Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council gave her late parents a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG), put a charge against the property, is not waiving the charge, and how it communicated with her about the matter. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant us investigating. Investigation of the communications issue would not result in a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs X lived with her parents Mr and Mrs Y in a property Mrs X says she co‑owned. Mr Y sought a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) from the Council to have the property modified for his needs but died before the grant was in place. The DFG transferred to Mrs Y as its recipient and the property was modified for her needs. A clause in the DFG contract required the repayment of some of the grant if the property was sold within 10 years. The clause allowed the Council to place a Land Registry charge on the property to recover the funds when it was sold. Once Mrs Y had died, Mrs X sold the property, less than 10 years after the DFG had been certified.
2. Mrs X complains the Council:
1. gave her parents a DFG for the house in 2017;
2. put a charge against the property without her knowledge;
3. has refused to waive the charge under two clauses in the DFG agreement;
4. failed to communicate properly with her about the matter.
3. Mrs X wants the Council to waive the DFG charge.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs X has questioned why the Council provided the DFG to her mother when she had savings. The Council has said the national government guidance it is required to follow when doing the financial assessment resulted in Mrs Y being eligible for the grant. It was open to Mrs X to question the need for the DFG at the time with Mrs Y and the Council and not sign the agreement if she considered it unnecessary. There is not enough evidence that it was fault in the Council’s process which led to the DFG to warrant us investigating.
8. Mrs X says she was unaware of the terms and conditions of the DFG, including the charge placed on the property by the Council and her consent to that charge. Mrs X signed and agreed the terms of the DFG. That allowed the Council to place a charge on the property at the Land Registry and confirmed her agreement that the Council could put that change on the property. We note Mrs X says she did not read the DFG agreement terms and left this to Mrs Y. But there were significant amounts of money and works to a property she co-owned involved. There was an onus on her as an interested party to make herself aware of the implications of the DFG, including the Land Registry charge and her agreement to it, before signing any documents. The Council has indicated it may inform applicants of those terms and conditions at additional stages of the process in future. This would be an additional improvement in its DFG process. But that does not mean its previous practice amounted to fault. The Council made available to Mrs X the full DFG terms in the documents she signed. Officers not providing further reminders of those terms was not fault. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council on this issue to warrant us investigating.
9. The DFG agreement included exemption clauses setting out circumstances where the Council may disapply the property charge, even if the property is sold within 10 years. One clause states the 10-year charge may not apply where the property is sold ‘for reasons connected with the physical or mental health or well‑being of the recipient of the grant or of a disabled occupant of the premises’. Another clause says the charge may not be applied where the property is sold ‘to enable the recipient of the grant to live with, or near, any person who is disabled or infirm and in need of care, which the recipient of the grant is intending to provide, or who is intending to provide care of which the recipient of the grant is in need by reason of disability or infirmity’. Mrs X believes either of these clauses applies in her situation and should result in the Council waiving the charge. The Council considered Mrs X’s circumstances and reasons for the sale of the property, as set out in her contacts with and complaints to officers. On assessing those clauses against Mrs X’s information and the DFG terms, officers determined neither clause gave grounds for them to waive the charge.
10. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process and but for that fault officers would have made a different decision. So we consider the processes councils have followed to make their decisions. We cannot replace a council’s decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision was reached after following the proper process.
11. The Council gathered and considered relevant information to make its decision that there were no grounds to waive the DFG charge. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making processes here to justify us investigating. We recognise Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
12. If Mrs X considers the Council’s interpretation of the DFG terms and its enforcement of the charge breach the agreement she signed, this would be a contractual dispute which only a court could determine. We cannot provide legal rulings on the interpretation and application of contracts. Mrs X might wish to get independent legal advice if she decides to take the matter to court.
13. The Council accepted some officer communication caused Mrs X to spend additional time and cause her some avoidable trouble during the matter. As a remedy for this it apologised to her, and offered her £100 which she declined. Had we investigated this issue, this is the kind of outcome we would have sought here. Investigation of this complaint issue by us now would achieve no different outcome for Mrs X, so we will not investigate it.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its DFG processes to warrant us investigating; and
• investigation of the communications issue would not result in a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman