Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council has dealt with a request for a Disabled Facilities Grant. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council refuses to help him with arranging a disabled facilities grant for work to adapt his home.
2. He also complains the Council refused to provide him with a copy of its Housing Assistance Policy

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

(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 and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. 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 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. The maximum amount available under a DFG is £30,000.
7. The cost for the work identified for Mr X’s home exceeds the maximum amount of for a DFG. The Council explained the following options to Mr X:
• He could consider moving to another property which could be adapted more easily.
• He could consider alternative accommodation through the Council’s housing register.
• He could fund the cost of work which exceeds the maximum DFG amount.
8. The Council sought and provided three quotes for the work. Mr X decided to obtain his own quotes for the work which he sent to the Council.
9. The Council confirms it cannot accept the quotations as it requires more information. Specifically:
• It needed to know what “discounted labour” means as a quote says this.
• It could not accept one quote because the company had not priced against the Council’s schedule of works.
• It could not accept another quote because it did not state which items are VAT rated items, and which are not.
10. It also confirmed it had not given Mr X the DFG application form as the quotes must be approved before the application can proceed.
11. The Council also confirms it does not have a Housing Assistance Policy. As this is not a statutory requirement, the decision not to have such a policy is not one we can criticise.
12. Mr X continued to contact the Council with queries. Having asked for more information, the Council waited about 12 weeks and did not receive the information it needs. In January, it wrote to Mr X advising he must provide the information requested within four weeks, otherwise his case would be closed. Mr X did not provide the information required, and I understand the Council has closed his case.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. The Council has requested information from Mr X several times, but he has not provided it. Without the information requested the Council cannot progress with a DFG application. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman