Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about refusal of a discretionary housing payment. This is mainly because there is not enough evidence of fault that is likely to have undermined the Council’s decision-making.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council refused to give him a discretionary housing payment (DHP). He argues the Council did not properly consider its duty under the Equality Act 2010. Mr X says the resulting financial difficulty causes stress.

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, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them. Organisations will often be able to show they have properly taken account of the Equality Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected and these decisions can be challenged, reviewed or appealed.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. A council can award DHPs when someone needs help with housing costs and is claiming Housing Benefit or Universal Credit which includes housing costs towards rent. (Discretionary Housing Payments guidance manual May 2022, section 2.3) Government guidance allows councils to choose when to offer a DHP; there is no legal or automatic right to payment.
7. Mr X’s benefit is capped, so the housing element of his Universal Credit does not cover his rent. The Council had previously given Mr X a DHP. It refused Mr X’s application to continue with a DHP. Mr X asked the Council to review its decision. He argued he could not find cheaper accommodation locally and implied moving elsewhere would damage his mental health because he was receiving medical care locally.
8. The Council’s review decision said the Council had considered Mr X’s points and confirmed the DHP refusal. The review decision did not respond in much detail to the points Mr X had made about his health.
9. Mr X sought to challenge the matter further in the Council’s complaint procedure. The Council’s next response said the Council would not take the matter through its complaint procedure. That response also gave more reasoning about the DHP refusal, saying: DHPs are not intended to be automatic or long-term; the Council normally gives DHPs for a limited period because the funds are so limited and it is trying to help as many people as possible; the Council accepts Mr X has some disability, but that does not confer indefinite right to DHPs; and Mr X’s medical evidence was not current.
10. On the last point, the evidence Mr X had given about his mental health treatment dated from May 2019 to February 2022. There was no fault in the Council saying that was not current. Mr X had also supplied evidence a doctor had prescribed medication for hypertension in June 2024. I appreciate that could be considered current. However, that piece of evidence just showed a prescription for medication. Such a prescription could be obtained wherever Mr X might live. So this information did not in itself show Mr X’s healthcare would suffer from having to move elsewhere. Therefore this point does not significantly undermine the Council’s overall decision against giving a DHP.
11. There was no fault in the Council declining to take the matter further in its complaint procedure. The Council only had to offer one review of its DHP decision. It would be disproportionate to expect the Council also to deal with the matter in its complaint procedure.
12. On the points I have considered, the Council’s reasoning overall shows the Council took account of what Mr X said about his health and disability. The Council was aware its decision could lead to Mr X having to move home. The Council gave a review right. Therefore I do not find the Council failed to take account of the Equality Act. As paragraph 3 said, only the courts can decide if the Council breached the Equality Act.
13. After the Council’s two responses that I mentioned above, and after sending his complaint to us, Mr X sent the Council detailed arguments and new evidence about his medical conditions and his income and outgoings. This was a substantively new development, which it is not proportionate for me to consider as part of the complaint about the Council’s earlier decision. Mr X should pursue this with the Council first.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault that is likely to have undermined the Council’s decision-making. The Council took account of Mr X’s disability, but it is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the Equality Act was breached. Information Mr X later sent the Council was supplied well after the original and review decisions so could not affect those decisions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman