Summary: Mr X complained that the Council said he does not qualify for a Disabled Facilities Grant. There was no fault on the part of the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council wrongly refused to consider his application for a disabled facilities grant for adaptations to his home. He says the Council should offer him the same help as people who own more traditional homes.
2. He says the Council’s refusal meant he has gone without the adaptations he needs and he wants the Council to fund the adaptations.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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.
6. 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

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

Back to top

What I found

Disabled facilities grants

9. Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG) 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, if they meet the requirements set out in the law.
10. One of the requirements for a DFG is that the person applying must certify that the disabled person intends to occupy the property as their “only or main residence” for, usually, several years. (Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, sections 21, 22 and 22A)
11. Councils with responsibilities for housing are responsible for deciding applications for DFGs. However, applications are often prepared following an assessment by an Occupational Therapist (OT) working for the local council responsible for adult social care. In the Council’s area, it is responsible for housing and the local county council is responsible for adult social care.

What happened

12. Mr X contacted his local county council for help with his care and support needs in 2024. An Occupational Therapist (OT) identified Mr X would benefit from some adaptations to his home.
13. The OT contacted the Council in July 2024 asking about whether Mr X might be eligible for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) to fund those adaptations.
14. The Council identified Mr X’s property, a chalet he owns, is on a holiday park site. The planning permission and license for the site, from the Council, says nobody is allowed to live on the site as if it is their “sole or main residence”. People are only allowed to stay on the site for 10 months of the year.
15. Based on this, the Council told the OT in August 2024 that Mr X would not be eligible for a DFG, because these could only fund adaptations to someone’s “main and permanent home”.
16. Mr X complained to the Council in late November 2024 that he should be eligible for a DFG the same as someone who lived in a more traditional property.
17. The Council replied to Mr X’s complaint in early December 2024. In this, the Council explained again that, because Mr X was only allowed to stay on the site for 10 months of the year, his property could not be considered his “main and permanent” home.

My findings

18. I am satisfied the advice the Council gave to the OT was, on the whole, correct.
19. The planning permission and site license for where Mr X’s chalet is based says people cannot use the chalets as their “sole or main residence”. Therefore, Mr X would not be able to certify that he would use the property as his “only or main home” and so the law would not allow the Council to approve a grant if Mr X applied for one.
20. The Council’s explanation, in its complaint response, that a property must be someone’s “main and permanent” home was not a wholly correct explanation of the law. However, on the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied the Council’s use of the word “permanent” was it trying to point out that the 10-month restriction was closely linked to the reason Mr X’s chalet could not be regarded as his “only or main home”.
21. I appreciate Mr X disagrees with the Council’s advice. However, the Council must follow the law as set out by parliament.
22. The Council responded to both the OT’s request for advice and Mr X’s complaint promptly. The Council is not responsible for the actions of the OT including the quality or any delays communication from the OT.

Back to top

Decision

23. I find no fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman