Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint she is not eligible for a Disabled Facilities Grant. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s decision she was not eligible for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). She said her relatives contact with the Council was confusing as it signposted him to several different departments. She said the Council also delayed in its communication.
2. Ms X said she needs a driveway for her electric Motability vehicle and that the Council’s decision had caused distress and financial loss. She wants the Council to apologise, agree to the DFG and pay compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
4. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X’s relative, Mr Y, contacted the Council on her behalf asking for financial assistance to install a driveway for her Motability vehicle. The Council responded explaining that it would need to complete an Occupational Therapy (OT) assessment to decide whether Ms X was eligible for a grant. It said it would contact Mr Y for a referral. It said there was a 16-week waiting list for an assessment.
8. Alongside the request for the OT assessment, the Council wrote to Mr Y and said Ms X would need:
• Council consent to install a hardstanding outside her property, as it was on Council owned land.
• Consent from the highways department for a dropped curb.
9. Mr Y got the required permission to build the hardstanding. The Council subsequently completed the OT assessment. The outcome of that assessment was Ms X was not eligible for a DFG for the hardstanding. It did not explain why Ms X was not eligible.
10. Mr Y appealed. In the appeal outcome decision, the Council said Ms X did not need the hardstanding, as it did not offer a significant change in the distance she could park from her property. It said electric charging points for vehicles were not a mandatory consideration for a DFG. It directed Mr Y to its policy.
11. Although Ms X is unhappy with the Council’s decision, we will not investigate. For a person to be eligible for a DFG, the adaptations must be assessed as necessary and appropriate. The Council has not assessed Ms X as needing the adaptations. It has made that decision in line with its policy and legislation. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
12. The Council apologised for not including enough information in its original decision letter and confirmed it is addressing this. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.
13. The Council did direct Mr Y to different departments as part of the application for the hardstanding. That was the correct course of action, to ensure the Council considered all applicable permissions before Ms X completed the works. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman