dependent deduction is applied). However, this does not show any income from the non-dependent.
31. Miss X’s application form, and supplementary evidence, has shown expenditure totalling £981.07. However, this does not show any regular payments towards Miss X’s gas and electricity supply.
32. The Council has shown consideration of the information Miss X provided and the information it held on file. The Council has also shown consideration of both Miss X’s income and expenditure in deciding Miss X can meet her costs. I do not find fault with the Council as it has considered the relevant factors and information.
33. The Council’s main decision to reject Miss X’s application for a DHP was because of the non-dependent living with Miss X. The Council’s policy says it will consider the award of DHP when a person experiences a deduction to their Universal Credit resulting from non-dependent deductions. The Council’s policy says it will consider an award when a non-dependent cannot contribute an equivalent amount to the household to cover the deduction.
34. Miss X told the Council the non-dependent deduction amounted to £77.87 each month while the non-dependent earned between £426 and £456 each month. The Council said the non-dependent could contribute towards costs in its decision to reject the DHP application. The Council made its decision in line with its policy and based on the information Miss X provided.
35. The Council was entitled to reject Miss X’s DHP application based on the circumstances and the information provided. There is also no evidence of bias in the Council’s decision as it has followed its policy and made a decision based on the evidence. I do not find fault.
36. While I do not find fault with the Council’s decision to reject Miss X’s application for a DHP, I do find fault with the Council’s delays in responding to her review request. The Council says it normally looks to complete a review request of a DHP application decision within one month. The Council failed to meet these timescales because of pressures on its service from the financial fallout of the Covid-19 pandemic and cost of living crisis. While these are potential mitigating circumstances this does not override the Council’s fault. The Council apologised to Miss X for its delay on 11 November 2022. While the delay may have been frustrating for Miss X I do not consider this presented a significant personal injustice to her. This is because the Council did not award Miss X a DHP and, therefore, the delay had no impact on receiving any payment.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I have completed my investigation as the fault by the Council has not led to a significant injustice to Miss X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman