The Investigation

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s delay in dealing with his application for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) for an extension to his property. As a result, Mr X and his family have lived in overcrowded accommodation for longer than necessary which has had a significant impact on his children due to their needs.

Legal and administrative background

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this report, we 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. We 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)

3. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. We do not need to show any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by an organisation to say service failure (fault) has occurred. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), as amended)

4. 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.

5. 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)

6. The events between October 2022 and October 2023 are late. But we have exercised discretion to investigate events from October 2022 as we could not carry out a meaningful investigation without considering the events from the date the occupational therapist (OT) made their recommendation for a DFG.

7. We may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, as amended)

8. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Relevant law and guidance Disabled Facilities Grants

9. Under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, councils can award Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG) to people whose disability means their home needs adaptation. If the person applying meets the qualifying criteria the council must award the grant.

10. Councils only approve grants for work they decide is necessary. An OT usually assesses need.

11. In March 2022 the government issued non-statutory guidance “Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) Delivery: Guidance for local authorities in England”.

12. This guidance identifies five key stages to delivering home adaptations: 

• Stage 1: First contact with the service. Councils should ensure the public has access to information and advice about the DFG process.
• Stage 2: First contact to assessment and identification of the relevant works. An OT will assess the person’s needs and potential solutions through home adaptations.
• Stage 3: Identification of the relevant works to submission of the formal grant application. The person completes and submits the application form together with designs and costing for the works (where necessary).
• Stage 4: Grant application to grant decision. The council will check the application and issue a decision letter. If a council refuses a grant, it must explain why.
• Stage 5: Approval of grant to completion of works. The works are arranged and carried out, and the necessary quality checks made.

13. A council should decide a grant application as soon as reasonably practicable. In addition, the timescales for moving through the stages will depend on the urgency and complexity of the works required. The guidance gives the following timescales:

• Urgent and simple works – 55 working days

• Non-urgent and simple works – 130 working days

• Urgent and complex works – 130 working days

• Non-urgent and complex works – 180 working days

14. Once the work is complete, the council must pay the grant in full within 12 months of the application date.

15. We expect councils to consider whether interim equipment or temporary works should be provided when it will take them a long time to secure a permanent solution.

How we considered this complaint

16. We have produced this report following the examination of relevant files and documents provided by Mr X and the documents provided by the Council in response to our enquiries.

17. We gave the complainant and the Council a confidential draft of this report and invited their comments. The comments received were taken into account before the report was finalised.

What we found

What happened

18. The following is a summary of the key events relevant to our consideration of the complaint. It does not include everything that happened.

19. Mr and Mrs X and their three children live in a two bedroom property which is owned by a housing association. In October 2022, an OT recommended an extension for an additional two bedrooms and safe outdoor area to meet the needs of his children and made a referral to the Council’s home improvement agency (HIA).

20. In January and February 2023, the HIA carried out site visits with the housing association to discuss the design of the extension and started to draw up plans. The HIA then discussed the plan with Mr X in late June 2023 and the OT in August 2023.

21. The Council said that the HIA experienced issues with IT software between July and October 2023 which delayed drawing up the plans for the extension.

22. In November 2023 the HIA carried out a site visit with the OT and Mr X to determine if the design met Mr X’s child’s needs. The HIA then sent the proposed plans to the housing association and requested its consent for the proposed works and for a planning application for the works. The HIA chased the housing association for a response in December 2023 and January 2024.

23. In mid-January 2024, the housing association gave consent for the HIA to submit a planning application for the proposed works.

24. The HIA submitted the planning application for the works but the Council refused the application. The HIA submitted an amended application in May 2024. It also requested the housing association’s approval of the amended plans. The Council approved the application in late June 2024 but the housing association did not respond to the HIA’s request for approval.

25. The HIA and Mr X chased the housing association on a number of occasions for approval of the amended plans. The housing association responded in late September 2024 and requested more information on the plans, including structural calculations.

26. In December 2024, the Council appointed the housing association’s preferred structural engineer to provide the calculations. It arranged for the structural engineer to undertake a site visit in late January 2025. The Council said the structural engineer was unable to take full structural calculations at the site visit as there had been a miscommunication between the HIA and structural engineer as to who would dig trial pits (holes dug into the ground to check the foundations are suitable for construction work). The HIA requested the structural engineer to dig the trial pits. We understand the trial pits have now been completed.

Complaint

27. Mr X made a complaint to the Council in mid-June 2024 about the delay in progressing the DFG application. The Council considered the complaint through its corporate complaints procedure. It responded at stage one of its two stage complaints procedure in early August 2024. This was outside the timescale of

10 working days set out in its complaints procedure and the Council apologised to Mr X for the delay caused by a processing error. The Council said the delays proceeding to a DFG application were caused by high workloads and waiting for the housing association to give consent for the works.

28. Mr X escalated his complaint to stage two of the complaints procedure. The Council declined to investigate Mr X’s complaint at stage two as it considered it would not result in a different outcome.

29. In response to our enquiries, the Council said:

• the time taken between the OT’s recommendation for a DFG and the submission of the first planning application was due to the HIA’s workload. There was also a period of time when staff at the HIA did not have access to the required software due to an IT issue;

• it was still waiting for the housing association’s approval of the amended plans. The HIA was engaging with the structural engineer to obtain the structural calculations;

• the HIA will proceed to tender once it receives the housing association’s consent; and

• in 2024/25 the average time from OT referral to approval of a DFG application was 262 working days.

30. As of April 2025, the Council had 694 referrals that had not yet been approved. The Council had brought together the provisions from the previous seven district councils into one Council-run HIA. The HIA was taking a number of steps to improve waiting lists including:

• a move to one system for case management and reporting;

• a unified policy for the Council;

• a new prioritisation system based on disabled persons’ needs. Cases are being reprioritised and then all individuals will be updated on the likely timescales;

• undertaking significant training to adapt to new systems and the new policy;

• establishing regular joint complex case meetings where cases such as

  Mr X’s can be discussed between housing and OT managers and staff; and

• introducing a new procurement system, identifying local contractors and changing the tender process.

Conclusions

31. The DFG guidance sets out the best practice targets for councils to complete all the stages of the DFG process. The longest target timescale is 180 working days. The OT made their recommendation for a DFG for Mr X’s child in October 2022. But the Council is yet to reach the point where an application can be submitted some two and a half years later. This is an excessive period of time and is fault.

32. There is evidence of periods of inaction by the HIA during 2023. The Council said some of the delay was caused by IT software issues and high workload. But these issues do not change the fact there was delay and this was fault. We are mindful that the delay since 2023 has been caused by external factors, such as the time taken by the housing association to consent to the planning application, requiring structural calculations and the delay in digging the trial pits. This delay was outside the Council’s control but it is still delay and amounts to service failure.

33. The prolonged delay caused distress and uncertainty to Mr X and his family as they cannot know when the DFG application will be submitted or whether it will be approved. The Council should remedy this injustice.

34. The Council has a large number of referrals awaiting approval and is taking significantly longer than the best practice targets for completing the DFG process. The Council is taking action to deal with the delays. But these delays will cause injustice to other applicants so we are recommending service improvements in this area.

Recommendations

35. The Council must consider the report and confirm within three months the action it has taken or proposes to take. The Council should consider the report at its full Council, Cabinet or other appropriately delegated committee of elected members and we will require evidence of this. (Local Government Act 1974, section 31(2), as amended)

36. To remedy the injustice identified in this report we recommend the Council:

• send a written apology to Mr X for the distress and uncertainty caused by the delays in the DFG process. 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 we have recommended in our findings;

• make a symbolic payment of £500 to Mr X to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty caused by the delays in the DFG process;

• explore all its options for progressing Mr X’s DFG referral to application without further delay. The Council should inform Mr X of the steps it will take to progress to application;

• draw up an action plan with target timescales to reduce the delay in dealing with DFG referrals to ensure the Council is meeting the best practice time targets. The Council should provide a quarterly report to the relevant committee or cabinet member on its progress in reducing the delays. This is to ensure the Council maintains progress and to ensure democratic oversight; and

• provide twice yearly updates on the Council’s website of the progress to clear the backlog so that those affected are aware of the progress made.

37. The Council has accepted these recommendations.

Decision

38. We have completed our investigation into this complaint. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Mr X. The Council should take the action identified in paragraphs 35 and 36 to remedy that injustice.

Print this page