Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing a discretionary housing payment for Miss X. There is insufficient evidence any fault by the Council caused Miss X injustice, and there is no evidence of fault in its most recent assessment.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council refused her application for a discretionary housing payment. She says she is in financial hardship, with debts owed to her landlord and energy companies. She says this has impacted her mental health. She wants the Council to provide financial help with the cost of her rent.

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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X has received three discretionary housing payments (DHPs) from the Council previously. She applied for a further DHP, however the Council refused the application. It explained to Miss X that DHPs are intended to be short-term and they are not to sustain an unaffordable tenancy long-term. Miss X says there is no cheaper housing available. The Council also explained that Miss X’s adult son, who lives with Miss X, should be contributing to her rent. Miss X says this is not possible due to her son’s circumstances.
7. The Council assessed Miss X’s income and expenditure as part of its decision-making process. The Council told Miss X the figures she provided showed her essential expenses were affordable within her income. I found discrepancies between the information Miss X provided and the Council’s calculations. The Council highlighted that Miss X had sent several forms with differing figures, which contributed to the confusion.
8. However, the Council has provided evidence it more recently carried out a further assessment based upon further figures Miss X provided. The calculations in that assessment are in line with the information Miss X provided on her application form. Therefore, any earlier issues with the calculations the Council carried out did not have a material impact on the outcome.
9. DHPs are discretionary, and the Council took the relevant factors into account when coming to its final decision. I am satisfied it took the right action in reassessing Miss X’s application and confirming its final decision. It is entitled to decide not to pay a DHP, and there is no evidence of fault in its most recent assessment.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence any fault by the Council caused Miss X an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman