Summary: We upheld a complaint made by Mr D about how the Council considered his request for support with adaptations to his home to benefit his disabled child. We found the Council wrongly refused to consider awarding a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) based on the cost of the proposed adaptations. While we could not say the adaptations would have necessarily proceeded, this fault resulted in avoidable delay and uncertainty for Mr D. The Council accepted these findings and agreed to remedy Mr D’s injustice as we recommended. This will include reviewing its decision. It will also improve its approach to considering high-cost adaptations to prevent a repeat.

The complaint

1. Mr D complained the Council unnecessarily delayed and wrongly refused financial support to provide adaptations for his home, to enable his disabled son (‘E’) to have his own bedroom and suitable bathing facilities. And that its offer of a relocation grant was not enough to support a move for the family to a suitable property in the same area.
2. Mr D said as a result, E had to share a bedroom with his parents, even though he was now of secondary school age. Mr D said that not knowing if the Council would support adaptations to his home, meant he delayed completing other repairs or decorations it needed because of the potential disruption of building works. It also caused distress to the family, that the home remained unsuitable for E, as he did not have his own space or a suitable bathroom.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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)
6. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mr D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. I gave Mr D and the Council opportunity to comment on a draft version of the decision statement. I took account of their comments before finalising the statement.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law, guidance and case law

9. The Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 sets out circumstances where housing authorities (which include unitary councils) can pay Disabled Facilities Grants. These provide for certain adaptations to property for disabled people, including for the following purposes (see Section 23 of the Act):

• giving access to a room usable for sleeping;
• giving access to a toilet, bath, shower or wash-hand basin.

10. Before approving a grant, the council must satisfy itself the work is necessary and appropriate to meet the disabled person’s needs. Works must also be reasonable and practicable to complete, taking account of the person’s property. The maximum grant payable is £30,000.
11. In practice, occupational therapists usually assess what work the disabled adult or child needs, that will be necessary and appropriate to meet their needs. Housing surveyors will usually assess if work is reasonable and practicable to complete. They will take account of the age and condition of the property. The cost of works is not relevant when deciding if they are "reasonable and practicable" to carry out.
12. 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.
13. It 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 presents the application form with designs and costs for the works (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. This includes arranging for the works, their completion and the necessary quality checks.

14. The council should decide a grant application as soon as reasonably practicable. In addition, the timescales for moving through the stages will depend on the urgency and complexity of the works. 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.

15. Case law (see McKeown, R (On the application of) v London Borough of Islington [2020]) has held that:

• assessing what is “necessary and appropriate” only covers the specific purpose for which the grant application is made. A council cannot refuse a grant because the applicant has not asked for all adaptations they might want or need.
• A housing authority cannot refuse a grant for work costing more than £30,000 because the applicant has failed to confirm how they will fund the balance. That is the applicant’s responsibility. The council should set out clearly if they expect the applicant to fund any of the work. It should also explain it can only make the grant payment when the work completes satisfactorily.
• If the council considers the cost of adaptations will exceed £30,000, it must provide a breakdown of cost.

16. Where adaptations will cost more than £30,000, councils have discretion to provide more funding if they have a locally published Housing Assistance Policy (made under the Regulatory Reform Order 2002). Government guidance says: “a decision to award a DFG grant above the existing £30,000 limit […] should be carefully considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the impact that rejecting it may have on the ability for the applicant to proceed without the additional funding in place”.
17. The Government funded organisation ‘Foundations’ provides support and advice to councils on providing DFGs and adaptations to property. It recommends that councils adopt a ‘high cost home adaptations protocol’ to consider how to deliver adaptations above the DFG threshold. High Cost Home Adaptations Protocol | Foundations
18. The protocol recommends involving council children’s services in such cases. The Children Act 1989, section 17, requires councils to safeguard and promote the welfare of ‘children in need’ in their area, including disabled children, by providing appropriate services for them. All disabled children are ‘children in need’. Appropriate services can include providing funding towards housing adaptations.

Council policy

19. The Council has a Private Housing Renewal Policy. While dated as covering the period 2012 to 2016, it remains in force.
20. The policy sets out various ways in which the Council can support improving and adapting homes in its area. These include:

• through providing home appreciation loans. The policy describes these as providing for “an adaptation to a home to enable a resident to remain living independently”. It lists various housing repairs which may be eligible for a loan including roof covering, damp proof courses and flooring. It says the Council will not recover the loan until the owner sells the property or it changes ownership. It does not explain what interest it charges. It says it can loan up to £30,000 although a section of the policy which refers to DFGs, says it will only loan up to £5,000 above the DFG ceiling;
• through a discretionary grant. The policy says the Council will consider a grant where DFG works are “particularly expensive”. The policy does not explain whether there is a ceiling on discretionary grants, nor what decision making procedure it follows. Nor does it say what criteria it will apply to decide whether to award a discretionary grant;
• through a discretionary relocation grant. It describes this as another type of DFG. It says it can offer these grants where because of “technical feasibility and / or cost” it cannot adapt a home. The grant is to support the purchase of another property and “reasonable” compensation in the form of disturbance payments. It says the grant covers the cost of moving to an “equivalently graded property (with a price tolerance of 10%)” which meets the disabled person’s needs. It does not specify the maximum grant available;
• through a ‘special case mechanism’. It says it has general discretion to consider funding “for applications outside the approved renewal policy”. It says it will use this where there is a “strong case based on need” and to provide funding is “within the general spirit and purpose” of the renewal policy. This section also refers to an “adaptation panel”. It does not explain who sits on the panel.

Key facts

21. Mr D lives with his wife and three children in a two-bedroom mid terraced house in the Council’s area. It has a ground floor extension with kitchen and bathroom. There is no upstairs bathroom.
22. Mr D first contacted the Council to request help with adapting his home to meet E’s needs in August 2022. E has a learning disability and various physical health conditions. Throughout the events covered by this complaint E has shared a bedroom with his parents. E has two elder siblings who use the other two bedrooms.
23. The Council assigned the case to an Occupational Therapist (‘OT1’) in November 2022. They assessed E's need for adaptations in February 2023. OT1 assessed that because of his disabilities E needed his own bedroom. He also needed access to a bathroom on the first floor of the property.
24. OT1 recorded that following the assessment they would complete “a feasibility request” for one of the Council’s surveyors. This would look at providing an extra bedroom and shower room with toilet upstairs. OT1 also asked the surveyor to consider the possibility of a loft conversion. Mr D understood both adaptations were required to meet E’s needs. He also understood from the visit that OT1 would support the request for adaptations even if the surveyor did not. He said she offered reassurance that sometimes the Council did not agree adaptations straight away.
25. The Council’s notes say OT1 did not present the feasibility request until May 2023. Soon afterwards the Council assigned the case to another occupational therapist, OT2. In early June 2023, OT2 chased the Council surveyors to respond to the request. They could not do so straight away but went on to visit Mr D’s home in mid-July 2023.
26. Mr D reported at the meeting the Council surveyor suggested they would not support adaptations to the home. He understood this was because of the likely cost but wanted the Council to explain its reasoning.
27. In October 2023 having heard nothing further Mr D contacted a senior officer in the occupational therapist service who enquired with the surveyor and his senior officer. The surveyors told the OT service they could not support a loft conversion in Mr D’s property as it would bring about no net gain in the number of bedrooms. This was because installing stairs to the loft would lead to the loss of the smallest bedroom. They also expressed doubts an extension was feasible because of the existing ground floor extension. They queried if the foundations would support a second storey and said the cavity wall was inadequate. To build a second storey would also mean removing the roof over the kitchen and bathroom to install steelwork “for a long period”. Mr D says that if the adaptations comprised a loft conversion and first floor extension, there would be no need for a loss of overall space in the first floor bedrooms. As the extra room provided by the extension and revised layout would compensate for any space lost when installing stairs to the loft.
28. In subsequent exchanges, OT2 asked the surveyors to consider adapting the property to provide a fourth bedroom on the second floor, in the existing floorspace. However, the surveyors said this was not possible as the resulting room sizes in bedrooms would be too small and below ‘decent homes’ standards (minimum quality standards applied to social housing). They also noted one bedroom would not have a natural light source and questioned its ventilation. The OT service and surveyors discussed these matters further. Then, at the beginning of November 2023, the Council wrote to Mr D to say it did not consider it was feasible to provide the adaptations needed. Its email did not provide reasons, although its manager offered to meet with Mr D to discuss why. They also suggested the Council might consider a relocation grant.
29. In January 2024 the Council then wrote to Mr D to say that it did not consider it was “reasonably practicable” to adapt his home to meet E’s needs. The Council gave more detail also about its relocation grants.

Mr D’s complaint

30. Mr D complained to the Council in February 2024. He complained about:

• how long it took the Council to respond to his request for support with adaptations to the family home;
• its communications while he waited to find out its decision;
• that OT1 had led him to believe the Council could adapt the property to meet E’s needs;
• the lack of reasons the Council would not provide a grant; and
• the amount of any relocation grant, saying this would not be enough for the family to buy a suitable property in the same area adapted for E’s needs.

31. The Council replied around two months later, in April 2024. Its reply:

• recognised delays in deciding whether Mr D could receive a DFG;
• defended its communications, saying OT2 kept in touch with Mr D regularly once she became Mr D’s contact;
• said that OT1 had put in her notes that to meet E’s needs the home would need an extension. It had explained the technical difficulties in building this and why it would not support a loft conversion. The Council said it could not support adaptations that reduced bedroom sizes in the house below “decent homes” standards.

32. In September 2024 Mr D escalated his complaint. He provided a more detailed account of his communications with the Council after he sought help in August 2022. He believed the property could be adapted and pointed to neighbouring houses that have two storey extensions. He said he understood the Council could provide top-up funding as well as a DFG. He explained again why a relocation grant would not meet the family’s needs.
33. The Council gave its final reply to the complaint in November 2024. I summarise its response as follows:

• it repeated its acknowledgement that it had delayed too long in responding to Mr D’s request for help;
• it also now recognised “gaps” in its communications with him;
• that OT1 had “inadvertently raised expectations” when they met with Mr D;
• that it had also not fully explained why it had refused to award a DFG.

34. So, it apologised and offered Mr D £300 to reflect his distress, time and trouble. It also offered more explanation for its refusal. Its senior officer said the Council could not provide a DFG as the works needed were not “reasonable or practicable” to provide. This was because the cost of works would “significantly exceed the maximum £30,000 mandatory DFG entitlement”. It explained this was because of the technical complexity of building on the existing ground floor extension. It said this would require “significant remodelling” with impacts on “the foundations, floor levels, cavity width/insultation and roof structure”. The Council said that it did have discretion to make an additional grant award but could see no “exceptional grounds” to recommend this to a panel of senior officers who would have to agree it. It said its offers of a relocation grant remained open.
35. We asked the Council to expand on its thinking. It told us that its surveyors believed the cost of providing a second storey extension on Mr D’s home would be somewhere between £70,000 and £95,000 based on their experience.

Findings

36. I noted first the Council had recognised there was fault in its response to Mr D’s request for financial support to adapt his home to meet the needs of his disabled son. First, it acknowledged delay. Government guidance sets out the expectation that even with the most complex adaptation schemes approved for DFG funding, the Council should aim to achieve completion within six months of an initial contact. In this case it did not complete ‘Stage 2’ of the application process in this timescale. It took around 15 months for Mr D to learn the Council would not support his request. That delay was a fault.
37. Second, the Council accepted its communications with Mr D were poor at times. It recognised gaps in contacting him, which I consider were most noticeable in the months immediately after OT1 visited the home. Although once OT2 took over the case, there was also delay in the surveyors clarifying why they did not support adaptations to Mr D’s home. The Council also accepted OT1 may have unrealistically raised Mr D’s expectation that any DFG application would succeed. And, that when it first told Mr D in November 2023 that it did not consider it “reasonable or practicable” to support a DFG it did not provide explanation for its decision.
38. I welcomed the Council recognising these faults. It also accepted they caused Mr D injustice. He experienced uncertainty in not knowing the outcome of his enquiry for many months, and in not always knowing the progress of his request. I considered that a form of distress. Mr D also experienced avoidable frustration, and later time and trouble, in not knowing the reasons for the Council’s rejection of his request. And he understandably delayed minor repairs and redecoration to his home while waiting, which could only add to his frustration. While the knowledge his home failed to meet E’s needs would cause ongoing distress.
39. I welcomed the Council apologising for these faults and that it offered Mr D a symbolic payment of £300 because of their impact. However, in my view, its offer did not go far enough to recognise the injustice caused to Mr D described above. So, I asked the Council to increase this payment in line with our published guidance on remedies.
40. Next, I considered Mr D’s central grievance with the Council. This was not with its customer service but its decision to refuse financial help with adapting his home to make it suitable to meet E’s needs. I understood the Council’s concern that to provide the adaptations E needed would require more funding than the DFG ceiling figure of £30,000. I had no reason to doubt the general accuracy of the ballpark figure it provided for what the works might cost.
41. However, I considered the Council had made errors in its decision making, as follows:

• First, it could not refuse to pay a DFG for the reason it gave, which was that of cost. The test of whether it is ‘reasonable or practicable’ to award a DFG is one that looks at the age and condition of the home. The cost of adaptations is not relevant to this decision. Case law makes clear that councils can award DFGs to the ceiling amount (£30,000) even without knowing how any excess costs might be paid for. This is so long as the applicant (Mr D) understands it will not pay that amount until works complete.
• Second, it failed to detail what the adaptations would cost. The Council cannot simply rely on ballpark figures. It needs to set out its calculations.
• Third, because of the above, I found it has improperly circumvented the procedure it should have followed to decide whether to approve a DFG. Government guidance explains stage 3 of the DFG process is to move from “identification of the relevant works to submission of the formal grant application”. It cannot properly refuse a grant until Stage 4, when the applicant has made an application and it has details of design and costs. That cannot happen if the Council does not properly encourage an application and provide the design and costings, where that is part of its surveyor’s role.
• Fourth, the Council did not properly consider if it could provide discretionary funding to support Mr D’s need for adaptations. I noted here there were significant weaknesses in the current housing renewal policy, which it has not reviewed for nearly a decade. The policy does not make clear if the Council can provide a loan to top-up DFG funding more than £5,000 (as elsewhere it suggests it can offer such loans to the value of £30,000). It provides little detail on the terms of any loan. It also does not explain if there is any ceiling on discretionary grant funding nor how it decides on whether to offer a grant, or a loan, neither or both. The policy (and its complaint response) refer to the existence of a panel which may decide such applications. But there is no detail given to the DFG applicant about who sits on the panel nor how to ask it to consider discretionary funding. The Council clearly has some funding potentially available for cases such as this, but its policy remains opaque when it comes to understanding the details of this. I was not clear the Foundations protocol referred to above would be fully applicable to the Council. But it provides a clear step-by-step process on how councils can consider awarding grants above the DFG threshold, reflecting the approach I would have expected to see here. The Council had not taken such an approach in this case, and in particular, I noted the lack of involvement by its Children’s Services in decision making, which was a significant omission.

42. I also had an open mind about whether the Council properly approached the request put forward by OT2 to consider sub-dividing the existing bedrooms. As noted above case law does not require an applicant to seek a DFG for all adaptations they may want or need. And I was unclear the Council could give the weight it did to ‘decent homes’ standards, which do not apply to owner occupiers. But that said, I could understand surveyors’ concerns that to adopt OT2’s proposal would have significantly cut some bedroom sizes and leave one without a natural light source or potentially sufficient ventilation.
43. However, the factors listed in paragraph 40 led me to find fault with the Council’s consideration of Mr D’s request for help. So, there was no need for me to also come to a finding on whether the rejection of OT2’s proposal was also flawed.
44. Because of the Council’s fault Mr D could not be certain, if the outcome of its consideration would have been the same had it followed a proper decision-making process. There were grounds for thinking it might have been. I reiterate I had no reason to doubt the ballpark figure given for the potential adaptations as broadly reliable. In which case for Mr D to have secured the adaptations would have meant the Council providing funding well in excess of the DFG ceiling. That could only be done at its discretion.
45. However, I also thought it possible the Council could have come to a different decision given the various discretionary options it has to support adaptations that cost more than the DFG limit. So, there was uncertainty, which as I previously explained, we consider a form of distress. I therefore recommended action I wanted the Council to take to remedy that, involving a reconsideration of Mr D’s case without the faults listed above.
46. Finally, I considered the Council’s relocation grant policy and its application to Mr D’s case. I noted the policy does not make the maximum grant amount clear. It refers only to the relocation grant being a ‘discretionary DFG grant’. This may carry the implication that £30,000 will be the maximum award. But the lack of clarity here, highlighted another flaw in the housing renewal policy.
47. I recommended the Council revisit the information it provides about relocation grants in the renewal policy. However, I did not recommend it need take any specific action in terms of Mr D’s ability to access this grant. I understood Mr D’s concern a relocation grant might not bridge the likely gap between what his home is worth and the purchase of a suitably adapted home in the area where he lives. I appreciated this would present an unwelcome dilemma for Mr D, if it transpired his home could not be adapted. But as funding for relocation grants is discretionary, I considered the Council could impose a ceiling on the amount it would award. Although moving forward it has agreed that it will confirm in its policy what any limit is and whether it proposes to have any flexibility around that.

Back to top

Agreed Action

48. I welcomed the Council accepting the findings set out above. It agreed to remedy the injustice caused by its fault to Mr D, as set out in paragraphs 38 and 45. So, within 20 working days of this decision it will:
1. provide a further apology to Mr D accepting the findings of this investigation. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council will consider this guidance in making the apology recommended;
2. make a symbolic payment to Mr D of £1250. This will replace its previous offer of £300 and is not in addition to it. This will comprise a payment of £500 for the distress caused to Mr D by the delay in it progressing his request for help and the Council’s poor communication with him. It will also pay £250 for the time and trouble he experienced pursuing his complaint. It will pay a further £500 for the distress that resulted from the flawed decision making highlighted above;
3. form a multi-disciplinary team to include an OT, surveyor and representative from Children’s Services to reconsider how Mr D’s property might be adapted (ideally not previously involved in considering Mr D’s case). Within three months of its formation, that team will complete a DFG application with Mr D and decide it, after carrying out a further property survey and feasibility study to identify the adaptations needed and having developed an indicative budget for the works. Assuming any adaptations will cost more than the DFG ceiling, that team will also consider potential alternative funding sources. It will commit to meeting Mr D to discuss the above before it decides his application.
49. If, at the end of the application process, the Council does not support awarding a DFG to Mr D; or if it decides it cannot fund the difference between a DFG and the cost of adaptations, then Mr D will have the right to make a further complaint to this office. In these circumstances, we would not expect that he makes a complaint to the Council, using its complaint procedure first.
50. In addition, to try to ensure no repeat of the fault in this case, the Council has agreed the following:
1. that within three months it will introduce a policy or protocol specifically to consider cases where adaptations needed by households with disabled family members will cost more than the DFG ceiling amount;
2. that before the end of March 2026 it will report our concerns about the handling of this case, and existing Council policy, to the relevant scrutiny committee of elected Councillors that oversee this policy area. That report will also address current timescales for progressing requests for adaptation against the ‘five step’ model in Government guidance. It will address how the Council might reduce any delays in its service to better reflect the aspirations in that guidance.
3. that before the end of June 2026 it will have completed a review of its current housing renewal policy to make its content clearer. The review will take account of my comments at paragraph 40 and 46. The revised policy will include clear information about the maximum discretionary loan and grant funding available and the maximum relocation grant;
51. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final Decision

52. For reasons set out above I upheld this complaint finding fault by the Council caused injustice to Mr D. The Council agreed to take action that I considered would remedy that injustice. Consequently, I completed my investigation satisfied with its response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman