Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to reimburse her through a Disabled Facilities Grant for the cost of a shower she fitted to her Housing Association property. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council which led to Mrs X incurring the costs of the works. Mrs X’s Adult Social Care assessment has not found she would have been eligible for a Disabled Facilities Grant for the shower.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council:
1. Failed to tell her about the Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) scheme when she signed up for her Housing Association (HA) property;
2. Failed to respond to her daughter’s telephone calls about the matter;
3. Unfairly refused to reimburse her for the cost of a shower she had fitted.
2. Mrs X took a loan out to pay for the shower and is now in debt. She wants the Council to give her the money to meet the cost of fitting the shower.

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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

4. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as housing associations. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of my assessment I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mrs X;
• issued a draft decision, inviting Mrs X to reply, and considered her daughter’s response.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mrs X says the Council or the HA should have told her about the DFG scheme when she signed up for her property. Mrs X argues that if the Council had told her she could apply for a DFG, she would have got the funding to pay for her shower.
7. Mrs X accepted the property after visiting it so knew there was no shower. If she had concerns about this, and about the cost of fitting a shower, she could have contacted the Council. She did not do this and instead funded the installation of a shower herself. The Council could not know Mrs X’s concerns about not having a shower at the property, so would have no reason to advise her about DFGs.
8. I recognise Mrs X believes the Council should have known from previous assessments of her needs that she believed she needed a shower fitted. But to qualify for a DFG, someone has to be assessed in the property where they live. If Mrs X wanted to be considered for a DFG, she should have asked for an assessment once she knew where she was going to move to.
9. I do not consider there is enough evidence to say fault by the Council resulted in Mrs X paying for her own shower. I say this because the Council’s final complaint response says Adult Social Care (ASC) officers recently evaluated Mrs X. The Council says it has not received any report or request from ASC requesting that a shower or a level access shower is considered necessary for Mrs X due to her disabilities. The outcome of the ASC assessment indicates that even if Mrs X had known about DFGs and had applied, she would have been declined that funding for her shower.
10. Mrs X’s daughter says the latest ASC assessment said that if a bath step did not work, they would have then considered fitting a shower. But that is not a statement by the Council’s assessor that Mrs X would have been found eligible for a DFG-funded shower.
11. Mrs X’s daughter also says her mother needed a shower for religious reasons. But a DFG is awarded due to a person’s mobility problems in their home, not for any other reason.
12. Mrs X says the Council did not reply to her daughter’s telephone calls about the matter. There is no link between Mrs X’s expenditure on the shower and the Council’s replies to Mrs X’s daughter’s calls. By the time Mrs X had concerns about the Council’s responses to her daughter, Mrs X had already incurred the cost of the shower. An Ombudsman investigation of this part of the complaint would not achieve the outcome Mrs X seeks.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council causing Mrs X’s claimed injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman