Summary: A disabled woman complained that the Council gave flawed advice which led to her father incurring wasted costs on plans for an extension which could not be implemented. But we will not investigate this matter because the complaint has been made late.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Ms B, complained that the Council gave flawed advice about the specifications for an extension to her property to meet her disability needs which was to be funded under a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). Ms B said this led to her late father unnecessarily paying an architect for plans for an extension that later turned out to be unworkable. As a result Ms B wanted the Council to compensate her for the wasted costs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. In particular we normally cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Ms B and her representative provided about her case. I also took account of the Council’s responses to Ms B’s complaint. In addition, I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. I have decided that we should not start an investigation into Ms B’s complaint because she has complained to us late and, therefore, the restriction on our jurisdiction which I refer to in paragraph 2 above applies in her case.
5. Around 2018 Ms B approached the Council about the possibility of obtaining a DFG to help pay for adaptations to her home.
6. The Council worked up a scheme for an extension which it felt could be part-funded through a DFG and encouraged Ms B to apply to the local planning authority for planning consent on that basis. Ms B’s father paid an architect to draw up plans for the extension, which the Council said were suitable.
7. In December 2018 Ms B applied for planning permission, which the authority subsequently approved in March 2019.
8. But in August 2019 the Council told Ms B that the proposed plans were not fit for purpose as they did not adequately provide for use of a wheelchair. In December 2019 the Council informed Ms B that it was now not possible to proceed with a DFG because its alternative scheme for adaptations would be too expensive.
9. Therefore it is evident Ms B was aware that the plans her father funded were redundant, and that the Council would not be awarding a DFG as expected, by the end of 2019. However she did not make a specific complaint to the Council or to us about the issue concerning her father’s wasted costs until January 2022.
10. In the circumstances it is clear that Ms B’s complaint to us is about this matter was made well outside the permitted period of 12 months for making complaints. In addition, I am not convinced there are grounds for us to exercise our discretion and investigate Ms B’s complaint now despite it being late.
11. I recognise that Ms B was in poor health and had other personal difficulties during the period in question. But I also note that Ms B had some support in pursuing issues with the Council at the time, and that she was able to make a complaint to it and another Ombudsman service in the first half of 2020. I understand it was also made clear to Ms B by July 2020 that she could make a complaint to us.
12. As a result I consider it reasonable to expect Ms B to have complained to us much nearer the time she became aware of her issue with the Council about her father’s wasted expenditure on architect’s plans.

Back to top

Final Decision

13. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint that the Council’s flawed advice about a scheme for adaptations to her home led to her father incurring unnecessary costs for architect’s plans which could not be used. This is because Ms B’s complaint is late and there are no good reasons for us to exercise discretion and pursue matters now.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman