Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about what the Council said about means tests for a disabled facilities grant and a health and safety grant. It is unlikely we could reach a clear enough view about what happened in 2020. The Council appears to have properly reached its later decision about how much Ms X should pay.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council says she will have to pay £9,628.43 towards the cost of works it might fund to her home, despite previously saying she need not pay anything. She says she cannot afford what the Council now says she should pay, so she cannot get necessary works done, which causes distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant, copy correspondence from the Council and online information about the means test.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X, a homeowner, asked the Council about a disabled facilities grant (DFG) for disability-related adaptations to her home and a health and safety grant to repair hazards in her home. There has not yet been an assessment of what work Ms X needs under either scheme. The complaint is not about particular works, but about what the Council said about paying towards the cost of any works.
7. The Council applies national rules for DFGs, including a means test that calculates how much the applicant should pay towards the cost of works. The Council uses the same means test for health and safety grants. It is entitled to take that approach.
8. Ms X says in 2020 she gave the Council information about her finances and states a Council officer told her and her daughter by telephone the means test showed Ms X would not need to contribute towards the cost of any works. The Council disputes that. In 2021 it told Ms X there had been no means test in 2020.
9. In 2021 Ms X gave the Council information about her finances. The Council then told Ms X it calculated she would need to pay £9,628.43 towards any grant-funded works. Ms X argues that is wrong and contradicts what she says the Council stated earlier.
10. It is unlikely we could reach a clear enough view now, on balance, about whether, in 2020, the Council did a means test or instead gave Ms X and Ms Y an inaccurate impression that it had done a means test that had shown Ms X would not have to contribute anything.
11. Anyway, an online DFG means test estimator (independent of the Council) shows that a disabled homeowner with Ms X’s income would have to contribute £9,628.54 towards the cost of works. That is within a few pence of the Council's calculation. So, on balance, it is likely the Council properly reached its calculation in 2021. This means that, even if the Council said in 2020 Ms X would not have to contribute at all (which I have not found), any such advice would have been mistaken. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for us to ask the Council to honour any suggestion that Ms X should contribute nothing.
12. Ms X said she understands the Council has some discretion about contributions towards improvement grants. That might be the case, but Ms X has not given the Council any details that would enable it to decide whether, or how, to use such discretion in her case. Simply stating she cannot afford her assessed contribution would not in itself mean the Council should waive that contribution. Also, the Council has not yet been able to assess what, if any, work Ms X’s property should have, either for Ms X’s disability needs (for a DFG) or for hazards in the property (for a health and safety grant). So, I cannot say any questions around the Council’s possible financial discretion have in themselves caused Ms X a significant enough injustice to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint. It is unlikely we could now reach a clear enough view, on balance, about what happened in 2020. The Council appears to have properly reached its later decision about Ms X’s contribution.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman