Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about delay in the Council agreeing to fund the adaptations his mother needed. He also complains there has been a delay in the works being completed. This because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, one element of the complaint is premature as Mr X has not made the complaint to the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council delayed in agreeing funding for adaptions his mother needed. He also complains there has been delay in the works being completed.

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. Mr X’s mother, Mrs Z, required adaptations to her property. He says her landlord submitted a disabled facilities grant (DFG) application to the Council in July 2023.
6. The Council said it did not receive the Occupational Therapist’s (OT) recommendations for adaptations until October 2023. The Council approved the grant three days after receiving the OT recommendations.
7. The law allows the Council up to six months to decide an application, from the date of application. This meant the Council had until January 2024 to decide Mrs Z’s application. The Council made its decision in October 2023, which was within this timescale.
8. DFG guidance does note that in practice the majority of approvals should take no longer than 20 working days for a non-urgent case, or five working days for an urgent case. In this case, it appears the Council did not have sufficient information to make its decision until it received the OT recommendations in October 2023. The Council then made its decision within three days of receiving the information.
9. Therefore, an investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault. This is because the Council made its decision in line with the timescales set out in law.
10. Mr X also complained to us about delay in the completion of the works. There is no evidence Mr X has made this complaint to the Council, or that the Council has had the opportunity to consider this complaint.
11. If Mr X is unhappy with the pace the works are being completed by, he should make a new complaint to the Council and allow the Council the opportunity to consider the complaint. If he is unhappy with the Council’s response, he may bring the complaint to us to consider.
12. However, it is worth highlighting at this point that DFG delivery guidance details that works must be completed within 12 months of the date the application was approved. This means the Council has until October 2024 to complete the adaptation works.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, one element of Mr X’s complaint is premature.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman