Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse Disability Related Expenditure, Mrs B says it should include in her son’s, Mr D’s, financial assessment. This is because it is unlikely we would find enough evidence of fault to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs B says the Council should include her sons, Mr D’s, privately arranged physiotherapy as a Disability Related Expenditure (DRE). Mrs B says the NHS refused treatment because of inaccuracies made by the Social Worker completing the checklist and says it is costing the family between £300 and £500 a week. In addition, Mrs B says the Council should include kitchen repairs as DRE because Mr D’s kitchen was unsafe, and he could not manage without immediate modification. Mrs B says Mr D could not wait for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) to be approved as the Council could not give any timescales due to lengthy waiting lists. Mrs B says amendments to Mr D’s bathroom have recently been completed 18 months after being approved.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council considered Mrs B’s challenge to Mr D’s financial assessment and DRE through its internal appeals procedure. It considered Mrs B’s views about the physiotherapy and kitchen repairs. It said:

Kitchen repairs – The panel’s decision has been upheld, as Social Care could have assessed to see if [Mr D] would be eligible for a DFG (Disabled Facilities Grant) to assist with any changes required for the kitchen.

Privately arranged physio - The panel’s decision has been upheld, as Social Worker has met with [Mr D] and submitted a CHC checklist to the CCG. The checklist emphasizes [Mr D] physio intervention. A home exercise programme has also been recommended by [Mr D’s] physio.

6. If Mrs B disagrees with the information contained in the checklist she can ask the NHS to reconsider it and explain what it is she disagrees with.
7. If Mrs B was concerned about lengthy delays and timescales for Mr D to have a DFG assessment she could have come to the Ombudsman at the time. The Council cannot consider a retrospective DFG assessment and the money paid for kitchen repairs would not be considered as DRE.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman