Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal of a disabled facilities grant for an adaptation to Mr X’s property to meet the needs of his children. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached the decision to warrant our further involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained of the Council’s decision that it is not necessary to carry out adaptations to his property via a disabled facilities grant (DFG) to meet the toileting needs of his children.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue 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

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. We found in complaint 23 007 109 that the Council took too long to arrange an occupational therapy (OT) assessment of the family’s needs. This fresh complaint concerns the outcome of that assessment.
6. Mr X said his children both have a condition that means they sometimes do not realise they need the toilet until very late. He said that the family’s toilet is in a bathroom and is sometimes not immediately available when the bath is in use, causing accidents during waits, particularly with one child. Mr X said the Council should adapt his property so there is a toilet available.
7. It is not for us to say whether the Council should adapt Mr X’s property, but we are able to decide if it has reached a decision properly. In this case, it is clear the assessor visited the property to see the circumstances. The recommendation made was that a combination of toilet training and the provision of a commode to dela with occasions when a child could not wait would be sufficient to meet the assessed need. That was a decision the Council was entitled to make. That Mr X disagrees is not evidence of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman