Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision in relation to her request for major adaptations to her home via a Disabled Facilities Grant. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s decision her children’s needs can be met via adaptations to her property rather than via an extension. Miss X says the proposed works do not meet her children’s needs and it does not take account of the fact the property was originally a three bed house.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. 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))
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss X applied for a Disabled Facilities Grant for adaptation works to meet her child’s need for her own bedroom.
8. Disabled Facilities Grants are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Councils have a statutory duty to give grant aid to disabled people for certain adaptations. Before approving a grant, a council must be satisfied the work is necessary, meets the disabled person’s needs, and is reasonable and practicable.
9. The Council assessed Miss X’s child and agreed she needed her own room. It proposed a number of options for works which would provide an additional bedroom. Miss X initially decided to proceed with one of the options but later asked the Council to also assess her other children as she considered they also needed their own rooms due to their conditions and needs.
10. The Council carried out further assessments with Miss X’s children and agreed that two other children also needed their own rooms. This meant they required five bedrooms.
11. The Council decided the children’s needs could be met via adaptations of the existing property to convert it into a five bedroom house. This involved the partitioning of an existing bedroom and converting the dining room into a bedroom.
12. Miss X complained to the Council about the proposed works. She said they would not be suitable for her family. She asked the Council to consider funding an extension to provide the additional bedrooms instead.
13. The Council upheld its decision at stage one and two of its complaints procedure. It confirmed its view that the proposed conversion work would be suitable; would meet the minimum room size requirements; would be within the funding limit of £30,000, unlike an extension, and would meet the children’s needs. It said that whilst it acknowledged Miss X would prefer an extension it is not reasonable and practicable for the Council to build her an extension where there was another suitable option which would not exceed the level of funding available.
14. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because, whilst I acknowledge Miss X’s dissatisfaction with the Council’s decision there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council here to warrant an investigation. It has assessed Miss X’s children and has decided the proposed works would meet their needs and that an extension is therefore not required. It also explained that an extension would cost in excess of what could be funded via a Disabled Facilities Grant. The Council has clearly explained its decision and it is one its suitably qualified officers are entitled to make.
15. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision the Council has made to decide if it is right or wrong. Instead, we look at the processes it followed to make its decision. If we consider, as here, that it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question its decision regardless of whether Miss X disagrees with it.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman