Summary: Mrs Y complains about delays in the Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) process which she says have caused significant distress. We find delay in the processing of Mrs Y’s DFG which the Council will acknowledge with an apology and a symbolic payment of £500. The Council will also progress Mrs Y’s DFG referral without further delay and create an action plan to help reduce delays in DFG processing.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complains about significant delays in the Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) process. Mrs Y says she first contacted the Council three years ago and her request for a DFG has not progressed past the initial stages. The Council advises there is a long waiting list for Occupational Therapy (OT) assessments and Mrs Y is assigned ‘moderate’ priority.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. I have not exercised discretion to investigate what happened in 2022. The records provided by the Council show it contacted Mrs Y in June 2022 seeking her agreement to some proposed plans. When Mrs Y did not reply, the records show the Council called her twice in July 2022 to chase a response. The Council closed the case on 3 August 2022 when Mrs Y did not response. I am satisfied Mrs Y had cause to complain once the Council notified her on 27 July 2022 of its intention to close her case. Therefore, we have only investigated what has happened since April 2024 when the Council made a re-referral for the DFG.
6. While Mrs Y approached the Ombudsman in January 2025, which would usually be the end date of our investigation, I have exercised my discretion to consider matters until June 2025 due to the ongoing nature of Mrs Y’s complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mrs Y and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mrs Y 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. In March 2022 the government issued non-statutory guidance, “Disabled facilities Grant (DFG) Delivery: Guidance for local authorities in England”. This guidance advises councils in England on how they can effectively and efficiently deliver DFG funded adaptations to best serve the needs of local older and disabled people. The 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 occupational therapist (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 work (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 arranged and carried out and the necessary quality checks are made.
10. Councils should decide a grant application as soon as reasonably practicable. The timescales for moving through the stages will depend on the urgency and complexity of the work required.
11. 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 days
• Non-urgent and complex works – 180 working days

Summary of key events relevant to the complaint

12. In April 2024 Mrs Y’s MP’s office contacted the Council on her behalf to query the status of the DFG previously requested in 2022. The MP’s email said: “[Mrs Y] often uses a wheelchair indoors and there will be no room to manoeuvre with the downstairs bathroom being the size planned”.
13. Internal emails show some discussion by Council officers around the possibility of reverting back to the original plans proposed in 2022. However, the officers noted reference to wheelchair use which they said presented a significant change in Mrs Y’s needs and mobility since 2022.
14. Mrs Y also contacted the Council on 29 May 2024 to query the status of the DFG previously requested in 2022. She again referred to the use of a wheelchair. The Council emailed Mrs Y on 14 June to advise: “Given the length of passing, an updated assessment of needs by an Occupational Therapist is now required to determine if your needs have changed. You will need to be referred back to the Occupational Therapy service for this to be undertaken”.
15. The OT called Mrs Y on 25 July 2024 to complete a ‘screening’ to establish Mrs Y’s needs and risks. Mrs Y explained she had asked for adaptations in 2022. The OT said the records showed several attempts made to contact Mrs Y at the time, but Mrs Y said this was not true. She explained that she now mobilises with two walking sticks inside and one walking stick outside. Although she has access to a wheelchair, Mrs Y said she chooses not to use it.
16. The notes made by the OT include a recommendation for ground-floor living due to Mrs Y being at high risk of falling on the stairs. Mrs Y said she did not want to live on the ground floor due to the risk of her windows being broken. Mrs Y also said she did not want to consider the option of re-housing.
17. The notes go on to say: “[Mrs Y] queried the length of time she will be waiting on OT waiting list. Duty OT advised that waiting list is 18 months+ and the purpose of the call is to gather further information on current needs, changes in needs and risks, this information can then be provided to be reviewed by [senior OT] [Mrs Y] advised she will be going to the Ombudsman and she cannot be waiting that long”
18. The OT called Mrs Y on 22 November 2024. Notes of that call show Mrs Y expressed unhappiness at the length of time she has waited for adaptations and described her continued lack of mobility. The OT agreed to pass the case for discussion at the next allocations meeting.
19. In response to our enquiries the Council confirmed that an OT assessment took place on 25 June 2025. The OT is continuing to work with Mrs Y to progress the DFG.

Was there fault in the Council’s actions causing injustice to Mrs Y?

20. Mrs Y requested, via her MP, a DFG on 18 April 2024. The Council screened the request and decided it was non-urgent but complex. The government guidance recommends the entire process to be completed within 180 working days (approximately 9 months). This timeframe includes initial assessment, formal application, Council decision, and the completion of any adaptation works.
21. In Mrs Y’s case, the first stage should have involved a new OT assessment by mid-May 2024, followed by a period for gathering documentation and submitting a full application by late July 2024. According to the published timescales, the Council should have approved or refused the application by late October 2024.
22. However, the Council has confirmed that Mrs Y’s case was allocated to an OT in January 2025 and the subsequent OT assessment took place in June 2025. This delay is significant, and the Council has not provided any good reason to explain why it departed from the timescales.
23. The delay has caused injustice to Mrs Y in the form of avoidable frustration and distress. However, as the DFG process has not completed, we cannot yet measure any injustice arising from any delay in making the adaptations because the Council has yet to formally decide the application. Therefore, the Council should make a symbolic payment in recognition of the distress and decide Mrs Y’s application without further delay.
24. Mrs Y may wish to complain again once the DFG process is complete so the full extent of any injustice arising from fault can be measured. Mrs Y should be mindful of our 12-month rule, as outlined in paragraph two of this statement.

Back to top

Action

25. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• Ensure Mrs Y’s request for a DFG progresses to the next stage of the process. The Council should try to ensure, as far as possible, that it completes any subsequent stages without delay. The Council will not be held responsible for any delays arising from Mrs Y’s lack of engagement.
• Apologise and pay £500 to Mrs Y in recognition of the avoidable distress caused by the delay. 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 I have recommended.
26. Within eight weeks of my final decision, the Council will also:
• Draw up an action plan with target timescales to reduce the delay in dealing with DFG referrals to ensure it is meeting the best practice time targets.
27. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

28. I find fault causing injustice. The Council will implement the actions listed above to remedy injustice caused by fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman