Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a Disabled Facilities Grant. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a Disabled Facilities Grant for his home to be rewired.

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 investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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. 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. Councils have a statutory duty to give grants 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.
8. In late 2024, Mr X applied to the Council for a DFG to pay for his new home to be rewired. Mr X explained he had recently been informed there was a hazardous defect to the electric cabling in his property. It needs to be fully rewired, which will cost approximately £4500. Mr X is a disabled person on a low income. He cannot afford to pay for the works to be carried out.
9. The Council told Mr X the works he was requesting did not meet the eligibility criteria for awarding of a DFG. It explained that rewiring works were a general maintenance or repair issue rather than a disability related adaptation and so it would not meet the criteria under which a DFG would be awarded.
10. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision and provided additional information in support of his view the works could be funded via a DFG. The Council considered the information Mr X provided but maintained its decision that the works did not meet the criteria for awarding of a DFG.
11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council here to warrant an investigation. It has considered and assessed Mr X’s application against the relevant criteria and has explained why it considers it does not meet the criteria for works funded via a DFG. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make. It has explained the need for rewiring is a general repair issue rather than a request for adaptations to meet a disabled person’s needs.
12. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the way in which the decision was made. If, as here, there is no sign of fault in the process by which the Council reached its decision we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong regardless of whether a complainant disagrees with it.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman