Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide a Disabled Facilities Grant to build a new bedroom and en-suite shower room for the complainant’s mother. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the council made its decision to justify investigating. And we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking. Also, the Council has apologised for the delay in progressing the matter which I consider an appropriate remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, complains for his mother, I shall call Mrs Y.
2. Mr X says the Council has ignored the Equality Act 2010 when considering his parent’s needs.
3. He wants the Council to provide a grant to fund an extra bedroom and shower room.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Disabled Facilities Grants are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Councils have a statutory duty to give grant aid to disabled people for certain adaptations. Before approving a grant, a council must be satisfied the work is necessary, meets the disabled person’s needs, and is reasonable and practicable.
8. In response to Mr X’s request for adaptation works funded by a Disabled Facilities Grant, the Council carried out an Occupational Therapists’ (OT) assessment of Mrs Y’s needs in her home.
9. Following the assessment, the OT recommended converting an existing bathroom to a wet room and use of an existing ground floor reception room as a bedroom.
10. Mr X wants a new build bedroom and new wet room.
11. The Council confirms four OTs and three different OT Managers, reviewed the assessment, and agreed with the recommendation.
12. Whilst I acknowledge Mr X does not agree with the Council’s decision, I can see no sign of fault in the way it completed and decided his assessment. It considered the relevant information, and reviewed the information several times before reaching a final decision. We are not an appeal body, and we cannot question the merits of a council’s decision where there is no sign of fault in the way the decision was reached. This is essentially a matter of professional judgment for suitably qualified council officers to make.
13. Following its investigation, the Council accepts it failed to transfer Mrs Y’s case to a new OT when the original officer left the Council in 2019. It has apologised for this delay. As I have seen no evidence that Mr X chased the Council for a response until August 2021, I consider the apology to be an acceptable remedy to this fault.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council decided on the adaptations which would meet Mrs Y’s needs. And I am satisfied with the apology given for the delay in the process.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman