Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council has not dealt with her Disabled Facilities Grant properly. The Council is at fault because it did not communicate effectively and was not clear about the services it would provide. The Council has said it will make improvements to its service. Mrs X suffered uncertainty. The Council should apologise and pay Mrs X £100.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains the Council failed to deal with her Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) properly because it has been delayed, and decision making has not been clear.
2. Mrs X says the delays have caused problems in caring for her son and they have suffered avoidable uncertainty and distress as a result.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
5. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. I have investigated Mrs X’s complaint up to July 2024, when the Council made its final complaint response to Mrs X. Mrs X has made a separate complaint about events after this time.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law, guidance and policies

10. The Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) delivery: Guidance for local authorities in England outlines target dates for completion of DFG applications. The guidance states this target should be met in 95% of cases.
11. The Guidance says a written response, or response in another format as appropriate, should be made to every enquiry providing an explanation of the action which is to be taken and the expected time scale. It should make clear who is responsible for each action (including the client if more information is required) and should give a clear point of contact.
12. Councils should identify a single point of contact, who the client can contact for information about their case. Ideally, this contact point should remain the same throughout the process, rather than being transferred, for example, from social services to housing if a DFG has been identified as the appropriate solution.
13. The Council uses a Home Improvement Agency (HIA) service to deliver disabled adaptations including DFGs which requires people to opt in and sign up to terms and conditions.

What happened?

14. This is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain everything I reviewed during my investigation.
15. Mrs X engaged with the Council in 2022 about disabled adaptations to her property to accommodate the needs of her son Y. Mrs Y decided to go ahead and the Council confirmed it was being dealt with as non-agency.
16. Mrs X approached the Council again in November 2023 saying she would like to submit a DFG application. Mrs X said costs would exceed a DFG grant amount.
17. There was dialog between the Council and Mrs X in respect of the application, through December and January. In early February 2024 it became clear that a DFG would not cover the full costs of proposed works.
18. Mrs X complained to the Council in May 2024 about delays and lack of communication. The Council did not uphold her complaint.

Analysis

19. The Council accepted in its complaint response that it could have documented its telephone calls and discussions with Mrs X.
20. There were complicating factors involved in Mrs X’s DFG application, including:
• Mrs X wanted a solution that went further than the Council considered appropriate and necessary;
• Mrs X’s eligibility for a discretionary DFG top-up was related to decision about benefits her family could claim.
21. The evidence shows:
• There was a significant gap between the cost of the proposed scheme and the DFG grant available;
• The Council tried to maximise grant availability by splitting the scheme into several parts and provided Mrs X with a number of options;
• Mrs X was frustrated with the options set out to her, and initially wanted to keep to her preferred solution, but accepted the need to compromise.
• In April 2024 Mrs X was sent forms to apply for an agency DFG.
• Mrs X asked the Council a number of questions about the DFG process and timescales in late April 2024. The Council did not reply to her and so she raised her complaint as a result.
22. The Council told Mrs X in its complaint response that it did not assist her with support for additional funding because she was not signed up to its HIA service. There is no evidence the Council communicated this to Mrs X, after it had become clear in February 2024 that the scheme costs would exceed the available DFG.
23. This is a complex DFG application, with further complicating factors. Evidence shows the Council was in communication with Mrs X throughout 2024, and it proposed options for her. There are no significant undue delays by the Council in how it progressed Mrs X’s case. This is not fault by the Council.
24. The Council should have ensured that Mrs X was clear about her status in regard to the HIA scheme and how this could impact her application. The Council says that it was clear what services would be offered for non-agency applicants, (and has provided a letter from 2022 showing this), but it did not set out clearly what assistance would not be provided. This is fault by the Council. Mrs X suffered uncertainty about whether she could expect assistance with external funding from the Council.
25. The Council should have replied to Mrs X’s queries about the DFG sooner, not in response to her complaint many months later. This is fault by the Council. This is fault by the Council. Mrs X suffered delay in receiving a response to her queries. However, this did not cause her injustice because the delay between making her requests and the Council responding to her complaint was short and would not have resulted in a different outcome.

Action by the Council

26. The Council has identified necessary service improvements as a result of Mrs X’s complaint, including:
• reviewing its processes to ensure it sends written updates instead of relying on phone calls.
• producing a standard template for non-agency applicants that makes clear what the consequences and impact of not using the service could be.
27. I consider the Council’s proposed service improvements to be appropriate.

Back to top

Action

28. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused by the fault I have identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within 4 weeks of this decision:
• Apologise to Mrs X for the fault found. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Pay Mrs X a symbolic payment of £100 for uncertainty.
29. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

30. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman