Summary: A woman complained about the way the Council’s dealt with her application for a Disabled Facilities Grant. But we do not have grounds to investigate this complaint because the level of injustice the woman suffered due to the Council’s fault does not warrant our further involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Ms B, complained about the way the Council dealt with her application for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) for adaptations to her home to meet the needs of her daughter (‘C’). In particular Ms B complained the Council did not take proper account of C’s needs in refusing to fund an extension to provide her with a bedroom and bathroom. She also said it gave her misleading information, ignored her appeals and unreasonably insisted she went through a lengthy complaints process. Ms B said as a result her family suffered severe stress and she unnecessarily incurred costs from employing an architect.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Ms B provided with her complaint, and her comments in response to a draft of this decision. In addition I took account of information the Council provided in response to our enquiries about Ms B’s complaint.

Back to top

My assessment

4. DFG’s are for people with a qualifying disability who need adaptations in their home to help them remain in their home. DFG’s are mandatory and must be awarded if the applicant meets the qualifying conditions.
5. But the law says councils must be satisfied the grant works are “necessary and appropriate” to meet the needs of the disabled person, and it is “reasonable and practicable” to carry them out.
6. It is for the Council to decide what adaptations are required to a property. Our role is limited to considering if the Council followed the correct procedures during the DFG process.
7. But from the information provided I do not see sign of fault in the way the Council made its decision in Ms B’s case, or sign that any other fault in the DFG process caused her a significant injustice.
8. The Council carried out an assessment of C’s needs and decided these could be met by replacing the bath in the existing bathroom with a level access shower room. When Ms B asked the Council to consider retaining the bath it assessed matters again but concluded this would not be practicable. The Council also reviewed its assessments after Ms B appealed its decision, but found no justification for approving her preferred option of an extension to her property to provide a bedroom and bathroom for C.
9. I consider the Council followed an appropriate decision-making process in Ms B’s case which took account of C’s needs, and that it was reasonably entitled under the DFG scheme to opt for the most cost-effective adaptations to meet those needs. In the circumstances I also consider it was appropriate for the Council to give Ms B the choice of having the approved grant works done or using the value of the approved grant to put towards the cost of the more expensive option which she preferred.
10. Ms B complained about the stressful and lengthy DFG process. I note there was a five months’ delay before the Council acted on the DFG application Ms B made in February 2020, although the Council said this was due to COVD-19 related restrictions which meant it was unable to offer face to face assessments for a long period. But the Council acknowledged it delayed unreasonably for around a month in responding to Ms B’s first appeal letter in October 2020.
11. However I am not convinced that any undue delay by the Council in these respects caused Ms B a significant disadvantage. In particular I do not see we could say the Council’s decision about her DFG application would have been any different if it had done its assessment and dealt with her appeal sooner.
12. In addition, I note the Council has apologised for its delay and for not keeping Ms B properly informed about progress with her appeal. It also committed to improving its procedures as a result. I consider this is a sufficient response from the Council, so there is no need for us to pursue these matters any further.
13. Ms B also complained about having to go through a long and stressful appeal and complaint process. But I consider the Council correctly followed its DFG appeal process and its three-stage complaints procedure involving informal, formal stage one, and formal stage two responses.
14. In addition Ms B complained about receiving misleading information from the Council. In particular she referred to the Council’s appeal response which she said misled her into thinking her appeal had been successful.
15. Having read the letter in question it seems to me the opening paragraph was not clearly expressed and could have been open to misinterpretation. However I consider the rest of the letter made it sufficiently clear that the Council was not upholding Ms B’s appeal and was rejecting the option of funding an extension.
16. I also note the Council said it would review its letters to make sure they provide clear information, and I consider this is an appropriate response in the circumstances.
17. Ms B complained further that the Council had instructed her to cancel her architect’s plans. But I found no evidence of this in the correspondence provided. In addition I have seen no evidence to suggest that fault by the Council has caused Ms B to unnecessarily incur costs from using an architect.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We do not have reason to investigate Ms B’s complaint about the way the Council dealt with and decided her application for a Disabled Facilities Grant. This is because any fault by the Council regarding this matter has not caused her an injustice to justify our further involvement in her case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman