Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his relative’s Disabled Facilities Grant application. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has refused to award his relative, Ms Y, a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) covering the full estimate cost of adaptation works, as quoted by his preferred contractor. He says the Council is asking him to pay the difference between a lower quote and his preferred contractor’s quote, which has caused him distress and financial loss. He wants the Council to provide a grant to fully fund the works by his preferred contractor or allow him to obtain a third quote.

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 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

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. A Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) is a grant awarded to eligible disabled people to allow them to make adaptations to their home to meet their needs. Government guidance states in order to ensure good value for money, councils should obtain a minimum of two quotes for DFG works.
6. Mr X applied for a DFG on behalf of his relative, Ms Y. The Council obtained two quotes for the required works. Both contractors, which I will call Contractor A and contractor B, were on the Council’s approved contractor list.
7. Contractor A’s quote was about £1500 lower than Contractor B. The Council awarded the contract to Contractor A.
8. Mr X raised concerns with the Council about Contractor A. After discussion, the Council told Mr X that he could either proceed with contractor A, find his own contractor and pay the difference in the costs, or refuse to accept the grant. Mr X told the Council he wanted the work to be completed by Contractor B. The records show the Council agreed to cancel the contract with Contractor A and award it to Contractor B, providing Mr X agreed to fund the difference in cost between the two quotes. The records state Mr X agreed to this.
9. We will not investigate this complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault. The Council obtained two quotes, in line with the government guidance. Although Mr X had concerns about Contractor A, Contractor A was on its approved contractor list and the Council had no concerns about its standards of work. The Council has a duty to ensure best value when allocating public money and its records show it appropriately discussed the matter with Mr X and Mr X agreed to fund the difference in cost. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. 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