Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide a disabled facilities grant to fund a hardstanding outside the complainant’s home. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council decided the complainant does not meet the criteria for a grant.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council refuses to provide a disabled facilities grant (DFG) for a hardstanding outside his home. He parks his car on the road. However he worries about moving it as people park in the disabled parking bay while he is gone, and he cannot park close to his home when he returns.

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.

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. DFGs are provided to help towards the cost of adaptations to the home of a disabled person. The maximum grant payable by a council is £30,000. A council can award other discretionary help if it thinks it is necessary using discretionary powers under the Regulatory Reform (Housing Assistance) Order 2002. The grant amount is means tested.
6. A council can only approve a grant if it considers the works are necessary and appropriate to meet a person’s needs and that it is reasonable and practicable to carry out the works, having regard to the age and condition of the property. (Section 23(3) Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996)
7. Before approving a grant, the council must assess the disabled person’s needs and recommend how these needs may be met by home adaptations. This assessment is usually done by an occupational therapist. There will then be a recommendation to the council as the housing authority, to determine the feasibility, practicality, and reasonableness of the works.
8. The Ombudsman cannot approve a DFG or decide if the works are practicable. My role is to consider whether there was fault in the way the Council has made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, I cannot question the outcome.

What happened

9. The Council arranged for an Occupational Therapist (OT) to visit Mr X’s home to assess whether the criteria for a DFG to install a hardstanding has been met so he can park his car at this property.
10. I have considered how the Council assessed Mr X’s needs. Having interviewed Mr X and considered his living arrangements the OT decided he has sufficient mobility to access his home and a car parked in the road .

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. The Council is entitled to reply on the OT’s assessment. I understand Mr X gets anxious when going out in his car because he worries that he will not be able to park in the disabled parking bay close to his home when he returns.
12. However, the OT considered Mr X can leave and enter his home and a hardstanding is not essential for him to access his home.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman