Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council withdrew a discretionary accessible homes grant which had been offered by its predecessor local authority. This is because there is insufficient evidence of administrative fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr B, complained that the Council withdrew an accessible homes grant which had been offered by its predecessor local authority. As a result, he will not receive any grant funding for adaptations to his home.

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. 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
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the information Mr B provided, his comments on my draft decision and the Council’s responses to his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

5. In its responses to Mr B’s complaint the Council explained that the accessible homes grant Mr B’s former council had offered, was a discretionary, not a mandatory grant. That means it had no duty to provide it. The grant gave applicants up to £5000 of non-means tested funding for eligible adaptations.
6. In April 2019 the Council took over responsibility for the provision of services in Mr B’s area. So we must consider Mr B’s complaint as being against the successor local authority. The Council explained that the former council’s policy had allowed withdrawal of the grant if its continuation was unsustainable. The Council said it had become clear the funding was insufficient to meet demand.
7. The Council says Mr B made his initial enquiry to a home improvement agency (the agency) in October 2018. The agency helps people with their grant enquiries. Mr B’s former council took the decision to withdraw the accessible homes grant in March 2019. That was before approval of Mr B’s grant enquiry. The Council has a duty to provide disabled facilities grants, they are mandatory not discretionary, but these grants are subject to means testing. The Council says Mr B would not receive any grant funding.
8. The agency dealt with the processing of Mr B’s grant enquiry. In its response to Mr B’s complaint the Council said the Occupational Therapist’s recommendation was received in December 2018. Mr B says, after discussing the adaptations he needed in February 2019, the agency sent him a schedule of works in March 2019. Mr B has complained that delay by the agency led to him not receiving the accessible homes grant while it was still available. But the Council says its target is for the period from the occupational therapist’s referral to completion of the work is 26 weeks. Its view is the agency was working within acceptable time frames. We cannot investigate the actions of the agency unless it was providing council services on behalf of the Council. Councils must approve mandatory disabled facilities grants within six months of the applicant’s formal written application. Mr B did not make his initial enquiry until October 2018 and there is insufficient evidence of excessive delay by Mr B’s former council in the grant process. In this case there is not a sound enough basis for us to justify investigating the time taken to process Mr B’s grant enquiry.
9. It is understandable that Mr B was aggrieved when he found out he would not receive the grant he thought he would get when he started the process. Our role is to consider complaints of injustice caused by administrative fault by a council. In this case the Council has explained Mr B did not receive the discretionary grant was because of insufficient resources to meet the demand. Its policy allowed it to withdraw the discretionary grant in those circumstances.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of administrative fault by the Council.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman