Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to award a Discretionary Housing Payment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, complains about the Council’s decision not to award a Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP). She is struggling financially, provided all the required information and is a carer. She wants the Council to review her application.

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 Mrs X and the Council. This includes Mrs X’s application, the evidence she submitted, the Council decision and the DHP policy. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Councils can award a DHP to help people pay their rent. People who receive Carers Allowance may qualify for a long-term DHP award. A DHP is a discretionary award and nobody has a right to a DHP.
5. Mrs X applied for a DHP. She explained she is in financial difficulty and provided evidence of her income, expenditure, bank account and debts.
6. The Council assessed the claim but decided Mrs X does not qualify because her disposable income is too high. The Council reviewed the decision but did not change it. Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision and says she needs support.
7. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. I have considered the way the Council assessed Mrs X’s expenditure and this reflects the DHP procedures. I have not seen any indication of fault in the way the Council did this. The DHP rules state that some aspects of expenditure are restricted to a set amount and this has been applied to Mrs X’s claim. This means that, for some elements, the Council can only take into account expenditure to a set level, even though her claimed expenses may be higher. Mrs X may disagree with this approach but it forms part of the DHP policy and does not amount to fault.
8. Mrs X is a carer and gets additional support as a carer with her Universal Credit. But, the carers element within Universal Credit is different to Carers Allowance and is not a qualifying award for a DHP. Mrs X would only qualify for a long-term DHP if she was eligible for a DHP and received Carers Allowance (as opposed to the Universal Credit carer element).
9. Mrs X says she submitted all the required evidence to support her claim. The Council says that not all her claimed expenditure was supported by up-to-date evidence. However, I can see from the documents that even if the Council accepted all the claimed expenditure, Mrs X would still have too much disposable income to qualify for a DHP.
10. Mrs X has stressed she needs a DHP to help ease financial pressure. But, we do not act as an appeal body and, if there is no fault in the way the Council has made a decision, we cannot intervene.

Back to top

Final decision

11. 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