Summary: Miss X complained about the way the Council handled her application for a Disabled Facilities Grant. She said the amount offered is not enough to meet the cost of the proposed works. Miss X said her life is at risk without access to accessible basics. We do not find the Council at fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Miss X, complains about the way the Council has handled her application for a Disabled Facilities Grant. Specifically, she complains that the Council:
1. has not granted a mandatory Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) towards the cost of adaptations to her home. She says she has higher needs than DFG funding allows and believes the Council should make up the shortfall to pay for the adaptations;
2. has discriminated against her by not granting the funds needed for her adaptations; and,
3. has not offered the support its website says is available.
2. Miss X says her life is at risk without access to accessible basics when her mother is not able to help her.

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 and documents provided by Miss X and the Council. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments and further information received before I reached a final decision.
6. I considered the relevant legislation, statutory guidance, and policies, set out below.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Disabled Facilities Grants

7. Local authorities have a statutory duty to provide help for major adaptations to the homes of people with disabilities. This is usually done through a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). Owner-occupiers, local authority tenants and private tenants, among others, can apply to the local authority for a DFG to make their home more accessible.
8. DFGs must be used to meet the cost of adapting a property to meet specific needs, for example providing ramps, installing a stair lift, or adapting/providing accessible washing facilities.
9. The maximum amount of a grant a local authority can pay is £30,000. A local authority can award other discretionary help if it thinks it is necessary.
10. The Council’s policy on DFGs says that the maximum grant is £30,000. The policy recognises that in some cases, the cost of works exceeds this amount. The policy says the Council does not have a duty to assist in meeting any shortfall between the amount of the grant and the cost of works.
11. The policy says the Council can assist using its discretion under certain powers in law by offering an interest-free loan. However, the policy says the works must be eligible to qualify for this.

Discrimination

12. Direct discrimination occurs when a person or organisation treats a person less favourably than they treat or would treat others because of a protected characteristic. The ‘protected characteristics' referred to in the Equality Act 2010 include disability.

What happened

13. Miss X has disabilities. She lives with her mother. An occupational therapist assessed Miss X’s needs. The occupational therapist said it was not possible to consider Miss X’s home for adaptation for several reasons. The occupational therapist recommended building a new self-contained dwelling to meet Miss X’s needs.
14. Miss X applied to the Council for a mandatory Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) to meet the cost of this new build.
15. The Council told Miss X that mandatory DFGs can only be considered in order to adapt an existing dwelling. It said a new build is not eligible for a mandatory DFG. The Council considered Miss X’s needs and offered her a discretionary DFG of £30,000.
16. Miss X complained that the Council’s offer was not enough to make the adaptations necessary for her disability.
17. The Council responded. It said Miss X could not adapt her main home due to her needs. It said Miss X could not build any permanent buildings or an extension because of a covenant on the land.
18. The Council repeated that, under the law, mandatory DFGs cannot be granted for a building which does not exist yet. It said Miss X’s proposal for a new build was therefore not eligible for a mandatory DFG. It said it offered her a discretionary DFG to the same value as a mandatory DFG.
19. The Council said it recognised the unusual complexity of Miss X’s conditions which is why it offered the discretionary DFG. It said it could not offer Miss X an interest-free loan to cover the cost of the rest of the build. This was because the proposed works were not eligible under its policy. It said loans are discretionary.
20. Miss X then complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

Mandatory Disabled Facilitates Grant

21. Miss X complains the Council has not granted a mandatory Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) towards the cost of adaptations to her home (part a of the complaint). She says she has higher needs than DFG funding allows and believes the Council should make up the shortfall to pay for the adaptations.
22. The law says DFGs are to adapt dwellings. The law does not say DFGs can be used to build entirely new buildings, like the one recommended by Miss X’s occupational therapist. The proposed new build is therefore not eligible in law for a mandatory DFG. The Council therefore could not grant a mandatory DFG for the proposed new build.
23. I therefore do not find the Council at fault for not granting Miss X a mandatory DFG.
24. Miss X’s circumstances are unusual given the nature of her disabilities. I find the Council took account of this and used its discretion to offer Miss X a discretionary DFG in the same amount as a mandatory DFG. This is positive. However, this does not meet the cost of the new build.
25. Miss X believes the Council should make up the shortfall. I do not agree. The Council’s policy says it does not have a duty to make up a shortfall. I agree.
26. The Council has considered other types of funding and support to meet the shortfall, in line with its policy, but the proposed works are not eligible. The Council is looking into other funding options to support Miss X with this new build.

Discrimination

27. Miss X complains the Council has discriminated against her by not granting the funds needed for her adaptations (part b of the complaint). She says the amount of funding is “grossly” inadequate for her specific disability requirements.
28. The Ombudsman cannot make a finding about alleged discrimination. This is an issue only the courts can determine. However, we can consider if a council has had due regard to its duties under the law.
29. It is not the Council’s decision that the maximum for a DFG is limited to £30,000. This is the amount set out by the government.
30. The Council has taken account of Miss X’s unusual circumstances and her disabilities and has offered her the maximum grant allowed under law, which is £30,000. I therefore find that the Council has had due regard to its duties under law.
31. For these reasons, I do not find the Council at fault.

Website offers of support

32. Miss X complains the Council has not offered the support its website says is available (part c of the complaint).
33. I have considered the support offered on the Council’s website. I find that the Council has offered Miss X the assistance and support she is eligible for and is relevant to her. I do not find the Council at fault for failing to offer inappropriate or irrelevant support to Miss X.
34. Miss X says the Council told her some of the services have been defunded or are no longer offered, but they are still on the website. I do not know exactly which services Miss X refers to. However, I find that the Council has offered Miss X everything it should have according to its website and its policy.
35. I therefore do not find the Council at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

36. I have completed my investigation and I do not uphold Miss X’s complaint. This is because there is no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman