Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about disabled facilities grant adaptations. Most of his complaint is late. And for those matters which are not late, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has delayed since 2019 in carrying out adaptations to his property under the disabled facilities grant (DFG) scheme.
2. As a result, he says his needs have not been met.

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. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
5. 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

6. I considered information provided by the complainant.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. In April 2019, the Council proposed adaptations to Mr X’s property under the DFG scheme. Mr X was unhappy with the proposals and complained in 2020. The Council responded later that year and explained why it would not accept Mr X’s suggestions and how the adaptations it had proposed would meet his disability-related needs.
9. Mr X complained to the Council again in November 2022 about its failure to carry out the adaptations. The Council responded, provided a copy of its 2020 complaint response and said it would not discuss those matters again. In relation to the new proposals Mr X wanted (additional kitchen and bathroom storage), the Council said that these would not fall under the DFG scheme as he did not have a disability-related need for them. It also would not accept his proposal for works to the garden as it said they were too expensive and the adaptations to the patio area it had suggested in 2019 would meet his needs.
10. Mr X has been aware the Council would not accept his original proposals since 2019. It would have been reasonable for him to come to us sooner if he was unhappy about the Council’s decision not carry them out. I can see no good reason why he did not.
11. With regard to his later proposals, the Council explained to Mr X why it did not accept them. The reasons it gave were in line with legislation and without fault in the Council’s decision-making, we cannot question the outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because some of it is late and for those matters which are in time, there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman