Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s handling of an application for a Disabled Facilities Grant. A different council had previously given provisional approval to the grant, but the Council then concluded the complainant was not financially eligible, and there is no fault in its decision. There was a significant delay in the Council’s response to the complaint, however, for which it has agreed to apologise. The Council has also agreed to ensure its home improvement agency’s complaints procedure is explained on its website.

The complaint

1. The complainant, to whom I will refer as Mrs D, complains about the Council’s handling of her application for a Disabled Facilities Grant. She says she had previously had a grant approved by the local borough council, but this decision was reversed when it handed the application over to the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. If we are satisfied with a council’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

3. I reviewed the Council’s correspondence with Mrs D, the means test it completed of her and the financial information it based this on, chronologies showing the actions taken both by it and the borough council.
4. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. The following chronology provides an overview of key events in the timeline of this complaint. It is not intended to give a comprehensive account of every relevant incident or piece of correspondence.
6. Mrs D is a wheelchair user. In 2014, she applied to her local authority, Watford Borough Council (‘WBC’), for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). The purpose of the DFG was to adapt her property to make it more suitable for a wheelchair.
7. There were very significant delays in the processing of Mrs D’s application. This was because of problems with finding a workable design, and because of complications arising from the ownership of a driveway Mrs D shared with her neighbour.
8. In March 2015, WBC carried out a preliminary means test of Mrs D and her husband, with whom she lived. It calculated Mrs D would need to make a contribution of approximately £10,000 towards the proposed work. In April, after receiving some more information about Mrs D’s husband’s income, WBC revised the contribution to approximately £1800.
9. By the end of 2017, the design of the adaptations had been agreed, the neighbour had consented, and WBC had awarded a contract for the work. It had also concluded the work would cost less than £30,000, meaning Mrs D was eligible for a DFG.
10. On 10 January 2018, an officer from WBC noted the case was now to be transferred to the County Council’s home improvement agency (‘HIA’). The officer wrote they had left a message for Mrs D, saying it would “finish off any outstanding paperwork and issue the approval in due course”.
11. The Council says it tried to make initial contact with Mrs D in March 2018, but it did not receive a response from her until May.
12. Mrs D wrote to the Council on 14 May. She complained she had now been sent a grant application form to complete, despite having already undergone three financial assessments by WBC in 2015-17, and despite the work being agreed and a contract awarded. Mrs D said there had already been long delays in the handling of her application, and said she had intended to approach the Ombudsman, but had decided to hold off because a Council officer had now said she could resubmit her financial information without re-applying.
13. On 4 June, the HIA caseworker assigned to Mrs D’s case (to whom I will refer as Officer C) wrote to her. He said, when WBC had transferred the case to the HIA, it had said a full application and full means test were still to be completed. Officer C asked Mrs D to complete and return an application form, accompanied by a range of financial information.
14. Mrs D approached the Ombudsman in August. She complained about Officer C’s conduct, saying she found him hostile and dismissive towards her, and that he had “reversed” his manager’s decision not to require a full application. At that point, we concluded Mrs D’s complaint was premature, as she had not submitted a formal complaint to the Council.
15. On 7 September, the Council replied to Mrs D’s complaint. It explained the key events up to the transfer of the case to the HIA, and that it had been necessary to complete a new means test at this point because those completed by WBC were too old. The Council also explained it considered Officer C’s conduct to have been appropriate, but acknowledged there may have been some misunderstanding between them because of a language barrier.
16. Mrs D replied on 27 September. She raised again that she had been told she did not need to make a full application again. She also questioned the Council’s explanation for what she felt was Officer C’s hostility, and suggested it was racially-motivated.
17. On 25 October, Officer C wrote to Mrs D with the outcome of the full means test. The assessment concluded their contribution would be approximately £68,000. As this exceeded the proposed cost of the works, this meant they did not qualify for a grant. However, they could proceed with the proposed work as a ‘nil approval’, and pay for it themselves.
18. On 31 October, Mrs D submitted a formal complaint to the Council. She complained the Council had not explained how it had determined the outcome of the means test, and pointed out the previous assessments by WBC had produced very different conclusions. Mrs D said she was now seeking to approach a charity for assistance, but could not do so without further information from the Council.
19. In April 2019, Mrs D approached the Ombudsman again. She said she had submitted a formal complaint, but had had no response from the Council. We referred the matter back to the Council, and asked it to respond to Mrs D’s complaint.
20. In June, the Head of the HIA responded to Mrs D’s complaint. She acknowledged the transfer of work from WBC to the HIA had caused some delay in its processes. However, she said Officer C had taken the correct approach in requesting full financial information from Mrs D and completing a means test, as this was the process required by the law. She also said she could not comment on the work done by WBC before the transfer of Mrs D’s case.
21. Mrs D returned to the Ombudsman again in November. In December, we accepted her complaint for investigation.
22. In November and December, the Council explored with Mrs D the possibility of completing some of the proposed works via a discretionary grant, instead of a mandatory DFG. In January 2020, some work on Mrs D’s property was completed to improve wheelchair accessibility.
23. The Council said it had also confirmed to Mrs D it could explore a further discretionary grant to install a level-access shower after six months. It says this work is still due to be completed, but has been delayed because of the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Back to top

Legislative background

24. Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs) are provided under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (“the 1996 Act”). Councils have a statutory duty to provide grant aid to disabled people to carry out necessary adaptations to their home. The maximum amount of mandatory grant is £30,000. Councils must make a decision on a DFG application within six months of receiving it.
25. Before it approves a grant, a council must be satisfied the work is necessary and suitable to meet the disabled person’s needs and that it is also reasonable and practicable. This usually involves an Occupational Therapist assessing the disabled person’s needs, and a survey of the property to make sure the works are feasible.
26. The grant is means-tested and based on a financial assessment of the disabled person’s income and assets. If the applicant meets the criteria for a mandatory grant, the Council must pay it, less any contribution it has calculated the applicant should pay.
27. If the applicant’s calculated contribution is more than the cost of the proposed works, they will not be eligible for a grant. However, the Council can issue a ‘nil approval’, which will allow the work to go ahead. The contribution paid by the applicant can then be taken into account for any future DFG application.
28. Councils can also provide discretionary help in the provision of adaptations.  This could be grants or loans and be in addition to a DFG or as an alternative.

Back to top

Analysis

29. Mrs D complains the Council did not maintain Watford Borough Council’s decision on her DFG application. It made her restart the process, then decided she did not qualify for a grant on financial grounds, in contrast to WBC’s decision she should only make a modest contribution.
30. I must first make clear my investigation here is only into the actions of Hertfordshire County Council, insofar as it administers the home improvement agency. Mrs D has made no complaint about WBC, and even if she had, I would not be able to make findings about it in an investigation of a different authority.
31. I have seen a chronology of WBC’s handling of Mrs D’s application up to the handover. There were severe delays in the processing of the application, but, by the end of 2017, it appears it was reaching its conclusion – the designs had been agreed, the contract awarded to a builder, and WBC had informed Mrs D she was eligible for a grant with a relatively small contribution of approximately £1800.
32. The Council has provided me with a document entitled “DFG Hand-over Sheet”. There is no date on the sheet, but it explains the current position at the point of the handover. One of the items listed on the sheet reads:

“Need formal application forms, etc, filling in with client”

33. I can appreciate Mrs D’s confusion when Officer C then asked her to complete an application form, as it may have appeared the matter had already progressed considerably beyond this stage. Unfortunately I cannot say exactly how WBC had handled this issue – but on the evidence, it seems it was still necessary for Mrs D to make a formal application.
34. I note, also Mrs D says she had spoken to a different officer, who had told her she needed only to resubmit her financial information. She then says Officer C ‘reversed’ this decision.
35. I do not have an objective record of what Mrs D was told by the other officer. However, given the evidence of the handover sheet, I cannot say it was fault for Officer C to insist Mrs D complete a formal application form.
36. In either case, I do not consider the question of the application form, in itself, to be a significant point. The more important matter is the outcome of the Council’s means test.
37. Again, I can appreciate the confusion Mrs D would no doubt have experienced when the Council said her contribution would be approximately £68,000 – more than two and a half times the cost of the proposed works, thus making her ineligible for a DFG. This stands in very stark contrast to WBC’s decision she was only eligible to contribute approximately £1800.
38. However, I have reviewed the Council’s means test. The test involves a series of calculations, with a person’s income broken down into bands, and a set percentage contribution for each band. I cannot see any errors in the Council’s calculations, nor in the figures it relied on for Mrs D’s income and savings; so, on this basis, it appears the Council is correct to say Mrs D is not eligible for a DFG.
39. This, of course, raises a question about how WBC had calculated Mrs D’s contribution to be so much smaller. It appears WBC’s assessment of Mrs D’s finances may have been preliminary, rather than a formal means test; but this does not seem to explain why it drew such a radically different conclusion.
40. I note the Council, in some internal correspondence after concluding its means test, raised concerns about this. There appears to be a suggestion WBC wrongly told Mrs D she was eligible for a grant, when it should not have done.
41. I have not seen a copy of WBC’s calculations, and so I cannot say conclusively whether it made an error; nor, if so, where this error lay. And I could not make a formal finding of fault against WBC, even if I did have this evidence, for the reasons I have already set out.
42. But, as I have said, I cannot see any reason to fault the County Council’s decision on Mrs D’s eligibility. So, ultimately, regardless of what went before, the Council correctly decided Mrs D did not qualify for a DFG on the basis of a means test.
43. I do not dismiss the distress and frustration this will have caused Mrs D. This is especially true, given the matter had been ongoing for four years by the time the Council decided she was not eligible.
44. However, the law says the Council must make a decision on an application within six months of receipt. I do not have a record of the exact date Mrs D submitted the application to the Council, but from the chronology I can see it was no earlier than June 2018. The Council then decided she was not eligible in October 2018, within the permitted six months.
45. This, of course, does not reflect the significant length of time which had passed since Mrs D first approached WBC, nor the considerable amount of work which had been put in by various parties before the case transferred to the HIA. But, in the narrow sense, there was no delay by the HIA in deciding Mrs D’s application, and no fault I can see in its decision she was not eligible.
46. I therefore find no fault in this element of Mrs D’s complaint.
47. Separately, I have examined the Council’s handling of Mrs D’s complaint.
48. Mrs D’s first criticism of the Council was in her letter of May 2018, where she questioned why she needed to complete an application form and re-submit her financial information. I cannot see that this letter received a reply from the Council, but it does not appear to constitute a formal complaint, and so I accept it may not have been treated that way.
49. Mrs D then approached the Ombudsman for the first time in August 2018. This was before she had received the Council’s decision on her eligibility, but she complained about what she perceived to be Officer C’s hostility to her.
50. The Council replied to this in good time, on 7 September. It suggested Mrs D’s dissatisfaction with Officer C might be because of a language barrier between them, but otherwise defended his conduct. Mrs D wrote a response on 27 September, questioning this.
51. Mrs D then wrote again on 31 October, having received the Council’s decision on her DFG application. The Council did not provide a formal response to this until June 2019, some 7-8 months later.
52. I cannot, myself, draw any conclusions about Officer C’s conduct. It appears Mrs D’s view of him was based primarily on verbal conversations she had had with him, and, unfortunately, I have no record of these. As I have said, on the procedural level, I am satisfied there was no fault in Officer C’s handling of the application.
53. But I am critical of the very significant delay in the Council’s reply to Mrs D’s letters of 27 September of 31 October.
54. I note the HIA’s website does not include any information about complaint handling. It is not clear, therefore, whether it has its own complaints policy.
55. If the HIA has no such policy, I would consider this fault; although I will not make a formal finding on this point as I have insufficient information.
56. Alternatively, it may the HIA simply relies on the Council’s policy for its own complaint handling. But, if so, it should make this clear on its website. Either way, therefore, I do find fault the HIA does not explain how it will handle complaints on its website.
57. I do not consider this fault caused Mrs D herself an injustice, as it is clear she was able to submit a complaint anyway. But I will make a recommendation for a service improvement here.
58. I also find fault that it took approximately seven to eight months for Mrs D to receive a reply to her complaints of September and October 2018. Whatever the HIA’s timescales for handling complaints, this cannot be considered acceptable. This left Mrs D without a formal response to her concerns, which I consider to be an injustice.
59. This injustice is mitigated to some degree by the fact I am satisfied there was no fault in the Council’s handling of the substantive matters; but I consider it still warrants an apology, and I will make a recommendation to this effect.

Back to top

Summary

60. After spending several years under the control of Watford Borough Council, Mrs D’s application for a DFG was handed over to the Council’s Home Improvement Agency. In contrast to WBC, the Council found Mrs D was not eligible for a grant.
61. I cannot explain the difference between WBC’s findings and the Council’s; but I equally cannot find fault in how the Council has considered her eligibility. As Mrs D’s complaint to the Ombudsman is about the Council, this means I cannot uphold her complaint.
62. I do find fault, however, in the severe delay in the Council’s response to Mrs D’s complaint, and it should apologise for this.
63. In addition, as I have said, I cannot see from the HIA’s website whether it has a complaints handling policy. The Council should ensure the HIA has a policy, and that it publicises it on the HIA’s website.
64. I understand the Council has provided a discretionary grant for Mrs D, which means some of the work which was agreed by WBC has now been completed. The Council has also said it can provide another discretionary grant for Mrs D to have a walk-in shower fitted. This is positive.
65. I understand Mrs D feels this work should have been completed much sooner, given it was essentially approved by the end of 2017. However, as I have said, the Council was required to undertake a means test of Mrs D before approving a DFG, and it concluded she was not eligible. I cannot say this delay arose because of fault by the Council, therefore, as it could not proceed with the matter as it had been left by WBC.

Agreed action

66. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs D for the delays in its response to her complaint.
67. And, within three months of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:

• develop a complaints handling policy for its Home Improvement Agency, if one does not already exist; and
• ensure the Home Improvement Agency’s website explains its complaint handling policy, including its target dates for responses, and how a complainant may escalate a complaint if dissatisfied with a response.

Back to top

Final decision

68. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman