Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to retrospectively fund completed adaptation works her father, Mr X, paid for and arranged privately. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains on behalf of her father, Mr X, about the Council’s decision not to fund adaptation works via a Disabled Facilities Grant for works that were already paid for and completed privately.

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.
6. I also considered the relevant legislation, government guidance and the Council’s published Disabled Facilities Grant policy.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X paid to have a level access shower installed in his home following a fall which caused a fracture to his leg. This was the fourth fracture to his leg and he could no longer manage to use the bath tub in place.
9. After the works were completed, Miss X asked the Council to retrospectively fund the works via a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). She said Mr X could not have waited for the Council to assess his application for a DFG before completing the works. This was due to the long timeframes involved and the risk of further falls and injuries. Miss X said it was clear that the completed works were required.
10. The Council told Miss X it could not fund the works because they had been completed prior to a grant application being made. It referred to the relevant government guidance and the information held on its own website which explains that grants cannot be made where no assessment has been carried out and that grants cannot be awarded retrospectively where the works have already been completed. It explained it could not make an exception outside of the legislation which states that it cannot fund adaptations via a DFG once the works have been carried out.
11. Disabled Facilities Grants are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Councils have a statutory duty to give grant aid 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.
12. Section 29 of the Act imposes restrictions on approving grants for works already begun. This states a council shall not approve an application for a grant if the relevant works have been completed.
13. The Council’s Disabled Facilities Grant policy, which is published on its website, also sets out this restriction in section 6.2.9 which explains that a grant cannot be retrospectively applied for after works are completed. The Council’s policy is in line with the 2022 government guidance for local authorities on DFG delivery.
14. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council here to warrant an investigation. It has reached its decision in line with the legislation, government guidance and its published policy and it has clearly explained its decision to Miss X.
15. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at the Council’s decision to decide if it is right or wrong. Instead, we look at the processes it followed to make its decision. If we consider, as here, that the Council has followed the correct process, we cannot question its decision regardless of whether Miss X and Mr X disagree with it.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman