Summary: Ms X complains the Council wrongly decided not to extend her Disabled Facilities Grant approved to help her move properties and requires her to reapply for a new grant causing distress. We found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters. So, we have completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. I have called the complainant Ms X. She complains the Council wrongly decided not to extend her Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) to help her move to a more suitable property and told her she needs to reapply for the grant.
2. Ms X says the Council has failed to consider her personal circumstances and she should not have to re-apply for the grant according to the terms of her agreement.
3. Ms X says the Council’s recent decision has forced her to remain in an unsuitable property. It has caused unnecessary uncertainty about her DFG, emotional distress, and ill health. Ms X wishes her DFG to remain open and to receive financial compensation for the distress caused.
4. Ms X also complains the Council has failed to consider her request for reasonable adjustments to send its documents to her in large print causing her difficulty and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

7. I considered the complaint and documents provided by Ms X and discussed the complaint with her. I asked the Council to comment on the complaint and provide information.
8. Ms X 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

Administrative background

9. The Council does not have a specific policy for DFG’s. But delivers them in line with its statutory duties as set out in the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 regarding any restrictions and eligibility. It decides to approve works by reviewing the assessed needs and applying the necessary and appropriate, and reasonable and practicable test.
10. The Regulatory Reform (Housing Assistance) (England and Wales) Order 2002 (RRO) gave councils powers to enable them to award discretionary grants under the DFG. The Council set up two discretionary assistance grants in 2008 - a moving grant and a top up loan. The discretionary powers enacted by the Council only related to the two discretionary grants. It did not add discretion around the qualifying criteria such as time frames and eligibility which remain the same as the mandatory requirements of the DFG legislation. This says grants must be completed within 12 months of being approved or, in exceptional circumstances, no more than two years from approval.

Background to the Complaint

11. Ms X applied to the Council for a DFG to carry out adaptations to her home in 2014 due to a physical health condition. The Council assessed Ms X’s application and considered it difficult to adapt her home so advised Ms X to sell her property and buy a bungalow. In March 2016 the Council awarded Ms X a discretionary moving grant to help her move to a more suitable property. Ms X agreed to the terms of the grant. This included her finding a suitable property and starting the purchasing process within 12 months of the approval date. The Council said she could apply to extend the grant period if there was good reason. The Council said it would not reassess her financial circumstances again during the grant period even if they changed.
12. Ms X asked the Council to extend her grant approval for a further 12 months each year between 2017 and 2020. Ms X reported difficulties in finding a property and several purchases fell through. The Council agreed to extend the approval for a further 12-month period each year. Ms X asked to extend the approval in 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic, estate agents not being open and lack of suitable bungalows. The Council agreed to allow another 12-month extension.
13. Ms X asked the Council to extend the approval in 2021.The Council agreed to allow another 12 months. But told Ms X it would not extend the approval further as it may be changing its DFG policy. The Council told Ms X she would be able to reapply for the same grant under the new policy.
14. In April 2022 Ms X asked the Council to extend the grant for a further 12 months. The Council agreed to only extend it to August 2022 as it had extended the grant for six years. The Council told Ms X DFG legislation clearly stated grants must be completed within 12 months of being approved or, in exceptional circumstances, no more than two years. The Council said Ms X needed to reapply for the grant after August 2022. The Council would consider it anew and take account of any changes in her financial circumstances and relevant discretionary DFG policies.
15. Ms X complained to the Council about its decision as it had previously agreed extensions due to her difficulties with the housing market. Ms X said she had exceptional circumstances, and the grant should remain open. Ms X did not want to be means tested for a new grant which she considered would be a lengthy reapplication process causing her unnecessary stress.

The Council’s comments on the complaint

16. The Council says the nature of the moving grant places the onus on the applicant to sell their existing property and find a new one to move into to claim the grant. So, the Council has not been responsible for any delays in Ms X being able to use the grant. It confirmed it considered Ms X’s exceptional circumstances each year when it agreed to extend her grant approval for a further 12 months.
17. The Council says the nature of works generally granted under a DFG means they urgently need carrying out and in almost all instances completed soon after grant approval. This did not happen in Ms X’s case. Following the COVID-19 pandemic and long delay in Ms X’s case the Council considered further the DFG legislation which says grants must be used within a set time frame. Even with the difficulties existing in the property market, it has extended Ms X’s grant for six years. It is a non-mandatory discretionary grant. So, the Council does not consider it unreasonable to now reconfirm whether Ms X remains eligible for the assistance she was applying for. This is especially taking into consideration the time limits applied by law to the grant. It regards its decision in 2022 not to extend the grant further is proportionate and responsible as it is about the use of public funds.
18. The Council confirms it has explained to Ms X its refusal to extend the grant approval in 2022 does not restrict her ability to reapply. It is likely to approve the grant again if her financial circumstances remain the same as when she previously applied. This will effectively give her a further two years to find a property. The Council says if Ms X remains on the same benefits as in 2015 then she just needs to fill out her name, address, contact details and tick the relevant qualifying benefits box to apply. So, it is not a lengthy process. But it says Ms X has refused to make a new application.
19. The Council says the moving grant is a discretionary one funded from the DFG funding provided by the government according to the powers given under legislation. And unless stated then any restrictions in the mandatory legislation apply such as timescales. Because of this the Council accepts it should not have extended Ms X’s grant beyond the two-year period set out by law. But its error was in Ms X’s favour and caused her no harm.
20. The Council accepts the discretionary assistance it offers under the RRO could benefit from being clearer. So, it started work to create a robust and detailed housing assistance policy in 2019. The policy was nearly completed by 2020 but then postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Council restarted work on the policy in 2022. It is now subject to public consultation and the Council intends to use it from April 2023.
21. The Council confirmed it converted all its documents into large print for Ms X and enlarged documents where possible. The Council could not send Ms X the relevant legislation she requested in a large format so provided her with a link to access it through a website.

My assessment

22. It is clear from the evidence provided the Council considered Ms X’s personal circumstances each year as it has allowed the grant to be extended for some considerable time.
23. But it decided not to extend the grant approval further after August 2022. I recognise Ms X does not agree but is a decision the Council is entitled to make. We do not criticise the merits of council’s decision unless we have evidence of fault in the way it has been taken. I do not consider there is fault in this case.
24. This is because the documents show the Council considered Ms X’s request, her personal circumstances and relevant legislation. The moving grant is discretionary, and the Council must be mindful of its use of public funds. So, it decided it would not extend the grant approval further than August 2022. The Council considers it is reasonable for Ms X to reapply for the grant so her eligibility can be reassessed. This is a merits decision for the Council. There is no evidence of fault.
25. The Council’s decision to end the grant period ends its agreement with Ms X. So, it is open to the Council to reassess Ms X’ s financial situation again. The Council advised Ms X she can reapply and, if her financial situation remains the same as in 2016, then it will be a simple process. Ms X will need to follow the application process if she wishes to be considered for a new grant. This may include being means tested.
26. The Council investigated Ms X’s complaints and recognised it should not have granted Ms X an extension to her grant after two years according to the timescales set by the legislation. However, the Council’s actions in extending the grant approval have been to Ms X’s benefit. As such I do not consider that we could add to the Council’s investigation into the matter. Or that we can achieve a different outcome for Ms X during the time the Council agreed to extend the approval further.
27. The Council has recognised its information on discretionary assistance could be clearer and it has acted to create a new housing assistance policy. This is suitable action for the Council to take.
28. The Council’s documents show it sent Ms X documents in large print and enlarged them wherever possible. It has given Ms X information on accessing a link to the legislation she requested. There is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it responded to Ms X’s request for reasonable adjustments.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I am completing my investigation. I have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council decided not to extend further Ms X’s moving grant or dealt with her request to provide documents in large print.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman