Summary: The complainant disagrees with the Council’s decision not to approve a Disabled Facilities Grant application. We will not investigate this complaint. We are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council came to its decision. And an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Miss C, says the Council has wrongly refused her application for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG).

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, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome

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

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered :
• the information provided by Miss C
• the information provided by Miss C; and
• Miss C’s comments on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. 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 reasonable and practicable.
6. Miss C applied to the Council for DFG because her upstairs toilet has stopped working. After a telephone discussion with her, the Council refused the application. It says DFGs are to provide adaptations to meet a disabled persons need. In this case it said Miss C already has an accessible upstairs toilet but this has stopped working. Therefore, she needs a repair or a replacement of an existing toilet, not an adaptation to her enable her to access facilities in her home.
7. Miss C appealed against the decision. An officer visited her home. They observed Miss C walking up and down stairs independently, although she was a little breathless. The Officer says Miss C told them she had to use her downstairs toilet and during the night this is difficult.
8. The Council says the upstairs toilet is not flushing or filling and needs repairing or replacing. Miss C says a plumber has told her it cannot be repaired and needs replacing.
9. Miss C disagrees with the Council’s decision. She says she cannot access a working toilet upstairs and therefore the Council should provide a DFG to facilitate this.
10. The Council, having visited her home, has decided Miss C does not qualify for a DFG to adapt her property to meet her needs. It has given her details of several organisations that may help her repair or replace her toilet.
11. We cannot consider the merits of the Council’s decision if it followed the correct process before making the decision. The Council has visited Miss C’s home, observed her moving around her property and established that she can access her working downstairs toilet. It has confirmed the upstairs toilet is accessible although it needs repairing or replacing.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I will not investigate this complaint. I am unlikely to find fault in the way it came to a decision not to approve her DFG application. Nor do I believe that an investigation of her complaint would lead to a different outcome

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman