Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed progressing her Disabled Facilities Grant application and did not provide her with a report regarding its survey of her home. Miss X said the Council’s actions caused considerable avoidable distress and upset to herself and her disabled sons. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to provide Miss X with an apology and a financial remedy.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council delayed progressing her Disabled Facilities Grant application and did not provide her with a report regarding its survey of her home. Miss X said the Council’s actions caused considerable avoidable distress and upset to herself and her disabled sons. She would like the Council to provide a plan of what can be done to assist her and her disabled sons, and to carry out the work as soon as possible.
2. Miss X subsequently complained about the Council’s proposed adaptations and delays in carrying out the works to her home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
5. 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

6. I have investigated the complaint referred to in paragraph one for the period May 2024 to May 2025 (the date of the Council’s final response). I have not investigated the complaint referred to in paragraph two. This is because Miss X complained to the Council about these matters after bringing her initial complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Disabled facilities grant

9. Under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (the Act), 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.
10. Councils only approve grants for work they decide is necessary. An occupational therapist usually assesses need.
11. 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.
12. 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.

What happened

13. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
14. Miss X lives in a two-bedroom housing association property with her two sons, Y and Z.
15. Y and Z share a bedroom, and both have a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder.
16. Miss X said she contacted the Council in about May 2024 to ask about adaptations to her bathroom and to Y and Z’s bedroom.
17. On 18 September 2024, the Council’s occupational health (OT) team carried out an assessment regarding Y and the facilities in Miss X’s home. The OT recorded that Miss X provided substantial physical and emotional support to Y and acknowledged that this was becoming increasingly difficult to sustain as he got older. The assessment identified that Y required full assistance with personal care as well as supervised transfers when using the bath. It also reported occasions of physically threatening behaviour between Y and Z, which had increased due to them sharing a bedroom. The OT recommended replacing the existing bath and toilet with a level access shower and a wash and dry toilet. The OT also recommended the Council consider dividing Y and Z’s bedroom into two separate rooms. Alternatively, it recommended the Council explore options to create an additional bedroom, including considering a loft conversion or extension. The OT team authorised Miss X’s case to be fast tracked.

Miss X’s complaint

18. Miss X complained to the Council on 31 January 2025. She said that following the OT’s visit in September 2024, she had not received a report or any proposed recommendations. Miss X also complained the Council had not arranged a surveyor’s visit. Miss X said she felt overlooked by the Council.
19. The OT team contacted the surveyor’s team on 10 February 2025. The OT team acknowledged it had directed Miss X’s request to the wrong team by mistake, resulting in her case being left off the waiting list. The OT team asked if the surveyor’s team could retrospectively consider the case in line with its submission in September 2024.
20. On 14 February 2025, the OT team completed an adaptation feasibility form. The form recommended the installation of a level access shower and a wash and dry toilet, as well as considering the options for providing separate bedrooms for Y and Z. The OT recorded that the surveyor would need to determine how to achieve the recommended space. The OT also recorded that they discussed with Miss X the possibility of her moving to a different property; however, the OT recorded that Miss X wished to stay in her current home because of the significant support network provided by her nearby family and neighbours.
21. A surveyor visited Miss X’s home on 24 February 2025. On 25 February 2025, the surveyor emailed the OT. The surveyor said:
• They did not propose dividing Y and Z’s bedroom as it would not meet the required minimum size for bedrooms
• Under current DFG rules, it was not possible to create living space in the loft area in a private/housing association owned property
• During the visit they learned that Miss X would consider relocation, and she had seen some nearby three-bedroom properties
22. The surveyor also emailed Miss X on 25 February 2025. The surveyor confirmed they would not propose to divide Y and Z’s bedroom and said they had provided information about the three-bedroom properties to the OT team.
23. Miss X replied on the same day. She said whilst she had discussed relocation during the surveyor’s visit, this was only if the Council had explored all other avenues for adaptation in her current property. Miss X said the surveyor’s email did not mention the possibility of a loft conversion and asked for clarification as to whether her loft space was suitable for adaptation.
24. The surveyor replied to Miss X on the same day. They maintained that under current DFG rules, it was not possible to convert/create living space in the loft area in private/housing association owned property.
25. An OT visited Miss X on 26 February 2025 to discuss potential relocation. The OT recorded that following the Council’s feasibility assessment, which they said indicated Miss X’s current home was not suitable for the necessary adaptations, Miss X recognised the long-term limitations of her current property. The OT said although the Council deemed the loft conversion unfeasible, the bathroom adaptations could proceed. However, the OT recorded that Miss X did not wish to proceed with any work at her current home as she had decided to relocate.

The Council’s complaint response

26. The Council provided its complaint response on 4 March 2025, acknowledging that Miss X’s request for a feasibility study was sent to the wrong department. The Council upheld Miss X’s complaint. It said a surveyor had subsequently visited the property and determined that the adaptations were not feasible. The Council said Miss X therefore planned to relocate to a different property.
27. In March 2024, the Council completed a report supporting a change of address for Miss X.
28. On 1 April 2025, a representative acting on behalf of Miss X emailed the Council seeking clarification of the rules regarding DFG applications to housing association properties. The email escalated Miss X’s complaint to stage two and reiterated her request for adaptations at her current address. The Council acknowledged the stage two complaint on 3 April 2025.
29. In April 2025, Miss X obtained a letter from Y’s paediatrician. The letter stated the Council had suggested Miss X move homes, but this was not something the family felt would best meet Y’s needs.
30. On 1 May 2025, the Council’s children and family’s disability team requested a copy of the surveyor’s feasibility report, as Miss X had requested this as part of her complaint. In response, the surveyor stated they had discussed Miss X’s options with her by telephone and email.
31. On the same day, Miss X met with the Council to discuss her housing concerns. Following the meeting, the Council emailed Miss X and said it would provide a complaint response by 9 May 2025.
32. On 6 May 2025, the Council emailed Miss X again. The Council said it was aware relocation was no longer an option and confirmed it had requested reactivation of the DFG application as a fast-track case.
33. On 9 May 2025, Miss X chased the Council for its complaint response.
34. The Council provided a complaint response from its children and families disability team on 13 May 2025. It apologised for the delay regarding Miss X’s request for adaptations and acknowledged a delay in sharing the OT assessment with her. It apologised for the delay caused by it sending the feasibility request to the wrong department. The Council said although it understood Miss X had considered relocation, it had agreed to allocate a surveyor to her case regarding the adaptations to the bathroom. The Council acknowledged a delay in installing a wash and dry toilet and apologised for the impact this had on Y. The Council said loft conversions are not within the Council’s policy, and it apologised for any miscommunication. The Council referred to Miss X’s request for the feasibility report and said it had sent a text message stating that under DFG rules, it is not possible to convert or create living space in the loft area in a private or housing association owned property. The Council acknowledged this was not an appropriate way to communicate and was not representative of a report that should have been completed. The Council said it would provide a further complaint response from its private housing team to address additional concerns raised by Miss X.
35. The Council’s private housing team provided a further complaint response on 20 May 2025. It apologised for sending separate responses and said it would ensure in future, families receive a joined-up response. The Council confirmed it had not progressed any adaptations because it understood Miss X had been considering relocation. The Council said it had placed the OT’s feasibility request for adaptations on hold as a result, but it had now revisited this. The Council said DFGs covered adaptations to properties owned by registered state landlords, with their permission, but the Council was not currently undertaking extensive works to convert roof spaces into living accommodation. The Council said it had requested a new surveyor to be assigned to Miss X’s case to carry out a full survey as soon as possible. It said Miss X had declined this request and it asked her to reconsider this decision. The Council repeated its apology and offered Miss X a financial remedy in respect of the distress and confusion caused.
36. Miss X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.

What happened next

37. The Council carried out further visits to Miss X’s home to assess the adaptation request. It told Miss X it may progress two DFG applications concurrently; one for the bathroom adaptations and one to explore options for sleeping arrangements, as this may take more time. The Council clarified that neither applications would be means tested.
38. The Council created some initial plans for proposed adaptations and sought consent from Miss X’s housing association. The Council also provided a financial remedy in respect of Miss X’s complaint.
39. Miss X submitted a further, separate complaint to the Council in September 2025. Miss X complained about the proposed adaptations and about delays in carrying out the works to her home.

Analysis – delay in the DFG process

40. The Council acknowledged as part of its complaint response that it had incurred delays as a result of initially sending the request for a feasibility assessment to the wrong department. It apologised for the error and provided Miss X with a financial remedy in recognition of the distress caused.
41. It is positive the Council itself identified this error, and I acknowledge the remedy already provided to Miss X and the corrective measures put in place to prevent reoccurrence. Nevertheless, the error made by the Council regarding this matter is fault.
42. The Council has provided a breakdown of the financial remedy made to Miss X, including the figure awarded in respect of the delays identified. On review, the financial remedy already provided by the Council regarding this matter is appropriate and in accordance with our published guidance on remedies.

Failure to provide the Council’s feasibility assessment

43. Miss X complained that despite her requests, the Council did not provide her with a report regarding its survey of her home. The Council’s stage two complaint response dated 13 May 2025 said it sent a text message to Miss X stating it was not possible to convert or create a living space in a private or housing association owned property under current DFG rules. The Council said this was not an appropriate way to communicate and acknowledged it was not representative of a report it should have completed.
44. In its response to the draft of this decision, the Council said its correspondence with Miss X was via email, not text message. It said it was unsure why the stage two complaint response referenced sending a text message. The Council acknowledged however, that the emails sent to Miss X were not representative of a report.
45. Whilst it is positive the Council itself acknowledged its failure to provide Miss X with a report, its failure to provide this is fault. The injustice to Miss X is avoidable distress and frustration at not receiving the information she requested.

The Council’s explanation to Miss X

46. The Council provided a flawed explanation to Miss X regarding the requested loft conversion. This is because in its emails to Miss X, and in its complaint responses, the Council said that under current DFG rules, it is not possible to convert or create living space in the loft area in private or housing association owned property. I acknowledge the Council attempted to later clarify this by stating DFGs do cover adaptations to properties owned by registered state landlords; however, it also stated the Council did not undertake extensive works to convert roof spaces into living accommodation.
47. This explanation is not supported by the Act or the Council’s own private housing renewal policy. The Act says a grant may be given to facilitate access by the disabled occupant to, or providing for the disabled occupant, a room used or usable for sleeping. It does not exclude loft spaces in housing association owned properties. Similarly, the Council’s policy does not specify it will not undertake works to convert a roof space. The Council’s flawed explanation is fault.
48. The injustice to Miss X is avoidable distress, frustration and additional delay as a result of pursuing relocation as an option. The Council says it did not complete a DFG application at the time of the initial surveyor’s visit because Miss X was seeking alternative accommodation. However, the evidence indicates Miss X considered relocation only after the Council advised her that DFG rules meant it was not possible to convert the loft space. Prior to this, the evidence shows Miss X expressed her wish to stay in her current home because of her local support network. In addition, Miss X said she only discussed relocation if all other avenues for adaptation had been explored. The evidence indicates the Council had not fully explored all other options, and therefore, Miss X considered relocation based partly on inaccurate information.

The Council’s complaint response

49. The Council incurred delays in providing its complaint response. The Council’s complaints policy says:
• At stage one, the Council aims to respond within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint.
• At stage two, the Council will provide a response within 20 working days of acknowledging the complaint.
50. Miss X submitted her stage one complaint on 31 January 2025. The Council responded on 4 March 2025.
51. The Council acknowledged Miss X’s stage two complaint on 3 April 2025 but did not respond until 13 May 2025, with a further response on 20 May 2025. The Council therefore did not adhere to the timescales of its complaints policy.
52. In addition, the Council provided separate stage two complaint responses; one from its children and families disability team and another from its housing team. I acknowledge the Council apologised for sending separate responses and said it would ensure families receive joined-up responses in the future. However, the disjointed complaint response, and the delays identified in the complaint handling are fault, causing additional time and trouble for Miss X.
53. As previously stated, I acknowledge the apology and financial remedy already provided to Miss X by the Council. I also acknowledge the steps taken to improve its services to avoid reoccurrence of the fault identified. However, on review, the steps taken to date do not fully address the injustice to Miss X resulting from the above fault.

Back to top

Action

54. To address the injustice identified, the Council has agreed to take the following actions within one month of the final decision:
1. Provide a further apology to Miss X for the fault identified in this decision statement. 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;
2. Make a further symbolic payment of £300 to Miss X in recognition of the distress and frustration identified as a result of the fault referred to above. This amount is in line with our published guidance on remedies and takes into account the financial remedy already provided by the Council, and
3. Make a further symbolic payment of £150 in recognition of the time and trouble incurred as a result of the fault identified in the Council’s complaint handling.
55. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

56. I have found fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take the above action to remedy the injustice and I have therefore concluded my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman