Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council delayed in agreeing his eligibility for a disabled facilities grant as it failed to exercise discretion in his case. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council delayed in agreeing his eligibility for a disabled facilities grant as it failed to exercise discretion in his case. He also complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint.

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))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X applied for a disabled facilities grant (DFG) in May 2023. The approximate cost of the works Mr X needed came to under £5000.
7. The Council has a housing assistance policy which details the mandatory and discretionary grants eligibility criteria. This policy details that a test of resources is part of the application process to ensure DFG funding reaches people who are on the lowest incomes and least able to pay for the adaptations themselves.
8. A financial assessment is completed to assess whether the person must contribute towards the cost of the works. If the person is assessed as having to contribute more than the cost of the works, then they are not eligible for DFG funding.
9. The Council completed a financial assessment for Mr X. He was assessed as needing to contribute more than the cost of the required works due to his level of income. As a result, in October 2023, Mr X was told he was not eligible for a DFG.
10. Mr X told the Council that he was due to lose his job soon. However, the Council explained it could check his eligibility at that point. The Council also confirmed it kept the grant on hold because of this information.
11. Mr X considers the Council should have exercised discretion to approve his DFG application earlier because he was always going to lose his job and be on universal credit. Mr X highlighted that other councils allowed for grants to be agreed without the need for financial assessment if the cost of the works was under £5000.
12. An investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault. This is because the Council made its decision that Mr X was not eligible for a DFG in line with its policy. The Council’s housing assistance policy is clear that both mandatory and discretionary DFG would be subject to a test of resources, and the policy does not allow the Council to exercise discretion to bypass this.
13. It is acknowledged that Mr X’s circumstances was going to change which would have made him eligible for a DFG. However, it remains the case that the Council applied its policy appropriately by completing a financial assessment. Further, at that point, Mr X’s circumstances were such that he was assessed as needing to contribute more than the estimated cost of the works needed. Therefore, the Council appropriately concluded he was not eligible for a grant.
14. Mr X has highlighted that other councils have different policies. However, the Council is entitled to create its own policy and is not required to consider the policies of other councils.
15. Finally, as we are not investigating the substantive complaint, we will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his complaint. This is because it is not a proportionate use of our limited resources.

Back to top

Final decision

16. 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