Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has said he is not eligible for a Disabled Facilities Grant. That is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council made that decision to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision that he was not eligible for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). He said he needed the grant for a downstairs bathroom. He also wanted the Council to pay him direct payments. He said his standard of living and health had deteriorated without the Council’s support.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an organisation’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)
3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Council in March 2022 that it was preventing him from accessing a DFG. The Council did not uphold his complaint. It wrote to him and said that it had visited him to complete an occupational therapy (OT) assessment at the start of March, but he had not engaged in that assessment. It said that with his consent it had contacted his GP. The Council said it was waiting further information from Mr X’s GP and would then progress his assessment further.
7. Mr X’s MP submitted a further complaint on his behalf. In the Council’s response it said it had arranged a video assessment with Mr X in May 2022, but he had not engaged. The Council asked Mr X if he would attend a clinic for the assessment, but he declined. That meant the OT could not assess his mobility needs. That was part of the assessment process to confirm eligibility for a DFG.
8. The Council said it had directed Mr X back to his GP for additional support, and he could return for an OT assessment, when he felt able to participate in one. Mr X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman.
9. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
10. For the Council to consider whether Mr X was eligible for a DFG, it needed to assess his mobility and any needs in accessing his home. The information provided by the Council to Mr X’s MP confirms that it has attempted to do that. It has:
• Explained both verbally and in writing what the functional assessment would entail.
• Offered three separate assessments.
• Got information from his GP.
11. I am satisfied there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council has assessed Mr X’s needs to justify our involvement. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint further.
12. Mr X can ask the Council to complete a Care Needs Assessment if he thinks he has unmet social care needs. If assessed as eligible for support, he could then ask the Council for those needs to be met through direct payments.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman