Summary: Mrs F complained about the Council’s handling of her Disabled Facilities Grant application. We have discontinued our investigation because the Council has agreed to do the works she asked for. Mrs F is happy with the Council’s actions and our investigation cannot achieve anything further.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs F, complained about the Council’s handling of her Disabled Facilities Grants application. She said her son’s needs had been assessed but the Council delayed doing the agreed works. She also said it wrongly refused works to her driveway.
2. As a result, Mrs F said she experienced distress and difficulties to get her son in and out of their home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of my investigation, I have considered:
• Mrs F’s complaints to the Council, and the Council’s responses.
• Mrs F’s request for her complaint to be discontinued as she is now happy with the steps the Council has taken to address her concerns.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. Mrs F lives with her son who has care needs and uses a wheelchair to get access their home.
7. In 2020, Mrs F made an application to the Council for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). She asked the Council for help to improve the access to her property as she found it difficult to transfer her son to and from her car. She said needed:
• a ramp and level front door access;
• works to the hardstanding surface in the driveway; and
• she also asked for works to the light fittings in her son’s room before a hoist was installed.
8. The Council considered Mrs F’s application and the comments it received from her son’s Occupational Therapist (OT). It agreed to works for the level front door access and a ramp. However, it said a further visit was needed to assess the need for works to her driveway.
9. The Council visited Mrs F and found she had enough hardstanding surface. It therefore only agreed to some repair works on the existing surface. It also told Mrs F’s son’s OT about its decision.
10. The Council asked for quotes for the ramp and level access door works. However, there was a delay as the OT and contractors for the proposed works could not agree what grading was required for the ramp. The Council arranged for its contractor to speak with Mrs F directly.
11. In late 2020, Mrs F appealed the Council’s DFG decision. She said the existing the hardstanding surface was not enough to provide access between her car and her home.
12. The Council acknowledged her appeal and its Environmental Health Officer (EHO) visited Mrs F to decide if its decision was appropriate. The Council also said her appeal will not delay the agreed works for a ramp and level front door access.
13. Shortly after, the Council told Mrs F it could not decide on her appeal until the planned works had been completed and she had tried to use the driveway as it had suggested.
14. Mrs F complained to the Council about its handling of her DFG application for her son. She said:
• it had not done the works to the light fittings before the hoist was installed;
• it caused delays in installing the access ramp and making the doorway changes to her property as agreed;
• she was unhappy about comments made a Council Officer’s and she had not received a reply to her appeal; and
• the OT had recommended a level access driveway. She said repair works to the surface was not enough and further hardstanding was needed. She said she should therefore be eligible for the DFG funding.
15. In response, the Council did not uphold Mrs F’s complaint. It said it had acknowledged her appeal. However, it explained it could not reach a decision until its planned works were completed, and Mrs F had tried its suggestions to utilise the existing hardstanding. It also apologised if its Officers’ comments had caused offence and said it would find out who should pay for the changes to the light fittings.
16. Mrs F was not satisfied with the Council’s response. She asked the Council to reconsider her complaint. However, as she did not receive a response, she asked the Ombudsman to consider her complaint.
17. In response to our enquiries the Council said it had not provided its final complaint response to Mrs F yet.
18. Two weeks later, the Council sent its final complaint response to Mrs F. It upheld her complaint and apologised for the delay caused. It said it was satisfied she was entitled to have improvements made to the driveway under the DFG funding. It asked Mrs F to get two quotes for the works, so this could be added to the grant. It also said it would ensure there was clear decision making and improved recording of decisions at all stages of its DFG process.
19. Mrs F told the Ombudsman she is now happy with the Council’s decision and the steps it took to resolve her concerns. She asked for her complaint to be discontinued.

Analysis

20. Mrs F has asked us to discontinue our investigating because she is now happy with the Council’s decision to include works to her driveway in her DFG grant.
21. In addition, the Council’s final complaint response to Mrs F sets out the changes has made to improve its DFG process. I welcome the Council’s actions to improve its service, and I am therefore satisfied it is appropriate to discontinue my investigation.
22. It would remain open to Mrs F to make a new complaint if the Council does not complete the agreed works within a reasonable timescale.

Back to top

Final decision

23. The Council has delivered the remedy Mrs F sought. I have discontinued my investigation as nothing further could be achieved.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman