Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about unsuccessful applications for Discretionary Housing Payments. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s decisions to reject his applications for Discretionary Housing Payments (DHP). He wants a DHP to avoid eviction for rent arrears.

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))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the DHP policy, applications and decisions. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. A DHP is a discretionary payment which can help with certain housing costs. There is no right to a DHP. It is for each council to decide whether to award a DHP. The Council can award a DHP to help someone pay a deposit or rent in advance. It can also pay a DHP to cover a shortfall between the rent and housing support from Universal Credit (UCHC). The Council will consider the average rent for properties in the area.
6. Mr X applied for a DHP for a deposit and rent in arrears. He did not refer to a joint tenant in the application. The Council said the property is too large for Mr X (it is a four or five bedroom property) and refused a DHP because the property would be unaffordable. The Council referred to the rent of £1900 a month while the average rent for a two bedroom property is £850 a month. The Council said the scheme is not intended to help people stay in unaffordable properties.
7. Mr X borrowed money for the deposit and rent in advance and signed a tenancy. He made a second DHP application. He referred to there being a joint tenant. Mr X said UCHC covered his share of the rent. The Council refused the application because Mr X had already secured money for the deposit and rent in advance.
8. Mr X submitted further DHP applications for rent arrears. In the most recent application Mr X said he had arrears of £6035. Mr X says the arrears arose due to the Council’s decision not to award a DHP for the deposit and because UCHC are paid in arrears.
9. The Council refused the applications for help with the arrears. It said UCHC pays his share of the rent and there is no shortfall to cover with a DHP. It said it is correct that UCHC are paid in arrears. The Council reminded Mr X that it had explained before he signed the tenancy that the house is too large and unaffordable. The Council said it might be able to help if he moved into suitable accommodation.
10. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. I have read the policy and the decision not to award a DHP for the deposit reflects that policy. The policy says the Council must consider if a property is affordable; the Council decided a four/five bedroom property, for two people, is not affordable. It noted that an affordable property for a two bedroom home would be about £850 a month against Mr X’s rent of £1900. The DHP budget is limited and one aim of the scheme is prevent homelessness; this is more likely to be achieved in an affordable home.
11. The Council also refused a DHP because there is no shortfall between Mr X’s share of the rent and his UCHC. This, again, reflects the policy.
12. Mr X says the rent arrears accrued because he is under financial pressure due to repaying the rent in advance and deposit. I acknowledged Mr X’s perspective that this would have been avoided if the Council had awarded a DHP for the deposit. But, as there is no suggestion of fault in the decision to refuse the initial DHP, there are no grounds on which to start an investigation.
13. We are not an appeal body and it is not my role to decide if Mr X is eligible for a DHP or to re-make the decision. I can only consider if there was fault in the way the Council made the decision and I see no suggestion of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

14. 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