Summary: Mr Y complains the Council told him the waiting time for a Disabled Facilities Grant was two years. He says because of the Council’s advice he decided to pay for the work himself. Mr Y later found out the wait was much shorter. The Council gave Mr Y wrong advice about how long it took to apply for a grant. This did not cause Mr Y any injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains the Council told him he would have to wait two years for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). Mr Y says due to the Council’s advice he decided to pay for the work himself as he was concerned it would take too long otherwise. He then found the wait was shorter than he was advised.
2. Mr Y says he has now has little savings left and suffered frustration at realising he was given the wrong information.

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. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
5. 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

6. I considered all the information provided by Mr Y about the complaint. I made written enquiries of the Council and took account of all the evidence and comments received.
7. I have written to Mr Y and the Council with my draft decision and gave them an opportunity to comment. I considered comments from Mrs Y before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG) are for people with a qualifying disability who need adaptations in their home to help them remain in that home. Councils must award a DFG if the applicant meets the qualifying conditions.
9. County Councils, as social services authorities, have a duty to meet the assessed eligible needs of a disabled adult. They carry out assessments of the person’s home and circumstances.
10. In this area, the County Council employs a home improvement agency working on behalf of all the District Councils, to give advice and help on home adaptations and DFGs for owner occupiers, private renters and housing association tenants.
11. The agency also makes decisions about DFGs, on behalf of the relevant district council as housing authority, within six months of receiving a completed valid application. If works are carried out, the County Council’s social care duty does not end until disabled adaptations have been completed to a satisfactory standard. If a council refuses a grant it must explain why. Once work is completed the council must pay the grant in full before 12 months from the date of the grant application.
12. The maximum amount of a grant payable by a council is £30,000. The amount of grant a council will pay is subject to a means test.

What Happened

13. Mr Y and his wife, Mrs Y, live in their own home. Mrs Y contacted the Council in April 2018 as she was concerned about her husband’s ability to care for himself at home.
14. A Community Care Officer then met with Mr and Mrs Y, on the Council’s behalf, at their home to discuss his need. The officer carried out a care assessment resulting in the Council ordering assistive equipment. The officer told them about how to apply for a DFG for assistance to make adaptations to an internal door between his house and his downstairs toilet, which was then in an out-building.
15. Mr Y says he was told he could have financial help through a DFG but there was a waiting list of two years. The officer’s record is that they told the couple about the possibility of applying for a DFG and that the officer thought the current waiting time for award of grants was two years. This was because the officer wrongly thought Mr Y was a housing association tenant. The Council’s officer referred Mr Y’s case to the Council’s Home Improvement Agency for help with making a DFG application.
16. Mr Y was concerned about the length of the wait and his deteriorating health. He decided not to pursue the application and instead used money from his savings so the adaption would be available sooner.
17. The work was completed in August 2018, costing Mr Y £4,260 which Mr Y says was money he would have used to visit family abroad.
18. The Council later sent documentation about making a DFG application to Mr Y. The documents indicated that the wait time for decisions about DFG applications was significantly shorter and in line with the time it had taken for Mr Y to have the work done himself.
19. Mrs Y complained to the Council in October that the couple had paid privately for works because it had told them it would take two years to make a decision. She wanted the Council to cover the cost of works.
20. The Council told Mrs Y it could not pay DFG retrospectively and that it did not know if the couple would have been eligible for any assistance. It apologised for giving them the wrong information about waiting times at the assessment and in its initial response to their complaint.
21. A caseworker then carried out a preliminary test of resources by telephone with Mrs Y for a further DFG application for a stair lift to help Mr Y in January 2019. This initial means test showed that Mr Y had enough in savings to carry out the work himself as his required level of contribution would be higher than the costs of the work. He was therefore found to not be eligible for DFG funding for the stair lift.
22. Replying to my enquiries, the Council confirmed there was a two-year waiting list for a DFG for social housing tenants and it wrongly assumed Mr Y was a social housing tenant. As a homeowner, the wait time for Mr Y would have been four months.

Analysis

23. The Council gave Mr Y incorrect advice about the likely time it would have taken to process a DFG application. The officer wrongly assumed the couple were housing association tenants and did not check before giving this advice. This was fault.
24. On finding fault, I then consider if the fault has caused Mr Y an injustice.
25. Mr Y had a Preliminary Test of Resources (a means test) for a further DFG application seven months after he decided to pay for the earlier work himself. This test showed Mr Y was not be eligible for a DFG. This would have been after he had paid for the internal door work, which he says cost him about £4,000.
26. As he then spent £4,000 from his savings before the means test for a further DFG, it is unlikely he would have been eligible for a DFG, where seven months later his means were too high, making him ineligible.
27. So, even if the Council had provided the correct advice, Mr Y would have been unlikely to receive DFG funding and still would have had to pay for the work himself.
28. Mr Y was frustrated to learn the Council had given him wrong advice. But there is no significant injustice arising from this fault. Had he made an earlier DFG application, he would have been told the same outcome.
29. Consequently, I have not found Mr Y has suffered an injustice because of the Council’s fault.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I have completed my investigation and uphold Mr Y’s complaint. While I have found the Council at fault, I have not found injustice caused to Mr Y by this.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman