Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about because it is late and there are no good reasons to decide to investigate now. In any case, there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s involvement in his application for adaptations to his property to meet his son, Y’s disability needs. He says that, as a result of failings by this and another Council, he had to fund the adaptations himself when he should not have had to do so.

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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

7. Mr X first sought advice from the Council in December 2022 as he was concerned about his son Y’s safety on the stairs. The Council made a referral for support for Y, who has an autism diagnosis, and that support was in place by March 2023.
8. In May 2023 Mr X contacted the Council again. He told us that, because there would be a delay in getting an assessment for Y from an occupational therapist (OT), he instructed a private OT. In July 2023, Mr X provided the private OT report to the Council recommending the stairs be adapted. This Council sent the private report to Council B, the housing authority that was responsible for deciding whether adaptations can be funded using a disabled facilities grant (DFG).
9. There was a joint home visit by both councils and two contractors in September 2023. The contactors identified four possible options to adapt the stairs but said that, in their view, none of them would meet building regulations requirements. This Council’s OT did not support a DFG application because the private OT report had not addressed the possibility of other works that could meet Y’s needs so they could not say the works Mr X wanted were “necessary and appropriate” to meet Y’s needs. In October, they updated Mr X, including giving advice on managing the risks and recommending the installation of rails and consideration of a special bed for Y. They confirmed a full OT assessment would be needed to consider major adaptations to the property.
10. In February 2024, the Council’s duty OT carried out a focussed assessment to consider Y’s safety on the stairs. They recorded that the adaptations Mr X wanted had already been carried out, so no further action was needed.
11. Mr X complained to the Council in April 2024 and complained to us in April 2025.

My assessment

12. We usually expect people to complain to us within 12 months of the events they are complaining about. Mr X complained to us in April 2025 about the Council’s failure to support his DFG application in 2023 and its delay in carrying out an OT assessment between late 2022 and February 2024. He had notice of both issues more than 12 months before complaining to us, so the complaint is late. I have not seen evidence he could not have complained to us earlier so there are no good reasons for investigating now.
13. In any case, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision not to support the DFG application, which is Mr X’s primary concern. The Council considered whether the proposed works were “necessary and appropriate” to meet Y’s assessed needs, which was the correct test. But the private OT report did not fully set out Y’s needs in relation to the stairs, not did it consider the range of options that may have met those needs. Therefore, it could not confirm the test was satisfied and said a full OT assessment would be needed to consider the matter further. By the time it carried out that assessment, Mr X had already had the works done.
14. In relation to the delay in carrying out the OT assessment, this was not considered necessary in December 2022 when Mr X first contacted the Council. After a further contact in May 2023, Mr X decided to instruct a private OT to avoid a potentially long wait for a Council OT assessment, so Y’s name was not put on the waiting list for that assessment until November 2023. The Council has made changes to its processes to ensure that focussed OT assessments can now be offered in a timely manner. The delay between 2023 and February 2024 did not cause Mr X a significant injustice because he proceeded with the adaptations without waiting for the Council’s OT assessment. In the circumstances, further investigation would not add to the Council’s complaint responses.
15. For the reasons set out above, we will not consider this complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman