Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to allow the complainant to spend a Disabled Facilities Grant how they wish. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mrs X, complains the Council refuses to provide a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) for a wet room for her son.
2. Mrs X says the Council should not dictate what adaptations will meet her son’s needs. She wants the family to decide how to use the DFG.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 governs DFGs. Councils must give grant aid to disabled people for certain adaptations. Before approving a grant, a council must satisfy itself the work is necessary, meets the disabled person’s needs, and is reasonable and practicable.
7. The Council confirms the offer of DFG funded adaptations for Mrs X’s home has been in place since 2014. It says the family has not accepted the offer and the case has been closed, reviewed, and reopened several times whenever the family has approached it. It also confirms the case has not progressed as far as an application.
8. A case note following an Occupational Therapist visit in 2014 states a fully wheelchair accessible adaptation is required. This is either a ground floor bedroom and level access shower or a through floor lift and level access shower.
9. The Council says the main adaptation has been refused by the family but other needs such as seating, equipment etc has been provided. It has explained to Mrs X that legislation covers DFG funding and it cannot be provided to the family for them to use in the way they consider suits them best. It can only be provided to address the specific needs of the disabled person. It cannot consider an extension to the home if her son’s needs can be met by internal adaptations.
10. The Council has considered Mrs X’s concerns. Having done so, it confirmed its original recommendation remained unchanged.
11. I recognise Mrs X is unhappy with the Council’s decision that internal adaptations to her home will meet her son’s needs. However, I can see no sign of fault. 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 a matter of professional judgment for suitably qualified council officers to make.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision not to allow Mrs X to use the DFG in the way she wants to.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman