Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a Disabled Facilities Grant for adaptations to the complainant’s home. This is because he is unlikely to find fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The Complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council dealt with an application for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) for his daughter Y. Mr X does not agree that the adaptations recommended by the Council are suitable for Y’s needs. He is also unhappy the Council has reduced the grant as it says the ramps he has had installed do not meet the required standards.

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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s responses. I invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision and have considered the comments he has made in response.

Back to top

What I found

Disabled Facilities Grants

4. DFGs are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Councils have a statutory duty to provide grant aid to disabled people for certain adaptations. Before approving a grant, a council must be satisfied the work is necessary and suitable to meet the disabled person’s needs and also reasonable and practicable.
5. The maximum amount of a grant payable by a council is £30,000, but a council can award other discretionary help if it thinks it is necessary. Once the work is complete the council must pay the grant in full before 12 months from the date of the grant application.

What happened

6. Mr X applied to the Council for a DFG to adapt his home for his daughter Y. An Occupational Therapist (OT) from the Council visited Mr X’s home and decided that Y’s needs could be met by installing a lift in the property to provide access to the upstairs bedroom and bathroom. The OT also recommended the bathroom be converted into a wet room and said ramping should be installed at the back and front of the property. The estimated cost of these works was £22,381.17.
7. Mr X was unhappy with the suggested works and said they were not suitable for Y’s long-term needs. He also raised concerns about installing a lift in the property. Mr X argued that an extension to provide downstairs facilities for Y would be more appropriate. Although the Council did not consider the downstairs works necessary, it agreed to pay £22,381.17 towards the cost.
8. Mr X submitted plans to the Council for approval. The OT said these were acceptable and he could proceed to apply for planning permission. Once the extension and adaptations were completed the Council visited to inspect the works. It was satisfied with most of the adaptations. However, it said the ramps that had been installed did not meet the required standards. Therefore, it reduced the amount it paid to Mr X by £3,307.50 to reflect the cost of building the ramps.
9. Mr X has complained about the Council’s decision to reduce the grant. He says the ramps were not included on the plans approved by the Council. He also says the actual cost of the adaptations was about £36,000. Therefore, he says the Council should award the maximum grant of £30,000.

Assessment

10. I will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a DFG. This is because it is unlikely I would find fault by the Council.
11. I understand the cost of the adaptations was more than the Council agreed to pay. However, I have reviewed the OT’s report which says Y’s needs could be met by adapting the upstairs of the property. Therefore, it is unlikely I could say it was fault for the Council to limit the amount it would pay to the cost of these works. I understand Mr X says the adaptations recommended by the OT were not suitable, but the OT was entitled to use their professional judgement to decide the upstairs adaptations could meet Y’s needs and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault.
12. The Council has reduced the amount it has paid to Mr X as it says the ramps installed are not to the necessary standard. Mr X is unhappy with this decision. He says the plans his agent sent to the Council did not include any ramps. The Council’s OT approved these plans and told him he could proceed. Mr X says the Council should not now be able to say it is unhappy with the ramps and its decision to withhold these funds has caused him and his family financial hardship.
13. While I understand the plans did not show any ramps, the Council did tell Mr X’s agent that ramps should be included. The Council also wrote to Mr X when it awarded the DFG and said it would inspect the adaptations before releasing the funds. The letter said the works must be to an acceptable standard and meet the DFG requirements. As the ramps were not built to the required standard, it is unlikely I could say it was fault that the Council reduced the amount it paid to reflect this. The Council says it can release these funds once the ramps have been completed to the necessary standard.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because he is unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman