Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council responded to her request for a disabled facilities grant. The Council has already apologised for incorrect advice it provided in a telephone call. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. There is also not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision Miss X is not eligible for the grant to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about how the Council dealt with her request for a disabled facilities grant (DFG). She said when she first contacted the Council, it told her she was not eligible as the DFG was not for people with mental health issues. She said the Council’s handling of the call left her feeling worthless and humiliated. She wants the Council to approve the DFG.

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, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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. In response to Miss X’s complaint, the Council apologised for the advice it provided in a telephone call about her DFG request. It said in that call, it had incorrectly advised her that DFGs were only for applicants with physical disabilities. It confirmed that people with mental health difficulties could also request adaptations through a DFG. It confirmed it had completed further training with staff.
6. However, the Council refused Miss X’s request for a DFG to drop the curb outside her property. It said that was because Miss X already had a dropped curb and could access her property. It directed Miss X to its Highways Service if other parked vehicles were obstructing access to her driveway.
7. Although Miss X is unhappy with the Council’s response, we will not investigate. The Council’s apology for its initial call handling is in line with our Guidance on Remedies. It has also made service improvements. Further investigation by the Ombudsman will not lead to a different outcome. The Council has set out its reason why Miss X is not eligible for a DFG to drop the curb outside her property. There is not enough evidence of fault in how it made that decision to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because further investigation would not come to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman