Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council handled her disabled facilities grant application. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council:
1. delayed in dealing with her Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) application;
2. failed to properly consider the issues facing the family which led to it refusing to convert the garage under the DFG scheme; and
3. suggested space could be found within the footfall of the current dwelling which was contrary to building regulations.
2. Mrs X says that as a result, the family have had to pay for the work themselves which has financially disadvantaged them.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information submitted by Mrs X.
6. I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided.
7. I wrote to Mrs X and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Disabled Facilities Grants

8. Disabled facilities grants (DFGs) are provided under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 to help towards the cost of adaptations to the home of a disabled person. The Act says mandatory grants (up to £30,000) are for adaptations which are needed to provide or improve access by the disabled person to the property or to a room used for sleeping or essential facilities such as a washing and toilet facilities.
9. DFGs must be awarded if the council is satisfied that the works proposed are necessary and appropriate to meet the disabled person’s needs, and reasonable and practicable, depending on the age and condition of the property.
10. Mrs X lives in an area where there is a two tier council system. This means the District Council is responsible for administering the DFG scheme. Usually, the District Council will require an assessment by an occupational therapist (OT) when considering DFG proposals. In those cases, it makes a referral to the County Council’s occupational therapy team. Mrs X has also complained about the actions of the County Council and this forms the basis of a separate complaint.
11. The OT will assess the person’s needs and consider whether they can safely access rooms and facilities. The OT recommends suitable adaptations to the District Council which will determine whether they are reasonable and practicable.
12. After this stage, the person will make an application to the Council. The Council should give the applicant a decision as soon as reasonably practicable and within six months of the grant application.

What happened

13. Mrs X has a child, Z, who has autism. In March 2020, she submitted a DFG proposal for a building, which is separate from the house, to be extended and converted into an open plan living space for Z with bathroom and cooking facilities.
14. In June, the District Council made a referral to the County Council to carry out an OT assessment. The County Council did this later that month but did not issue the District Council with a recommendation for adaptations. Instead, the OT consulted with their manager and Children’s Services officers at the County Council about alternative ways Z’s needs could potentially be met.
15. Following those consultations, the OT carried out a second assessment in December. The OT recommended Z required a small, sound proofed room. They recommended any adapted space must be within the footfall of the property. The OT felt it neither appropriate nor necessary for the separate building to be adapted.
16. The District Council drew up some proposals based on the OT’s recommendations. Mrs X was unhappy with the location of the room in these proposals. The Council, therefore, redrafted them and moved the location of the room.
17. Mrs X rejected these proposals and at the end of March 2021, she complained to the Council. One of her complaints was that the proposals did not meet building regulations.
18. The Council responded, making the following points:
• the proposal was in accordance with the OT’s recommendation and had been identified as “reasonable and practicable to meet the assessed and recommended needs of a disabled person”;
• the Council had been unable to carry out a site visit because Mrs X had told officers it would unsettle Z and so all proposals had been based on plans submitted by Mrs X. However, a site visit would be required before final plans could be approved. However, the Council believed building regulations were met; and
• if Mrs X had other proposals which she felt would meet Z’s needs within the existing footprint of the house, she should send them to the OT.
19. To date, Mrs X has not submitted alternative proposals or a DFG application form.
20. During my investigation, Mrs X told me the family had begun work to adapt the external building for use by Z.

My findings

Complaint 1a) - Delays in the DFG process

21. Mrs X submitted her proposal in March 2020. An initial decision was made three months later not to make recommendations under the DFG scheme. Following a second assessment in December 2020, the Council made a second decision in March 2021, proposing adaptations. This was made without delay. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Complaints 1b) and 1c) - Council proposal was contrary to building regulations and no account was made of the issues facing the family

22. The Council and Mrs X disagree about the proposed adaptations, including whether they meet building regulations. Mrs X also believes the Council failed to take the issues facing the family into account.
23. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
24. There was no fault in the Council’s actions or the way it made its decision. The Council took the appropriate information into consideration, in particular the OT’s recommendation, when it made its initial proposals for adaptations. The evidence demonstrates it listened to Mrs X’s concerns and views. When she objected to the initial proposals and stated they were contrary to building regulations, the Council issued revised proposals. Both times, it had to do so without access to Mrs X’s property.
25. When Mrs X remained unhappy, the Council suggested Mrs X submit alternative plans. She chose not to do so. Although Mrs X was entitled to make that decision, it means the opportunity to come to an agreement was lost.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have completed my investigation. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman