Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s delay in assessing him and his wife for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). This is because the Council has accepted and apologised for the delay and it is unlikely any further investigation by the Ombudsman could achieve any more than this.

The complaint

1. Mr B says because of the Council’s delay in assessing him and his wife for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) he had no option but to go ahead with build rather than lose the opportunity to have a bedroom built downstairs which they needed. Mr B says the Council should accept the delay resulted in them having to fund their own adaptations and contribute towards the costs incurred.

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 could add to any previous investigation by the Council, 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I discussed the concerns with Mr B and considered the information and documentation he and the Council provided. I sent Mr B a copy of my draft decision for comment.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr B complained to the Council in October about the length of time they had waited for an Occupational Therapist (OT) to assess whether they met the criteria for a DFG to adapt their property.
5. The Council responded to Mr B’s complaint. It acknowledged the length of time they had waited for an OT assessment was unacceptable and apologised for the delay. It advised Mr B it had increased the OT resource hours to minimise the waiting time for future assessments and offered to arrange an OT assessment for them at their earliest convenience.
6. The Ombudsman could achieve no more than this even if he investigated.
7. Mr B says an OT arranged to visit too late as they had agreed for the completion of the adaptations privately.
8. DFG’s are only approved if the Council accepts the work is necessary and appropriate to meet the needs of the disabled person.
9. The applicant should get the grant approved before starting any work. A council can approve a grant if the work has already started or it might only approve a grant for those elements of the work which started after it approved the grant.
10. The Council will not approve a grant if the work has already been completed.
11. The Council can only assess eligibility for a DFG on the evidence presented and observed during the visit. The Ombudsman could not say the Council should retrospectively fund a DFG it has not assessed or agreed as being required.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has accepted and apologised for the delay and it is unlikely any further investigation by the Ombudsman could achieve any more than this.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman