Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council completed the Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) process and works to his home. Mr X said this impacted his finances and mental health. There was fault in the way the Council delayed making a payment, has not recorded communications and its complaint handling was poor. This distressed Mr X. The Council agreed to apologise and make the financial payment it offered.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council completed the Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) process and works to his home. Mr X said this impacted his finances and mental health.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a Council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
4. 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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. I have exercised discretion to investigate Mr X’s complaint since December 2023, allowing for the delays in the complaint process.
6. I have not investigated any events before December 2023. I reference events prior to this for context in this matter. Mr X could have complained about this matter earlier. This is a late complaint and there is not enough reason to accept those parts of it for investigation now.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I read Mr X’s complaint and spoke to him about it on the phone.
8. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background information

10. Under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, councils can award Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG) to people whose disability means their home needs adaptation. If the person applying meets the qualifying criteria the council must award the grant.
11. Councils only approve grants for work they decide is necessary. An occupational therapist usually assesses need. Where a borough council is responsible for DFGs, the occupational therapist may work for a county council. Borough and county councils should work together to provide a well-coordinated DFG service.
12. The maximum amount of mandatory grant is £30,000. Grants for children are not means-tested. Councils can decide to give more help if they think it is necessary. If an adaptation is required to meet an assessed need and the cost of the works will exceed the maximum grant available, the remainder could be met either by the borough/district council using its discretionary powers or by social services departments at the county council under the other legislation set out below.
13. The guidance also says other charges incurred as part of the works are eligible for grant funding such as architects’ and surveyors’ fees and charges for planning permission or building regulations approval.
14. A council must decide if the proposed works are necessary and appropriate to meet the needs of the disabled person. It must also be satisfied it is reasonable and practicable to carry out the works given the condition of the property to be adapted. In cases where major adaptations are required and it is difficult to provide a cost-effective solution, councils may consider the possibility of supporting a person to move to a more suitable home.
15. Under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989, councils with social services functions have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need in their area. A child with a disability is considered to be a child in need. Under the Act, councils can provide financial assistance to a child or family. Such financial assistance may be unconditional or subject to repayment in full or part. Before providing financial assistance, councils should consider the child or parents’ financial circumstances. The courts have said the functions of a council under Section 17 of the Act can extend to providing major adaptations to a child’s home.
16. In March 2022 the government issued non-statutory guidance “Disabled facilities Grant (DFG) Delivery: Guidance for local authorities in England.
17. This guidance advises councils in England on how they can effectively and efficiently deliver DFG funded adaptations to best serve the needs of local older and disabled people. It brings together and sets out in one place existing policy frameworks, legislative duties and powers, together with recommended best practice, to help councils provide an adaptation service to disabled tenants and residents in their area.
18. The March 2022 guidance 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 submits the application form together with designs and costing 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. The works are arranged and carried out and the necessary quality checks made.
19. A 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 required. 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
20. The Council must ensure the work is completed within 12 months of application approval. Once the work is complete, the council must pay the grant in full within 12 months of the application date.
21. The Council complaint policy details response timescales:
• Stage one within 10 working days
• Stage two within 25 working days
• Stage three within 25 working days.

What happened

22. This is a summary of events, outlining key facts and does not cover everything that has occurred in this case.
23. Mr X’s daughter, Y, has complex additional needs. Mr X bought his property to allow for changes to accommodate Y’s needs. The property needed extensive works. Most of the work was for Mr X and his family, the Council was responsible for the DFG adaptations identified by the OT to meet Y’s needs. Mr X stated he met with the OT, who told him it would speed up the process if he contracted an architect and applied for planning permission. Mr X contracted an architect the OT recommended, who worked for the Council. Mr X and his family did not live in the property during the internal works. The Occupational Therapist (OT) completed the assessment in November 2022. The assessment detailed internal and external works to meet Y’s needs. The adaptations recommendation was for internal adaptations in December 2022.
24. The Council approved the internal works referral in February 2023.
25. The Council reported issues connecting the bathroom plumbing to the drains. Contractors reported the drains had collapsed. The drains were replaced to the side of the property. This allowed the plumbing to be connected. Mr X reported he paid for the works to the drainage, the Council reported it paid for works.
26. The OT completed the second referral, for the external works including ramps and a lift in September 2023.
27. The Council completed the internal works in October 2023.
28. The Council approved the external works in November 2023.
29. Mr X asked the Council to provide the funding it would have paid towards a hardstanding at the front of his property. This enabled him to complete works to all the front to his requirement, at his own cost. The Council agreed to pay Mr X in December 2023. The Council referred to its financial department to make the payment. The Council did not complete the referral correctly. The Council accepted its error and apologised to Mr X.
30. The Council made the payment at the start of January 2024. Mr X raised concerns with the Council and his Member of Parliament (MP). He also raised concerns the OT told him to contract an architect to speed up the process. He said he did this, but the Council would not accept the drawings, so had to have them done again.
31. The Council responded the following week. It set out most of the plans were for construction work not identified as needed for Y. It offered to cover 20% of the costs as a gesture of goodwill.
32. The Council chased its contractors for external works in March 2024. Mr X reported the contractors wanted to access the site, but he previously asked for two weeks’ notice to allow him time to clear the site. The Council told Mr X it asked the contractors to give him the notice and apologised they did not.
33. Mr X chased the Council in April 2024. The Council stated the works did not include any access to the side of the property. The Council confirmed it would not complete works to the path at the side of the property.
34. The Council continued to chase its contractors for the external works to the property. The Council evidenced its contractors chasing subcontractors for updates. Mr X continued to chase the Council.
35. Mr X complained to the Council in July 2024. He complained about delays, information about grants, poor communications, delays in payment and outstanding works.
36. The Council issued its response in August 2024, a month after the complaint. The response said the Council would not pay for the architect as the drawings were for more than the works recommended in the OT referral. The Council offered, as a gesture of goodwill to cover 20% of the cost. The response confirmed the OT should not have recommended an architect. The response confirmed the internal works were completed within the 12 months allowed. The external works were due to be completed within the 12 months. The response confirmed the DFG was not means tested for children but amounts over the £30,000 grant were. The Council said it regularly visited the site, regularly met with its contractors but did accept communication issues from its contractors. The Council apologised for the delayed payment during the Christmas period. The Council confirmed it would complete the external works within the 12 months allowed.
37. Mr X asked the Council to escalate his complaint to stage two a week later. He said the OT recommended the architect and the main issue was a lack of communication.
38. The Council continued to chase its contractors to complete the external works. Mr X continued to chase the Council and the Council provided updates, including completing site visits. Mr X continued to chase the Council for a complaint response.
39. The Council completed the external works in November 2024.
40. The Council issued its stage two response in December 2024. The Council confirmed the OT worked for the NHS and Mr X contracted the architect. The Council repeated its offer to pay 20% of the costs. The Council said it was in regular contact with Mr X and contractors but accepted communications from the contractors was at times difficult. The Council said it was not obliged to replace the path to the side of the property as it replaced the path to its original condition. The Council accepted it was difficult to comment on communication as it had not recorded all interactions. The Council offered Mr X £200 for the actions of the OT, and £200 for the delay paying back the money for the hardstanding.
41. Mr X asked the Council to escalate his complaint to stage three a week later.
42. Mr X continued to chase the Council for the complaint response.
43. The Council issued its stage three response in March 2025. The Council repeated its stage two response. The Council admitted it was difficult to get a full view of communications as the service did not hold complete records. The Council confirmed it had set up a new recording system because of this. The response repeated the path to the side of the property was not in the OT recommended works. The Council accepted the delays reimbursing Mr X distressed him and it offered the £200 payment again.
44. Mr X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate. Mr X would like the Council to reimburse his costs and take accountability for the issues with the DFG works.
45. In response to my enquiries the Council stated it completed the DFG works within timescales. The Council accepted it did not fully record communication.

My findings

DFG application and works

46. This is a complex matter. The Council has appointed contractors to complete works, who have appointed subcontractors. Mr X also completed private work on the property. This impacted on the ability to complete some work while waiting to complete other work.
47. I do not make any finding relating to the OT comments regarding the architect. The NHS employed the OT, so the Council is not responsible for their actions. This also occurred before this investigation considered.
48. The Council completed the internal work within 12 months from approving the application. The Council said it would not have needed to excavate any ground if the drains for the property were not damaged. The path to the side of the property had to be removed to replace the drains. The Council said the drains were a private matter for Mr X to complete. I do not make any findings relating to this matter as it was before this investigation considered.
49. The Council approved the external works in November 2023. The OT delayed the application because of the private work on the family home. The Council could not have started the external work until the private work on the home was completed. The Council completed the work in November 2024. While this is not within the timescales detailed in the guidance referenced in paragraph 16, it is within the 12 months allowed in the law referenced in paragraph 10.
50. Mr X references poor communication throughout his complaint. The communications I have seen show the Council responding to email communications. However, I have seen no evidence of telephone calls, site visits or meetings. The Council accepted in its complaint responses it did not hold complete records of correspondence and communications. We expect a Council to keep records of it actions. The Council did not do this, this is fault. This fault has not caused a significant personal injustice to Mr X, and the Council has implemented a new system to improve its recording.
51. Mr X said the delay making the payment over the Christmas period distressed him. The Council accepted its error meant it did not pay Mr X when it said it would. The Council accepted this fault and offered Mr X £200 to remedy the injustice this caused. This is a reasonable remedy for the injustice.
52. Mr X said the Council has not focused on Y during this process. He also said the Council told him it would means-test the family’s finances to pay for work. The Council has separated the work into two DFG applications. This demonstrated the Council considered Y’s individual needs in a person-centred manner including her use of the inside and outside of the family home. This also maximised the amount the Council has paid towards the work. The Council cannot means test the £30,000 DFG grant, but it can means test any top up funding. The Council did not means test Mr X’s family finances, and it has paid top up funding without seeking any money from Mr X. The Council absorbed added costs it could have passed onto Mr X when work went beyond the grant amount. The Council was not at fault.

Complaint handling

53. Paragraph 21 sets out the Council complaint response timescales. The Council delayed the stage one response by two weeks. This is fault, frustrating Mr X.
54. The Council delayed the stage two response by 11 weeks. This is fault, frustrating Mr X.
55. The Council delayed the stage three response by 9 weeks. This is fault, frustrating Mr X.

Back to top

Action

56. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused to Mr X by the fault I have identified, the Council agreed to take the following action within 4 weeks of my final decision:
• Apologise to Mr X for the injustice caused by delaying the payment and poor complaint handling. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Pay Mr X the £200 it offered to acknowledge the distress the delayed payment caused.
57. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

58. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault by the Council, which caused injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman