Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council considered his application for a Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP). The Council failed to consider Mr X’s supporting evidence and failed to provide appropriate and consistent explanations to support its decision not to award Mr X with a DHP. The Council agreed to re-consider Mr X’s application and remind staff to fully explain decisions to applicants where it decides not to award a DHP.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council considered and subsequently refused his application for a Discretionary Housing Payment in 2022. Mr X said the Council failed to properly consider his individual circumstances and mental health issues in declining his application.
2. Mr X said the matter caused him to suffer financial difficulties which affected his mental health and standard of living.

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 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)
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 spoke to Mr X about his complaint and considered information he provided.
7. I considered information from the Council.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered comments before I made a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Discretionary Housing payments (DHPs)

9. DHPs provide financial support to help people with rent or housing costs and are applied for though the local council. Councils will look at the individual circumstances of an application to see whether the individual is eligible for DHP. The council will then decide:
• whether to give the applicant a DHP;
• how much will be paid; and
• how long the applicant will receive the payment for.

The Council’s policy

10. The Council has a policy which outlines how it considers applications for discretionary payments. Its website explains how people can apply for DHPs.
11. The Council’s website says ‘Discretionary housing payments are paid from a limited amount of money that central government gives to us every year. We can pay it to people with special financial or personal circumstances which indicate that they need extra help to pay their rent.  We have to consider each case individually and on its own merit’. 
12. The website states ‘a discretionary housing payment is not automatically awarded because your housing benefit does not cover your rent. DHP is not a benefit’.

Government guidance

13. The government has published guidance for councils responsible for administering DHPs. The guidance provides advice on good practice when considering the payment of DHPs.
14. Section 3 of the guidance states that once the council’s overall cash limit is met, no additional DHPs can be awarded within that tax year.
15. The guidance states councils must inform the applicant of the DHP decision either in writing or electronically if agreed. The information provided should include appropriate explanations and/or any reasons for non-payment. It says councils must be consistent and avoid unnecessary delay.
16. Applicants are entitled to ask councils for a review of DHP decisions. The guidance states when issuing a review decision the applicant should be notified of the outcome, including reasons as soon as reasonably practicable.

What happened

17. In January 2022 Mr X applied to the Council for a DHP. Mr X’s DHP application stated he had found private rented accommodation but required the DHP to cover the deposit and a month’s rent which he needed to pay in advance. Mr X explained his finances and how he would be able to cover the ongoing monthly rent. Mr X said moving into the new property would help with his mental health difficulties and improve his quality of life, but required the DHP so he did not lose the property.
18. In February 2022 the Council wrote to Mr X and said it did not have enough information to make a decision. It asked Mr X to send it copies of landlord letters detailing the request for a deposit and rent advance and copies of his bank statements. Records show Mr X had savings in excess of £3,000. The Council say Mr X did not send it any evidence from the landlord showing a requirement for deposit and rent in advance.
19. In early March 2022 the Council wrote to Mr X refusing his request for a DHP. It said the evidence it had showed Mr X had already managed to pay the deposit and rent from his own funds.
20. Mr X asked the Council to review its decision. He outlined his mental health and medical issues and provided relevant letters of support. He said he paid the deposit and rent using his savings and benefits because he was anxious about losing the property. Mr X said his mental health and related disabilities influenced his decision making. Mr X said as a result he did not have enough money to pay the ongoing rent which is why he still required the DHP.
21. The Council responded to Mr X’s review request in May 2022. It said it considered each DHP application on its own merits. It said as Mr X had already moved into his new property and both deposit and rent were paid then it was ‘unable’ to award a DHP. It said Mr X had no further right of appeal.
22. In June 2022 Mr X complained to the Council, unhappy it had refused to award him a DHP. Mr X said his mental health issues meant he unwisely used funds to pay for the deposit and rent. He said it was not made clear that paying the deposit and rent himself would invalidate his claim for a DHP.
23. The Council emailed Mr X following his complaint and said it was looking to revise its decision to refuse the DHP. It asked him to send his tenancy agreement and evidence the landlord required both the deposit and a month’s rent before he could move in. Mr X sent the Council his tenancy agreement which showed the requirement for a deposit and a month’s rent upfront.
24. The Council wrote to Mr X with its complaint response and said it had now decided to award Mr X with a DHP to cover the deposit. It did not explain why it had refused to cover the month’s rent.
25. Mr X remained unhappy about the Council’s decision not to award him a DHP for the month’s rent. The Council responded confirming it had awarded Mr X the DHP to cover the deposit. It said it was unable to cover month’s rent due to a reduction in the Council’s available DHP funds.
26. Mr X remained unhappy and complained to us.

My findings

27. DHPs are discretionary and based on individual circumstances. Therefore, as long as the Council properly considered a request when making a decision, it is unlikely we would find fault.
28. There was no fault in the Council’s initial decision not to award Mr X a DHP on the basis that he had already paid the deposit and rent from his own savings. However, following Mr X’s appeal the Council’s decision making around his DHP application was inconsistent and its explanations were not in line with government guidance. The guidance says councils should provide appropriate and consistent explanations and reasons for non-payment of DHPs, including during the review process.
29. Mr X sent medical information about his individual circumstances and explained the reasoning behind using his savings and benefits to pay the deposit and rent. There is no evidence showing how the Council took that in account in deciding not to uphold his appeal. The Council said it was ‘unable’ to award a DHP because Mr X had already moved into the property. However, the Council has discretion to do so and there is no evidence it considered at this stage whether to do so. This was fault.
30. Following Mr X’s complaint, the Council decided it was appropriate to award him a DHP to cover the deposit. This is at odds with its previous stances that it was ‘unable’ to award DHP because Mr X was already living in the property and that a DHP was not justified because Mr X had sufficient savings. Despite sending in the tenancy agreement at the Council’s request there is also no evidence showing how it considered this, and why it decided not to cover the month’s rent. The Council did not explain its change of position or why it concluded it was only appropriate to pay the deposit amount and not the month’s rent. That was fault. It leaves doubt whether the Council properly considered the content of the tenancy agreement and whether the outcome may have been different had it done so.
31. Following additional correspondence from Mr X asking the Council to consider awarding the DHP to cover the month’s rent. The Council’s stance on this occasion was that it could not award the DHP because of a reduction in funds. This was again at odds with its previous reasoning and was further fault.
32. The fault set out in paragraphs 28, 29 and 30 mean I cannot be certain the Council has properly considered Mr X’s request. This leaves Mr X with uncertainty about whether the outcome could have been different.

Back to top

Agreed action

33. Within one month of the final decision the Council agreed to take the following action:
1. re-consider Mr X’s application for a DHP to cover the initial month’s rent. The Council should consider all of the information Mr X provided, including his individual circumstances. It should write to Mr X with the outcome, providing appropriate explanations to support its decision; and
2. remind staff who consider DHP applications and reviews to provide appropriate and consistent explanations to support decisions to refuse DHP applications. It should also remind staff to consider using discretion at each stage of the process.
34. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I completed this investigation. I found fault and the Council agreed to my recommendations to remedy the injustice caused by the fault and prevent it occurring again in future.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman