Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an application for a Discretionary Housing Payment. This is because the Council will reimburse the amount of the holding deposit.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, says she lost out on a property, and lost a holding deposit of £187, because the Council did not provide enough information about the process for applying for a Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP).

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start 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

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Council can award a DHP to help people pay a deposit or rent in advance for a new home. Ms X applied for a DHP on 22 October and said she had found a property with a tenancy due to start on 1 November. Ms X paid a holding deposit of £187.
5. The Council started to process the application on 1 November and asked Ms X for more information. But, by then, Ms X had lost the property because she had not paid the deposit by 1 November; Ms X lost the holding deposit.
6. Ms X complained the Council had not told her there was a 14 day processing time. She said it should review its communications and reimburse the £187.
7. The Council said it processes applications in date order and aims to respond in 14 days. It said it was unaware of the tenancy start date until it started work on the claim. The Council said Ms X should have got in touch to explain the application was urgent. The Council declined Ms X’s request for the Council to reimburse the holding deposit but said it would change the information it provides to give more clarity about timeframes and how people can get in touch.
8. There was no delay by the Council in assessing the application and it did not know Ms X needed a prompt response. The Council might have been able to approve the DHP before 1 November, if Ms X had flagged the urgency. But, Ms X was not aware of the Council’s processing policies and did not know she needed to alert the Council to the deadline. The Council had already agreed to provide more information which suggests it accepted there was a lack of information. For these reasons I asked the Council to reimburse the £187; the Council agreed.
9. I will not start an investigation because the Council has provided a satisfactory remedy. It will improve the information it provides and reimburse the holding deposit.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint because the Council has agreed a satisfactory remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman