Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered Miss X’s application for a discretionary housing payment. There is not enough evidence of fault in how it handled her application and any injustice there may have been in how the Council communicated with her, has already been addressed.

The complaint

1. Miss X said the Council should not have considered her Personal Independence Payments (PIP) as income when she applied for a discretionary housing payment (DHP). Miss X also said the Council did not ask her questions to properly consider her disabilities and its process was inaccessible.
2. Miss X said the Council’s actions caused her distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In late 2023, Mrs X applied for a DHP, and in early February 2024, the Council wrote to her twice asking her to provide it with more information and further evidence to support her application. It said it believed some the expense she claimed was excessive. Mrs X did not provide this information and the Council decided against an award. Miss X complained.
7. The Council did not uphold the complaint. It set out why it needed more evidence and directed Miss X to its policy. However, in its final complaint response, it accepted one of its previous letters could have been clearer about what evidence it needed, and because of this it decided to make a DHP award for January through to March 2024, to avoid any further delays. The Council also told Miss X how she could provide evidence to support her claim and then asked for this to help it decide on any further awards.
8. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. The Council’s policy and the DWP guidance allows it to consider cases involving PIP on a case-by-case basis. The Council’s policy allows it to ask for information to support claims. Because of this I have not seen enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation into the Council’s actions in how it considered Miss X’s application.
9. The evidence also shows after Miss X escalated her complaint, the Council accepted some of the correspondence it had sent could have been clearer, and it used its discretion to make an award for a different period, without the information it needed.
10. Because of this I am satisfied any injustice from a fault there may have been in how the Council corresponded with Miss X, relating to her application, has already been addressed and there is no significant injustice remaining to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s initial decision about Miss X’s disability related expense and any injustice Miss X may have suffered about how it dealt with her directly has already been addressed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman