Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to provide his mother with sufficient information about the disabled facilities grant conditions. Specifically, that a local land charge would be applied to the property. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to provide his mother with sufficient information about the disabled facilities grant conditions. Specifically, that a local land charge would be applied to the property.

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 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 and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X’s mother, Mrs Z, received a disabled facilities grant (DFG) for adaptations works to her property.
6. The Council said the officer had discussed with Mrs Z verbally the conditions of the grant. The Council accepts it had no record to evidence this discussion. However, the Council provided a copy of a signed general consent acknowledgment form. By signing this form, Mrs Z confirmed she had read and understood the information contained in the general consent notification.
7. The general consent notification document set out that a local land charge would be applied to the property and that the charge would be recovered if the property was disposed of within 10 years of the date the works were certified. It also noted that the time limit for repayment under the general consent was 10 years. However, the application for a DFG also included a statement of intent that the disabled person will remain in the property for five years, or risk being asked to repay the grant. Therefore, there are two separate time limits.
8. A grant approval letter sent to Mrs Z also confirmed that grant conditions would apply, including repayment in the event of a relevant disposal.
9. An investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault. This is because the Council did provide appropriate information to Mrs Z to make her aware the grant would be repayable if the property was disposed of within a certain time frame.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman