Summary: Mr B says the Council did not give him full information about funding for a disabled facilities grant and refused to award the grant when he began the works even though they had been incorrectly informed and the works had not been completed. There is no fault in how the Council handled the grant application. Incorrect information was included in the Council’s responses to the complaint which did not affect the overall decision on the case. A reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr B, complained the Council:
• failed to give him and his partner full information about funding for a disabled facilities grant which means they did not know they needed to wait until a decision on discretionary funding had been made before they made arrangements for the work to take place; and
• unreasonably refused to award a discretionary grant on the basis Mr B had begun the works even though he had been incorrectly informed and the works had not been completed.
2. Mr B says as a result of fault by the Council he and his partner have suffered financially by having to fund the stair lift themselves and have been caused distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates complaints of injustice caused by maladministration and service failure. I have used the word fault to refer to these. The Ombudsman cannot question whether a Council’s decision is right or wrong simply because Mr B disagrees with it. He must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3))
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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mr B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
6. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

7. Section 29 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (the Act) sets out the restriction on grants for works already begun. It says that:
• (1)a local housing authority shall not approve an application for a grant if the relevant works have been begun before the application is approved.
• (2)Where the relevant works have been begun but have not been completed, the authority may approve the application for a grant if they are satisfied that there were good reasons for beginning the works before the application was approved.
• (3)Where an authority decide to approve an application in accordance with subsection (2), they may, with the consent of the applicant, treat the application as varied so that the relevant works do not include any that are completed.
• (4)a local housing authority shall not approve an application for a grant if the relevant works have been completed.
8. The Council’s private sector housing: financial assistance for adaptations and repairs policy (the policy) sets out the criteria for mandatory disabled facilities grants:
• the applicant must either be the homeowner or tenant and have provided relevant certification confirming that the property is the only or main residence and that they intend to live in it throughout the grant condition period, and
• the applicant or beneficiary of the adaptation must meet the County Council’s eligibility criteria for care and support needs under the Care Act 2014, and
• the applicant must have received a written recommendation from a registered occupational therapist which confirms that works are necessary and appropriate for a purpose which is listed in the policy. That includes facilitating access to a bedroom, a room containing a WC for the disabled occupant and a room containing a bath or shower.
9. The policy states the Council will carry out a means test to determine what contribution, if any, the applicant will be obliged to make towards the cost of the works.
10. The policy states the maximum amount of grant is set by central government at £30,000. The policy states where a financial contribution is required following a financial assessment the level of grant will be reduced by the amount of any assessed contribution towards the cost of the works.
11. The Council’s policy says it will only consider discretionary disabled facilities grants after having regard to the available disabled facilities grant budget at the time. The policy says if the disabled facilities grant budget will not have sufficient resources in reserve to deal with other mandatory referrals that may present throughout the financial year the Council reserves the right not to approve any discretionary elements.
12. The policy sets out the discretionary elements that will be provided. This section says where a client has a financial contribution to make and they and their spouse/partner do not have more than £24,500 in savings the Council will waive the first £5,000 of the contribution. The policy says this is to ensure vulnerable clients are not deterred from important works due to the need to contribute financially.

What happened

13. Mr B’s partner had been struggling with the stairs and was referred for an occupational therapy assessment. That occupational therapy assessment recommended a stair lift.
14. The Council referred the case to Millbrook Healthcare Ltd, which is a home improvement agency provider the Council contracts with to deal with disabled facilities grant applications. I will refer to that organisation as the contractor.
15. An officer from the contractor visited Mr B and his partner on 9 October 2020 to complete the grant application forms and to discuss finances. During that visit Mr B told the officer he had obtained quotes for the stair lift. The officer told Mr B the Council would not pay a grant for works started or completed.
16. Following a financial assessment the contractor established that Mr B had a high client contribution which greatly exceeded the cost of the stair lift. The contractor’s officer telephoned Mr B and spoke to his partner on 12 October. The officer told Mr B’s partner she did not qualify for mandatory grant funding but the officer had referred the case to the Council to consider discretionary funding. The officer told Mr B’s partner she would contact her again when she had the Council’s decision. Mr B says in that telephone call the officer only told his partner they did not qualify for funding. Consequently, Mr B contacted the stair lift provider and asked it to install the stair lift at his own expense.
17. The contractor’s officer chased the Council on 20 October for a decision on discretionary funding. On 23 October the Council confirmed discretionary funding would be made available. The contractor’s officer telephoned Mr B later that day to tell him. Mr B explained they had already gone ahead with the works. The contractor therefore closed the case. Mr B has subsequently advised that the work to install the stair lift did not take place until 26 October.
18. Mr B’s partner contacted the Council to ask it to provide funding on 25 November. On 7 January 2021 the Council told Mr B’s partner it could not award a disabled facilities grant because Mr B had gone ahead with the works to the property before the Council confirmed the availability of funding. The Council has confirmed that position following a complaint from Mr B.

Analysis

19. Mr B says the Council’s contractor did not give him and his partner full information when it told them on 12 October 2020 they would not be entitled to a disabled facilities grant. Mr B says the Council’s contractor did not tell them during that telephone call it was referring the case for consideration for discretionary funding. Mr B says if he had been told that he would have waited for the outcome of that decision before beginning works to his property because he knew that once he had completed the works the Council would not provide any funding.
20. The issue here therefore relates to the information given during a telephone call with Mr B’s partner on 12 October 2020. That telephone call was made by an officer from Millbrook Healthcare Ltd. As Millbrook Healthcare Ltd is acting on behalf of the Council here the Council is responsible for its actions.
21. I have considered the notes from the telephone call on 12 October 2020. Those notes record the officer spoke to Mr B’s partner about the decision not to award mandatory funding. The notes of that telephone call record the officer told Mr B’s partner she had asked the Council to consider whether Mr B qualified for discretionary funding and that the Council was looking into that as Mr B’s partner owned a property she did not live in. I am therefore satisfied during that telephone call the officer that spoke to Mr B’s partner made clear the Council was still considering the option of discretionary funding. I appreciate this is not Mr B’s partner’s recollection of the telephone discussion. However, the Ombudsman has to rely on the documentary evidence and the documentary evidence shows the officer told Mr B’s partner discretionary funding was still being considered. I therefore could not say Mr B missed out on grant funding due to incomplete information being given by the officer that dealt with the case. Mr B knew from the information on the grant application form that the Council would not normally pay a grant for works that had already begun and could not pay for grant works that had been completed. Unfortunately it was Mr B’s decision to arrange for the grant works to be carried out before the decision on discretionary funding was made which was responsible for him missing out on funding, rather than any fault by the Council.
22. In reaching that view I recognise Mr B says the works to install the stair lift did not take place until 26 October, which is after the telephone call on 23 October when he was told the Council had awarded discretionary funding but it could not be paid because he had begun the works. As I say in paragraph 7, the Council has discretion to award a grant even if works have begun, provided those works have not yet been completed. I have therefore considered whether the Council should have looked into whether it could award a full or partial grant on the basis that the works had not yet been completed on 23 October. To criticise the Council for not considering that point I would have to be satisfied that on 23 October 2020 the Council, or the contractor acting on its behalf, was aware or should have known that the work to install the stair lift had not been completed.
23. What is relevant is therefore the information the contractor recorded for the telephone conversation with Mr B on 23 October. The note of that call records when the officer telephoned Mr B to advise him that he would be eligible for a discretionary grant of £5,000 Mr B told the officer he had already gone ahead with the works. Given installation of a stair lift would only likely take a single day, as it did in Mr B’s case, I do not consider it likely the officer understood at that point the works had not been completed. In those circumstances I cannot criticise the Council for not considering whether to award a grant for works which had not yet been completed as there is no evidence the Council knew or should have known that the works had not been completed.
24. In reaching that view I recognise Mr B’s description of what was discussed during the telephone call on 23 October 2020 is different. Mr B’s description is that he told the officer he had ordered the stair lift, paid a deposit and the company had already started constructing the stair lift so it could be installed within 10 days. None of that is recorded in the note of the telephone call on 23 October though. As the Ombudsman cannot take evidence on oath and has to rely on the documentary records and as those documentary records do not provide sufficient information to notify the Council that the works had not yet been completed I cannot criticise the Council for failing to consider whether to award a grant for works begun but not yet completed.
25. There is, however, an issue with the information the Council gave Mr B’s partner in its letter of 7 January 2021. In that letter the Council said that the legislation for disabled facilities grants does not allow a grant to be given for works which have already begun or have already been completed. That is correct in terms of the completed works. However, as I say in paragraph 7, the legislation does not prevent the Council awarding grants for works which have already begun if it considers there are good reasons for the works beginning before the grant is approved. The information included in the Council’s letter of 7 January 2021 is therefore incorrect and is fault. The Council repeated that incorrect information in its letter of 14 January. That again is fault. I do not consider though that those failures have affected the outcome of this case as I have seen no evidence to suggest the Council knew or should have known that the works to the stair lift had not been completed at the time of the officers call on 23 October. However, I recommended the Council send a memo to those dealing with disabled facilities grants both within the Council and at Millbrook to remind them of the provisions in law for awarding a discretionary grant even if the works have begun, provided those works have not been completed. That is to ensure incorrect information is not shared with applicants in future. The Council has agreed to my recommendation.

Back to top

Agreed action

26. Within one month of my decision the Council should send a memo to officers dealing with disabled facilities grants and Millbrook Healthcare Ltd to remind them that the law allows the Council to award a discretionary grant if works have started but not been completed before the application was approved where the Council considers there are good reasons for doing so.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council in the complaint process which did not cause Mr B an injustice as it did not affect the processing of his grant application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman