The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision not to provide him with a Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP). There was no evidence of procedural fault by the Council and as a result, we cannot question the merits of its decision.
The complaint
Mr X complains about the Council’s decision not to provide him with a Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP). He says the Council lost his paperwork and has failed to take proper account of his circumstances when reaching the decision to refuse his DHP application. Mr X has had to borrow money to pay the deposit and first month’s rent on his property and has no way of paying this back.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I have spoken to Mr X and considered the information he has provided in support of his complaint.
I have considered the information the Council has provided in response to our enquiries.
Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Legal and administrative background The discretionary housing payments guidance manual issued by the Department for Work and Pensions says a discretionary housing payment (DHP) may be awarded where a council considers a claimant requires further financial assistance towards housing costs and is entitled to either Housing Benefit (HB) or the housing cost element of Universal Credit (UC). The scheme is purely discretionary, a claimant does not have a statutory right to a payment.
The legislation governing the DHP scheme is the Discretionary Financial Assistance Regulations 2001 (as amended). The Regulations give councils broad discretion, but they have a duty to act fairly, reasonably and consistently. In reaching a decision they must take into account the claimant’s financial circumstances and any other relevant factors.
When someone applies for a DHP they must provide details of their income, capital, expenditure and any other information the Council considers reasonably necessary.
What happened In January 2022, Mr X was kicked out of his family home. He approached another council (Council A) with which he had a local connection for help. In February 2022, he applied for a DHP from Council A to cover the deposit and first month’s rent for a property he had found in the Barnet Council’s area.
Mr X had moved into the rental property in Barnet Council’s area in February 2022 after borrowing money for the deposit and first month’s rent from a family friend. In April 2022, Council A refused Mr X’s DHP application because he did not have an existing rent liability.
On 20 June 2022, Mr X applied for a DHP from the Council. The Council refused Mr X’s application on 11 July 2022, explaining that Mr X did not have rent arrears and appeared to have a guarantor on his tenancy agreement who would be liable for rental payments if Mr X failed to or was unable to make payments. The Council invited Mr X to apply for help if he was struggling to pay his council tax and also advised him of his right to request a review of the Council’s refusal decision.
Mr X challenged the Council’s decision shortly afterwards. He argued that he was on a low income and that having a rental guarantor was irrelevant to his ability to cover the deposit and first month’s rent. Mr X explained to the Council that he had borrowed money in order to meet these costs and move into the accommodation in February 2022. Mr X also explained that it was not his fault that it had taken Council A so long to process his original DHP application.
The Council responded to Mr X’s review request in mid-August 2022. It explained it had not received bank statements for two of Mr X’s partner’s bank accounts (Mr X’s partner was living with him), details of Council A’s DHP refusal or information from Mr X’s landlord to confirm whether he still owed the deposit and advance rent as requested on 9 August 2022. The Council also explained that it generally expected people to apply for DHPs in advance of moving to ensure the applicant moves into an affordable property. The Council maintained its decision to refuse the DHP.
Mr X brought his complaint to us because he remained dissatisfied with the Council’s decision and handling.
Analysis I understand Mr X is disappointed by the Council’s decision to refuse his application. However, there is no automatic right to a discretionary housing payment. While I accept it was not Mr X’s fault that Council A took longer than he expected to process his DHP application, it also is not the Council’s fault that Mr X’s DHP application to it was made approximately four months after he has moved into the property he needed help funding.
We cannot question whether the Council’s decision on Mr X’s application was right or wrong if there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council has reached it. In this case, the Council has considered the information Mr X has provided, given him the opportunity to provide further information, reconsidered its decision in the absence of this requested information, and explained its reasons for its decision.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation and do not uphold Mr X’s complaint.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman