Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a disabled facilities grant. Part of the complaint is late without good enough reason to investigate it now. More recent events have not caused significant enough unremedied injustice to warrant us investigating. It is unlikely an investigation would achieve significantly more.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains on behalf of his mother, Mrs Y, that the Council did not properly handle a disabled facilities grant (DFG) for works to Mrs Y’s home. He says this left Mrs Y with inadequate works and caused distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
3. 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council gave Mrs Y a DFG for changes so her house would meet her disability needs. I shall not give more details, to protect Mrs Y’s anonymity.
7. Mr X says it took around two years for matters to get as far as appointing a contractor to do the works in late 2023. The complaint to us was in September 2024. So the restriction in paragraph 2 applies to most of the alleged two-year delay. Mrs Y could reasonably have known at the time she was dissatisfied with how long matters were taking. I understand Mrs Y and Mr X were in contact with the Council. A complaint about any alleged delay could reasonably have come to us much sooner. I am not persuaded to investigate this point now.
8. After then, works took place. There were difficulties with the works. The conduct and quality of such works are private contractual matters between the grant recipient and the contractor. The Council has no direct responsibility for this. The Council’s responsibility is just to agree a grant for the necessary disability-related works and then to pay the grant.
9. Here, however, the Council accepts it did not make that clear enough. Also, the Council became involved in communicating with Mrs Y, Mr X and contractors about various problems with the works. There were problems with the standard of works. Different contractors were engaged. Some parts of the works are still not complete.
10. The Council’s involvement in this, and the lack of clarity about roles, understandably gave Mrs Y and Mr X the impression that the Council’s responsibility for the carrying out of works was greater, and Mrs Y’s own responsibility less, than was the case.
11. The Council also accepts it offered more works because Mrs Y was not satisfied, rather than concentrating on getting delivery of the original specification, which was for work necessary to meet Mrs Y’s disability needs. Further, the Council also accepts it did not make clear the grant-funded works only had to make the property fit for Mrs X’s disabilities and would not necessarily have to meet the same standard of appearance and finish as privately arranged household refurbishments.
12. I will not find the Council is at fault for all the works not being completed to Mrs Y’s satisfaction. That was not the Council’s responsibility. However, the Council’s faults caused avoidable confusion and missed opportunity for Mrs Y to understand the limitations on the Council’s role and therefore perhaps to make other decisions herself to try to resolve matters.
13. Mr X also describes some distress to Mrs Y from the Council’s handling of communications. This includes telephone contact with a Council officer. It is unlikely we could reach a clearer view on what happened there. Nor would it be a proportionate use of resources to investigate this point. It is also unlikely we would achieve more than the apology the Council has offered.
14. The Council has offered £250 for Mrs Y and Mr X to pay a repair person to do the outstanding works. It believes that would be enough, based on its inspection. Mr X says nobody will agree to do this. However, the Council added that if Mrs Y or Mr X get an itemised quotation for over £250 for the works, they can share this with the Council, which would consider whether to offer more. The Council has not closed its mind to paying more than £250 if the work cannot be done for that amount. We cannot speculate at this stage whether the Council might agree a larger payment or not and whether there would be any fault in such a decision. Also, investigation by us would not be likely to recommend the Council take responsibility itself for completing the works. As I explained above, that is not the Council’s role. Overall, the Council’s offer about the outstanding works appears enough in the circumstances.
15. The Council also offered a further £250 for the time and trouble caused in pursuing the matter. Investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to result in a significantly different recommendation on this point.
16. The Council has also undertaken to learn from this complaint and make the limits on its role in DFGs clearer in future. Investigation by us would not be likely to achieve significantly more here.
17. Mr X is also dissatisfied with the Council’s complaint-handling. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we cannot deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate this complaint. Part of the complaint is late without good enough reason to investigate it now. More recent events have not caused significant enough unremedied injustice to warrant the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to investigating. It is unlikely an investigation would achieve significantly more. It would be disproportionate to investigate the Council’s complaint-handling in isolation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman