Summary: We found fault with the Council in the way it handled Mrs X’s appeal against a decision to refuse her a discretionary housing payment (DHP). There was also a lack of information on the Council’s website. This caused Mrs X avoidable confusion. To remedy the injustice, the Council will review information on its website and direct officers to explain their consideration of an applicant’s case and say why they have refused an application/appeal.

The complaint

1. The complainant whom I shall refer to as Mrs X complained the Council:
• Did not award her a Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP) despite her difficult personal and financial circumstances.
• Did not properly consider her DHP application or appeal.
2. Mrs X said this caused her severe hardship as a single parent.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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

6. I have considered all the information provided by Mrs X, made enquiries of the Council and considered its comments and the documents it provided.
7. I considered relevant legislation, guidance and information on the Council’s website.
8. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to provide comments, which I have considered carefully before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

9. The Discretionary Housing Payments Guidance Manual by the Department for Work and Pensions says a discretionary housing payment (DHP) is for help towards housing costs where an applicant already receives Housing Benefit or the housing part of Universal Credit. The scheme is discretionary. Regulations supporting the DHP scheme give councils discretion, but they have a duty to act fairly, reasonably and consistently. In reaching a decision they must take into account the applicant’s financial circumstances and any other relevant factors.
10. When someone applies for a DHP they must provide details of their income, capital, spending and any other information the council considers reasonably necessary.

The Council’s policy

11. The Council advised it had no DHP policy or criteria, but it followed the DHP Guidance Manual. The Council went on to say experienced officers reviewed applications, explored all options and gave applicants right advice and help. Those cases in greatest need and priority went to senior managers for a decision. The Council also told me in the last year its DHP funding was reduced by about £145,000.
12. The Council went on to explain since April 2021, due to reduced funding and increased demand, most applications were referred to the housing options service for a full assessment which included considering the applicants’ circumstances, their income and expenses and whether they are a priority case. This allowed the Council to ensure DHP awards reached priority households in the greatest need to avoid eviction or prevent homelessness.
13. At the time of writing, the Council’s website explains DHPs provide extra help with housing costs and the Council may request reasonable evidence in support of a claim. It goes on to say if an application is not successful, the Council will explain the reason. The website does not say the Council prioritises cases where homelessness/eviction was a factor.

What happened

14. Mrs X has five children. Mrs X’s partner previously lived with them and provided financial support. In 2020, they separated, and he stopped giving financial support.
15. Mrs X now relies on Universal Credit and Child Benefit. Due to the benefit cap, this leaves her just over £400 a month once housing costs are paid.
16. In August 2020, Mrs X applied for a DHP online. She said she completed the form without help but there was not much information available on the Council’s website. In her form she stated she was working 16 hours, actively seeking further work without success, had £2000 rent arrears, no longer had a partner’s contribution and was struggling to feed her children and pay bills. She explained she couldn’t move to cheaper accommodation as the deposit was too high and required advance rent which she did not have.
17. In early September, the Council informed Mrs X her application had been unsuccessful. It explained DHP funding had been reduced nationally and Mrs X needed to find employment to remove the benefits cap. It provided website links about the cap, its housing options and homelessness service and Mrs X’s appeal rights.
18. In late September, Mrs X appealed by email. She explained:
• Her partner was no longer around to help, and she had been a full-time parent for her adult life.
• She was working as much as she physically could and was willing to do more if she could find another flexible position.
• She was also undertaking training, but this was difficult to fit in because of the youngest two children.
• She could not manage the childcare/school run and work duties at the same time, to bring down her benefit cap.
19. In October, the Council provided a very similar letter to its first letter refusing the application and refused Mrs X’s appeal. It provided links to the benefits cap and homelessness service. It also referred Mrs X to the Ombudsman. The letter did not refer to any of the information Mrs X had put in her appeal email or say how it had considered her circumstances.
20. Unhappy with the outcome, Mrs X complained to us.
21. In response to my enquiries the Council explained:
• Mrs X was previously awarded a DHP of £600 a month from September to December 2020 and £600 a month from January to March 2021.
• In 2021/2022 she applied for a DHP three times, and all three applications were refused on appeal.

Analysis

22. DHPs are discretionary payments a council awards to cover housing costs. The Council is entitled to follow the DHP Guidance Manual and if it does so, we have no grounds to criticise the merits of its decision as long as it has explained its reasons for rejecting an application. In a decision or appeal letter, we expect a council to refer to the information an applicant provides and to explain why they did not meet the criteria for a payment.
23. On receiving Mrs X’s application, the Council should have made additional enquiries to gather more information and understand her circumstances better. The Council refers to cases being decided on their individual merits, but I have not seen evidence of it exploring Mrs X’s situation in any detail before deciding not to award her a DHP. The failure to make additional enquiries at the application stage was fault, but it did not cause injustice because Mrs X appealed anyway and provided relevant additional information for her appeal. So, there was no loss of opportunity for Mrs X to put forward additional information and have her circumstances considered.
24. The Council failed to address the points in Mrs X’s appeal and advised her to seek employment. In its comments to us, the Council confirmed it considered Mrs X’s circumstances and the ages of her children when deciding not to make an award and said the decision hinged on limited funding. However, the appeal outcome should have provided a brief explanation to demonstrate the Council had considered Mrs X’s circumstances and summarised why she was not a priority case (because she was not at risk of homelessness). The failure to give an explanation which evidenced proper consideration of circumstances was fault.
25. Although there was fault, I cannot conclude the outcome would have been any different. The Council has discretion as to how it manages its DHP budget. It decided not to make an award to Mrs X based on whether she faced homelessness. As Mrs X did not say in her appeal that she was at risk of homelessness, it is unlikely she would have qualified for a DHP.
26. There is a lack of information on the Council’s website about the DHP scheme and how it works. And there is no reference on the website to the Council prioritising cases at risk of eviction or homelessness. This is a poor information service to the public, including Mrs X, and is fault. Having basic information on the website for potential applicants avoids confusion and uncertainty about how the Council deals with applications and would have made it easier for Mrs X to ensure she included all relevant information on her application form.

Back to top

Agreed action

27. The Council has agreed, within one month of our final decision to:
• Review the information on its website about the DHP scheme, the way the Council prioritises applications and the appeal process.
• Instruct officers responsible for decisions on DHP awards to give a written explanation of how they have considered a person’s circumstances when refusing an application or appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

28. There was fault by the Council in the way it handled Mrs X’s appeal against a decision to refuse her a discretionary housing payment (DHP). There was also a lack of information on the Council’s website. This caused Mrs X avoidable confusion. To remedy the injustice, the Council will review information on its website and instruct officers to explain their consideration of an applicant’s case and say why they have refused an application/appeal
29. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman