Summary: Mrs B says the Council wrongly refused to pay towards the cost of an extension as part of a disabled facilities grant application after completing an inaccurate means test. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision. The Council failed to properly explain a means test was required before any payment would be released. An apology is satisfactory remedy for that.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs B, complained the Council:
• failed to pay her £14,385 towards the cost of an extension as part of a disabled facilities grant application, as it had agreed to do; and
• in refusing to make the payment, based its decision on a false understanding of her finances and a flawed means test.
2. Mrs B says the Council’s actions have caused her distress and have left her out-of-pocket.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mrs B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
7. Mrs B and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

8. Disabled Facilities Grants are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Councils have a statutory duty to provide grant aid to disabled people for certain adaptations. Before approving a grant a council must be satisfied the work is necessary and suitable to meet the disabled person’s needs and also reasonable and practicable.
9. The maximum amount of a grant payable by a council is £30,000. A council can award other discretionary help if it thinks it is necessary. The amount a council will pay is subject to a means test.
10. A council should give the applicant a decision on a grant application as soon as reasonably practicable. This must be within six months of the grant application. If a council refuses a grant it must explain why.

What happened

11. Following an upheld complaint to the Ombudsman in 2022 the Council agreed to review its decision not to allow Mrs B to use the amount it would pay towards the cost of a through floor lift and level access shower towards the cost of an extension which Mrs B considered preferable. When the Council reviewed the case it wrote to Mrs B in September 2022 to ask her to provide various pieces of documentation which included proof of payment to the appointed builder as the work had already taken place. The Council said it could then process the payment of £14,385 once it had completed an inspection.
12. The Council then carried out a means test. That means test showed Mrs B had two pensions, income from two rental properties and notional income due to her level of savings. The Council wrote to Mrs B to explain because of that she would have to make a significant contribution to the costs of the extension and that exceeded the £14,385 of eligible costs. The Council therefore said it could not make any payment to Mrs B.
13. Mrs B challenged that decision and said the rental income was not income which was available to her as she managed the two rental properties on behalf of her daughter. Mrs B pointed out she had power of attorney for her daughter and provided a copy of that document. The Council remains of the view the rental income is Mrs B’s income and therefore it was right to include that in the means test calculation.

Analysis

14. Mrs B says the Council unreasonably failed to pay £14,385 towards the cost of an extension under a disabled facilities grant as it had agreed to do. Mrs B says the Council wrongly refused to make that payment because it took into account income which was not available to her.
15. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council wrote to Mrs B to confirm the amount of grant it would pay in September 2022. In that letter the Council said once Mrs B had provided various pieces of information and an inspection had taken place the Council could process the payment of £14,385. There is nothing in that letter about the need for the Council to carry out a means test before deciding how much it could pay. Failure to include that information in the letter is fault.
16. I appreciate the Council says because Mrs B had applied for a disabled facilities grant previously and had undergone a financial assessment she would have known about the means test process. However, the Council’s letter is worded as though it agreed to pay £14,385. For all Mrs B knew the Council may have reached that decision after completing a financial assessment given it did not say this was subject to a financial assessment. I therefore consider failure to refer to that in the letter is fault and misled Mrs B. Given Mrs B had already begun work on her property before any approval of the disabled facilities grant was made I do not consider that affected her decision to proceed with the works. Nevertheless, she is understandably distressed about not being told the payment would be based on a further financial assessment. I consider an apology satisfactory remedy for that.
17. Mrs B’s main concern though is the Council took into account rental income when she says that is not income available to her. Mrs B says she explained to the Council she manages two properties her daughter owns and has provided evidence of her power of attorney to do that. Mrs B says the Council was therefore wrong to take into account the rental income as it is just income she passes onto her daughter.
18. It is not my role to say whether the Council should make a payment to Mrs B. Instead, my role is to decide whether there is fault in how the Council completed the means test process. I have therefore considered the information available to the Council at the point at which it carried out the means test. The evidence I have seen satisfies me Mrs B provided copies of bank statements in her name showing rental income. Mrs B has also provided a copy of a power of attorney document which shows she holds power of attorney for her daughter.
19. However, in addition to that Mrs B provided a copy of the tenancy agreements for the two properties. Both agreements show Mrs B named as landlord for the property. In those circumstances I cannot criticise the Council for taking into account the rental income paid to Mrs B as the documentation shows she, rather than her daughter, is the landlord and therefore the person entitled to and receiving the rental income. In those circumstances I cannot criticise the Council for deciding Mrs B is not entitled to a disabled facilities grant payment.

Back to top

Agreed action

20. Within one month of my decision the Council should apologise to Mrs B for the distress she experienced due to the fault identified in this decision. The Council may want to refer to the Ombudsman’s updated guidance on remedies, which sets out the standards we expect apologies to meet.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council in part of the complaint which caused Mrs B an injustice. I am satisfied the action the Council will take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman