Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to progress a disabled facilities grant application because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to decide to investigate now. In any case, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s refusal to agree a disabled facilities grant because it said the proposed works would not satisfy building regulations. He said he later employed an architect to arrange for the works to be carried out, following which building regulations consent was obtained.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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. 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))

5. We can 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

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

8. In 2023, Mr X asked the Council about applying for a disabled facilities grant (DFG) to fund adaptations to his property to make the stairs safer for his child, Y, who has autism. He provided a private occupational therapist (OT) report that recommending the works he wanted but not fully setting out Y’s needs or exploring any other possible ways to meet those needs.
9. This Council contacted Council A, in line with its process, to check whether the proposed works were necessary and appropriate to meet Y’s assessed disability needs. A joint visit was arranged, which was attended by an OT from Council A, and by a manager and two contractors from this Council. The two contractors identified four possible options for the proposed works but said not of them would meet satisfy building regulations standards.
10. Following the discussion, Council A confirmed it could not support the DFG because it did not have sufficient information to say the proposed works were necessary and appropriate. This meant the DFG application could not proceed.
11. Mr X subsequently arranged for his preferred works to be completed privately and a home visit by Council A recorded the works were completed by February 2024.

My assessment

12. We usually expect people to complain to us within 12 months of the events complained about. Mr X knew the application was not proceeding in October 2023 and had completed the works himself by February 2024. He did not complain to us until March 2025, so the complaint is late. I have seen no evidence Mr X could not have complained to us earlier and there are no good reasons to decide to investigate now.
13. In any case, the DFG application could not proceed without Council A confirming the proposed works were necessary and appropriate to meet Y’s assessed disability needs. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence of fault by this Council to justify further investigation.
14. Although Mr X also complained the DFG was wrongly refused because the proposed works would not meet building regulations standards (which he says, turned out not to be the case) and because the Council was overly fixed on the likely cost of the works, the application could not have progressed without confirmation the works were necessary and appropriate to meet Y’s assessed disability needs in any event.
15. For the above reasons, we will not investigate further.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is late and, in any case, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman