Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly consider Disabled Facility Grants he requested in 2022 and 2023. We found there was delay in responding on both occasions. We did not find fault in the handling of the 2022 application. We also found no fault in the decision to refuse the grant in 2023. However, we recommended the Council should apologise for the delays and provide guidance to staff about to ensure they applied the correct tests and explained the Councils decisions appropriately.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly consider a request he made for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) in January 2022.
2. Mr X also complains that the Council did not properly explain its reasons for rejecting a further DFG application he made in 2023 and the Council had not explained in 2022 that a grant could not be provided for equipment someone had already purchased.
3. Mr X complains that the refusal of the grant amounted to disability discrimination and he was caused stress and financially affected by the councils decisions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. 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

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have considered comments I received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant Legislation

8. Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs) are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Councils have a statutory duty to give grants to disabled people for certain adaptations. Before approving a grant, a council must be satisfied the work is necessary and appropriate to meet the disabled person’s needs.
9. Statutory guidance for local authorities states that a person is disabled for the purposes of a DFG application if:
• their sight, hearing or speech is substantially impaired;
• they have a mental disorder or impairment of any kind; and/or;
• they are physically substantially disabled by illness, injury or impairment.
10. If a decision is made that works are necessary and appropriate, the housing authority then has to consider whether it is reasonable and practicable to carry out the works having regard to the age and condition of the applicant’s property.

Works already started or completed

11. Section 29 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 states that a local authority shall not approve a grant if the relevant works have begun before the application is approved. Where the relevant works have been begun but have not been completed, the authority may approve the application for a grant if they are satisfied that there were good reasons for beginning the works before the application was approved.

What Happened

12. Mr X first approached the Council about making a DFG application in January 2022. In a telephone call with the Council Mr X explained:
• He had a nerve condition which caused him difficulty with irregular heating and too much heat could cause psychotic episodes. He stated he had already ordered and paid for works to install an air-conditioning unit which was waiting to be fitted.
• He needed secure storage for various items to prevent access in the event of a psychotic episode.
• He found transfers between a chair, bed and toilet difficult and there was an issue with his bed.
13. The Council placed Mr X on a waiting list for an Occupational Therapy (OT) assessment to consider his needs.
14. In July 2022, after a period of delay, a Mental Health Occupational Therapist (MHOT) assessed Mr X. This was a separate assessment (not associated with his DFG application) under the Care Act. The Council’s records show that the MHOT found Mr X was independent with his mobility and transfers and told the Council Mr X did not now need any input from the Adult Social Care OTs. It noted that Mr X reported his mental health had improved significantly since the original referral. As a result of the above, the Council took no further action and closed its file.
15. In March 2023 Mr X contacted the Council querying the outcome of the original referral he made. He stated he had applied for a DFG in 2022 and nothing had been done. Based on the documents the Council provided, the Council did not respond to this query at that time.
16. In November 2023 an officer spoke to Mr X about his situation. The officer recorded that the issues he had were linked to his mental health. The case note made by the officer stated Mr X was predominantly seeking a grant to refund the cost of the air conditioner unit and light dimmer he had purchased in 2022. The officer stated that grant funding was not obtained in this way and it appeared that the equipment was for medical and sensory issues rather than physical issues.
17. Mr X complained, stating the officer had attempted to exclude and fob him off and he believed they had potentially not considered the law properly.
18. In December the Council carried out an OT visit in response to his concerns. The officers noted Mr X had a mental health issue and other health issues. However, they found he was independent in Activities of Daily Living (ADLs).
19. The officers noted Mr X’s flat had a communal heating system which was not under his control. He felt he needed quicker, more responsive heating because he had severe anxiety and paranoia that could be triggered by the temperature of his environment. At the assessment the OT told Mr X that grants could not be awarded retrospectively for works already carried out.
20. In February 2024, after taking advice on Mr X’s case the Council closed his file and wrote to him. In its letter the Council stated the council could not reimburse him for the air conditioning unit and light dimmer because these items did not fall within the remit of equipment the Council provided and they would not retrospectively pay for equipment or adaptations that the Council had not assessed or recommended. As Mr X had no other needs, the Council closed his file.

Mr X’s complaint

21. Mr X raised a complaint about the Council’s decision. He stated the Council had not explained whether the adaptations he wanted were reasonable and necessary as they should have and he considered it was petty of the Council to deny the grant because the works had been paid for shortly before he contacted the Council in 2022.
22. In its initial response the Council reiterated that a DFG could not be used to pay for items or adaptations that had already been done and were not approved in advance via an OT assessment. It also stated ‘the items you purchased for your flat do not fall under the DFG regulations.’
23. The Council’s final response to the complaint stated it could not take the complaint further because the modifications he made to his house were not authorised or evaluated by an OT and because they did not fall under the scope of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act of 1996.

Was there fault by the Council

24. There was some initial delay in arranging an OT assessment following Mr X’s contact with the Council. He made contact in January 2022 and an OT assessment did not take place until July 2022. This is fault by the Council.
25. However, at the July 2022 assessment it was established and communicated to the Council that Mr X did not have needs that he required the Council to address via an OT assessment with Adult Social Care. So, there was no fault in the decision to close the file at that time.
26. When Mr X contacted the Council again in 2023, there appears to have been further delay in responding. Mr X contacted the Council in March 2023, but it was not until November that an OT made contact and December that an OT visited. The Council made a decision on his request in February 2024. So, again I found fault in the delays that Mr X experienced.
27. The Council’s decision not to proceed with a grant application in 2023 for the equipment Mr X sought was for two reasons. The first was that the works were already complete. The law states that a DFG should not be granted for works that have been carried out before an application has been approved. So, there is no fault in the Council’s position that the grant could not be paid for this reason.
28. The Council also stated that the works were not items that fell under DFG regulations or the scope of the relevant Act. I do not consider this was an accurate explanation of what could, possibly, be funded via a DFG.
29. I say that because Mr X is a tenant with a mental health condition, which appears to make him an eligible applicant. The Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act allows a grant to be considered to improve a heating system to meet the needs of a disabled person or to provide additional means of controlling a source of power, light or heat. So, the type of work Mr X sought could, potentially be subject to a grant application, if it was considered necessary and appropriate to meet needs due to Mr X’s disability. The Council implied that the works were not possible. It is not clear that this was the case.
30. The appropriate test, as set out in the law and statutory guidance is whether the works Mr X sought were necessary and appropriate to meet needs due to Mr X’s disability. It is this test that the Council ought to have been setting out its position on.
31. While the statements made by the Council did not properly explain its view in relation to the law or statutory guidance, in Mr X’s case, the works he sought a grant for had already been completed. As a result, it is clear that a grant was not possible and Mr X did not miss out on a grant as a result.
32. The lack of proper explanation of the decision does not lead to injustice to Mr X. However, the Council should review how it makes decisions and communicates them to the public to ensure it is considering the appropriate tests and statutory guidance.

Back to top

Action

33. Within six weeks of our final decision:
34. The Council should apologise to Mr X for the delay we identified at various points in responding to his requests for a Disabled Facilities Grant. The apology should adhere to our guidance on making effective apologies. This can be found on our website, within our Guidance on Remedy here.
35. The Council should draft and circulate guidance to all relevant staff dealing with Disabled Facilities Grants about the works that may be considered under a grant and the tests that should be considered when deciding on eligibility.
36. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

37. I find fault causing injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman