The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a missing discretionary housing payment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, and it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response.
The complaint
The complainant, Ms X, complains the Council mishandled one of her discretionary housing payments (DHP). She says she has not received a DHP payment of £66 which she wants the Council to pay.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and further checks I asked the Council to make. I also considered our Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council issued a DHP of £66 to Ms X’s bank account. Ms X says she did not receive it because she closed the bank account on the day the Council sent the DHP.
The Council sent another payment, later in the month, to the same account before it knew the account was closed and Ms X had opened an account with a different bank. The first bank returned the second payment to the Council because the account was closed. The Council re-issued that payment.
Ms X asked the Council to re-pay the first payment because she had not received it due to the closure of the account. In response, the Council said it had paid the DHP and it had not been returned to the Council. The Council said Ms X would need to make further enquiries with the bank.
I asked the Council to make further checks. It confirmed the bank did not return the first DHP and the £66 is not held in any of the Council’s accounts.
I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. I have seen evidence which shows the Council made the payment but, despite asking the Council to re-check, there is nothing to suggest the first payment was returned by the bank. The bank returned the second payment which the Council re-issued. The Council does not have the first payment so there is nothing to suggest fault in its decision that it does not owe Ms X £66.
I also will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response. The Council has done all the checks we would ask it to do, and it is not our role to trace missing payments. Further, we could not ask the Council to make a payment, from public funds, when it has already made the payment and no longer holds the £66.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman