Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council administered a Disabled Facilities Grant. That is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained on behalf of her now deceased relative, Mrs Y. She said the Council arranged a Disability Facility Grant (DFG) for Mrs Y when she did not have capacity to understand the financial implications. She also complained about the work the Council completed. Mrs X said the Council failed to consult her as part of the DFG process.
2. Mrs X said that on Mrs Y’s death, she learnt there was a ten-year pay back period on the DFG. She believes the ten-year payback period is inappropriate when life expectancy is short. She wants the Council to repay the DFG money to Mrs Y’s estate. She also wants it to complete robust capacity checks on people.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We 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)
4. 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council completed adaptations to Mrs Y’s property in 2016. These adaptations were funded through a DFG. In Mrs X’s complaint to the Council, she complained about the quality of workmanship and said the Council had completed adaptations on a property in a conservation area without appropriate permission.
8. Mrs X knew about the adaptions in 2016. Mrs X did not complain to the Ombudsman until 2022. Therefore, this is a late complaint, and we should not investigate. We have discretion to set aside this restriction where we decide there is good reason. In this case I have decided not to exercise discretion because it was reasonable for Mrs X to have complained to us sooner.
9. Mrs X said that following Mrs Y death and as executor of her estate, she learnt the terms of the DFG required the grant to be repaid within ten years. She said the Council should have discussed the financial arrangements of the DFG with her as Mrs Y would not have had capacity to understand her finances or the implications of the DFG agreement.
10. In the Council’s complaint response, it said it explained the terms of the DFG to Mrs Y. It also said there was nothing to suggest Mrs Y did not have capacity to make the decision about the work. It said, it would have sought family or advocate support if it thought Mrs Y needed assistance with the paperwork.
11. Although Mrs X is unhappy with the Council’s response, we will not investigate this complaint. That is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. The Council confirmed it considered whether Mrs Y had capacity as part of its decision-making process. Further still, it started the DFG process in 2015 and completed the work in July 2016. Mrs X got Lasting Power of Attorney (LPOA) for Mrs Y’s property and financial affairs in June 2016. A LPOA can only be authorised when a person has capacity to agree to it. Therefore, there is nothing to suggest Mrs Y did not have capacity at that time. Although Mrs X is unhappy the Council did not discuss the financial arrangements of the DFG with her, it was not under a duty to do so.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman