Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s ‘relocation grant’ (RG) process and decision in 2019, that it did not help with her new property’s purchase costs, and that it has not helped others with its RG scheme. We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint because it is late and there are no good reasons to do so now. Even if we accepted the complaint as in time, we would not have investigated because there is not enough evidence of Council fault to have justified an investigation and we could not have achieved the outcome she wants. There would be insufficient personal injustice to Mrs X from the Council’s current use of the scheme to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X has a disabled child. In 2019, Mrs X looked into a ‘disabled facilities grant’ (DFG) from the Council to adapt her house to make it accessible for her child’s needs. The cost of adaptations would have far exceeded the DFG amount available. Mrs X and her family applied for a ‘relocation grant’ (RG) to help her family move from their previous house to their current one, which already had most of the adaptations required. Mrs X complains the Council:
1. failed to give them a sufficient RG sum in 2019;
2. did not help with the family’s purchase costs for the current property;
3. has not helped any other families through its RG scheme since it started.
2. Mrs X says it was a huge financial strain to buy their current property in 2019. She says the Council has only used its RG scheme once, for her family, which she considers shows the scheme is not fit for purpose.
3. Mrs X wants the Council to review and change the RG scheme. She wants the Council to reconsider the RG sum it paid in 2019 and pay the remaining amount of her mortgage costs, as this would be a fraction of the costs to the Council of property adaptations if the family had not moved.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants; or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from Mrs X, the Council and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. We expect people to complain to us about something they consider a council has done wrong within 12 months of them becoming aware of the matter complained of. Mrs X went through the RG process and received the Council’s decision on her application in 2019. She brought her complaint to us about the RG scheme and the payment she received in January 2024, almost five years later. The complaint is late.
8. We may investigate late complaints if we decide there are good reasons to do so. Mrs X is seeking financial help from the Council for her mortgage costs. But she says in her complaint that at the time of her family’s house move in 2019, the matter caused huge financial strain and stress. If Mrs X believed then that the Council’s decision was wrong because the kind of financial support and amount of money it awarded was insufficient, she could have complained to it at the time and brought the complaint to us within 12 months. There is no indication of any impediment to Mrs X raising her complaint about the RG process and outcome in time. We will not investigate the complaint as it is late and there are no good reasons to now do so.
9. Even if we were to accept the complaint as in time, we would not investigate. Mrs X received almost £10,000 from the relocation grant scheme. The Council has explained Mrs X could not receive any grant towards the new property’s purchase price because she was not assessed for such a cost. That would have required financial information of the family’s borrowing ability as part of a full assessment. The Council’s complaint response includes some of Mrs X’s correspondence with officers, including the email accompanying her RG application. Mrs X explained in the email that the family had decided the move to the new property was the best option. She further advised that her bank had agreed to a mortgage for the full property price and that she was ‘requesting help from the relocation grant for the legal fees, moving costs and stamp duty’ only. Her application requested an amount which was slightly lower than the moving costs incurred. The Council’s RG paid out the higher actual cost amount.
10. The evidence shows officers had no involvement in the consideration of Mrs X’s family’s borrowing ability so could not make any RG payment based on the property’s purchase price. Mrs X’s application email showed that by the time of the RG application, the family had made the decision to buy the new property and had the bank and loan funds in place to do so. Officers dealt with the application on the basis it was made by Mrs X and gave the award in line with the amount she requested, and for the specific purposes she requested. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council here in how it processed and decided its RG amount to have warranted us investigating.
11. We recognise from Mrs X’s application email that she had expectations the Council would give a larger RG sum for the new property because the alternative cost to the Council of adapting their previous property would have been much higher. But RG scheme decisions would be based on an applicant’s financial need, not on a comparison of what the Council might have otherwise spent on DFG adaptations.
12. The personal outcome Mrs X seeks from her complaint is for the Council to pay the remaining amount of her mortgage costs. We cannot order a council to pay someone’s mortgage. That we could not achieve the key outcome Mrs X wants is a further reason why we would not investigate.
13. Mrs X has also complained the Council has only used the RG scheme once since it was introduced, for her own application. She considers this shows the scheme is not fit for purpose and needs reform. The circumstances where the RG scheme would apply are limited. That the Council has only used it once does not mean the process is flawed. The current format of the scheme has not affected others as there have been no other applications, but even if there had been, others’ experiences of it would not be Mrs X’s injustice. There would be insufficient personal injustice to Mrs X from this issue to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to do so now.
15. Even if we had accepted the complaint as in time, we would not have investigated because:
• there is not enough evidence of Council fault to have warranted an investigation; and
• we could not have achieved the outcome Mrs X wants.
16. Mrs X’s complaint about the RG scheme not helping other families is not a matter which would cause a significant personal injustice to her to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman