Summary: Miss X complained about significant delays in extending her property under a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). Miss X initially asked for a DFG in 2020 but five years later the works are still not complete. We found there is no evidence of fault in the Council’s assessment of Miss X’s children’s needs or in its recommendation for a two bedroom extension.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about significant delays in the DFG process. Miss X initially asked for a DFG in 2020 but five years later the works are still not complete.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
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. Miss X first applied for a DFG in 2020 and complains that five years later the works have not been completed. We will not investigate this full five year period. As set out above, expect people to come to us within 12 months of thinking the Council has done something wrong. Miss X first contacted us in March 2025, so we would generally only consider events since March 2024. However, given there was a delay in the Council responding to Miss X’s complaint, we have exercised discretion to go back to the start of 2024.
6. Our investigation will focus on the period January 2024 to March 2025 when Miss X contacted us.
7. This complaint is against the social care authority, the County Council. The local housing authority is the Borough Council. The County Council and the Borough Council have a shared protocol for dealing with DFGs.
8. In March 2022 the government issued non-statutory guidance “Disabled facilities Grant (DFG) Delivery: Guidance for local authorities in England (the Guidance).
9. The Guidance sets out how DFG’s will be handled where the Borough Council is the housing authority and the County Council has duties towards a disabled child. The Guidance makes it clear that the Borough Council as housing authority has the statutory duty to provide adaptations and administer DFGs through all stages from the initial enquiry to post-completion. The Borough Council as housing authority remains responsible for the work.
10. So in this case, the Borough Council is responsible for deciding the scope of the works, the cost of the adaptations and for technical decisions about what adaptations are feasible. It has agreed that the County Council will handle the works done under the DFG, but the Borough Council remains responsible for these.
11. The County Council is responsible for meeting the needs of the disabled child and for the Occupational Therapist’s (OT’s) role in making sure the adaptations are necessary and appropriate. The Guidance says that the social care authority should consider the wider social care needs of the applicant, including and beyond any adaptation required.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
13. Miss X 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

The Law and guidance

14. Disabled Facilities Grants are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. 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.
15. Section 23 of the Care Act explains the boundary in law between care and support and general housing. Where housing legislation requires councils to provide housing services, they must provide them under housing legislation. However, this should not prevent housing and social care councils working together. The guidance states:

“... community equipment, along with telecare, aids and adaptations can support reablement, promote independence contributing to preventing the needs for care and support. A local [social care] authority may wish to draw on the assistance of the housing authority and local housing services.”

What happened here

16. The following is a summary of the key events relevant to our consideration of the complaint. It does not include everything that happened. I have referred to events prior to 2024 for context only, they do not form part of my investigation.
17. Miss X made referrals for OT assessments for 2 of her children, Y and Z, as she wanted DFGs for two additional bedrooms. Miss X has four children sharing two bedrooms rooms. The children have their own health and wellbeing needs and need their own space/ bedrooms. Mrs X says moving home is not an option for her family.
18. Miss X initially wanted a loft conversion but as this was not feasible the OT service confirmed they would explore DFGs for a ground floor extension to provide Y and Z with their own bedroom space.
19. An architect from the Council’s Disability Design Team and a grant officer from the Borough Council completed a feasibility visit in June 2022 and the architect then prepared proposed plans. Miss X agreed revised plans in September 2022. As Miss X’s property is owned by a housing association the Council also required the housing association’s approval. The Council sent the plans to the housing association in October 2022 who confirmed their agreement in early November 2022.
20. Funding for the scheme was agreed in September 2023 then the Council applied for planning permission.
21. The Borough Council granted planning permission for the extension in early 2024. The Council architect then prepared the drawings for building regulations approval and commissioned a structural engineer to complete the structural design and calculations.
22. The structural engineer questioned whether a tree in Miss X’s garden could be removed as the cost of the works would be significantly more if the tree remained. Miss X initially wanted to keep the tree but agreed in March 2024 that it could be removed.
23. The Council sent the working drawings to Miss X and her landlord in July 2024. Miss X approved the drawings the following day, but the housing association did not respond. The Council repeatedly chased the housing association for its permission.
24. The housing association approved the drawings in late October 2024 and the Council then began the procurement process to identify a contractor and get an accurate tender price.
25. As the winning tender was not from a contractor the Council has used before the Council the carried out due diligence to ensure their suitability. This was completed in February 2025 and passed to the Borough Council to approve the funding. The records show that although the Borough Council had initially agreed to two DFGs, one for Y and one for Z, it now suggested it would only agree one.
26. The Borough Council agreed to fund both DFGs in March 2025 and approved the grants in April 2025. Works started on 22 May 2025.
27. Miss X has made a further complaint since the work started about issues with the contractors and the standard of work. These issues do not form part of this complaint.

Complaints

28. Miss X made a formal complaint to the Council about the length of time taken to deal with the DFG and complete the extension.
29. The Council responded on 17 October 2024 and set out the history to Miss X’s complaint. It acknowledged that throughout the adaptation process there had been a number of delay, including following current procedures, COVID lockdown restrictions and enabling Miss X and her family to have time to consider and make specific decisions. It said the finances are allocated from Government funding and there are a number of processes which have to be followed.
30. The Council also acknowledged there were currently delays but noted these also sat outside of the Council’s jurisdiction. It identified the outstanding works as:
• Gaining building regulation approval. The Council said it had made a formal complaint to the Borough Council about the delay in obtaining this.
• The housing association to confirm they are happy with the final plans;
• The Disability Design Team to gain tender prices;
• OT service to seek and finalise funding provision once final costs are confirmed; and
• Work to progress to completion.
31. It did not uphold Miss X’s complaint about the length of time taken to progress the DFG. The Council did however apologise for the difficulties in the relationships Miss X had had with some members of the OT service. It said it had identified some areas for development in relation to the OT process around information given to staff and when this should be shared with families.
32. The Council said it was also working with internal and external departments to look at a more constructive process for adaptations to be completed. This would include reviewing policies and procedures.
33. Miss X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and in November 2024 asked for her complaint to be escalated. The Council responded in late January 2025 and apologised for the delay. It did not uphold Miss X’s complaint. It acknowledged the extended timeline would have caused frustration and distress for Miss X’s family. But said the delays experienced were due to factors beyond the control of the Children’s OT service and included multi-agency co-ordination, housing association approvals and external procedural requirements.

Analysis

34. As set out above, the County Council was managing the DFG process on behalf of the Borough Council. The Borough Council therefore remains responsible for this. We cannot investigate the Borough Council’s actions as part of this complaint about the County Council. Miss X has recently made a complaint to the Borough Council about its role and responsibilities in the DFG process.
35. The County Council’s responsibilities are to make sure the OT properly assessed Y and Z’s needs and made recommendations based on these, taking into account Miss X’s views. There is no evidence of fault in the OTs assessment or review of Y and Z’s needs or in their recommendation for a two bedroom extension.
36. There is no dispute the DFG process has been experienced several delays and has taken significantly longer than it should have, but these delays were not due to fault by the Council’s OT service.
37. There was however a delay in responding to Miss X’s stage two complaint. The Council’s complaints policy says it will respond in full within 20 working days. In this instance the Council took over two months to respond. The Council has apologised for the delay.

Back to top

Decision

38. I find no fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman