Summary: There was a delay in offering Mr B an assessment by an occupational therapist, to decide whether Mr B was eligible for a disabled facilities grant (DFG) but the Council has already remedied this. The Council failed to properly consider its duties under the Armed Forces Covenant when it made its decision and this was fault. The Council has agreed to review its decision and provide a written response to Mr B.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains about the Council’s decision that he is not eligible for a disabled facilities grant (DFG) to pay for a dropped kerb and hardstanding outside his house.

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 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)
3. 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)
4. 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

How I considered this complaint

5. I have discussed the complaint with Mr B. I have considered the evidence that he and the Council have sent, the relevant law and guidance and both sides’ comments on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Adaptations to properties

6. Disabled Facilities Grants are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996.
7. In March 2022 the government also issued non-statutory guidance “Disabled facilities Grant (DFG) Delivery: Guidance for local authorities in England”. This guidance advises councils in England on how they can effectively and efficiently deliver DFG funded adaptations.
8. Councils have a statutory duty to give grants to disabled people for certain adaptations. Before approving a grant, a council must be satisfied that the works are:
• necessary and appropriate to meet the disabled person’s needs, and
• are reasonable and practicable.
9. The “necessary and appropriate” test usually relies on an assessment by an occupational therapist (OT) or another approved assessor. This should identify what the disabled person’s needs are and suggest how they can be met. The “reasonable and practicable” test is about the physical structure, layout, and space of the property.
10. The aims of the works that can be considered include facilitating access to the home and garden.
11. The DFG Guidance says:
• There is a need to remove or help overcome any obstacles which are preventing the disabled person from moving freely in and out of the property, including common parts, in and around the garden and any yard, outhouse or “other appurtenance”.
• Access can also include works outside the normal curtilage of the dwelling, such as a dropped kerb pavement crossing.

Armed Forces Covenant

12. The principles of the Armed Forces Covenant are that, recognising the unique obligations of, and sacrifices made by, the Armed Forces:
• Those who serve in the Armed Forces, whether Regular or Reserve, those who have served in the past, and their families, should face no disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services.
• Special consideration is appropriate in some cases, especially for those who have given most such as the injured and the bereaved.
13. The Covenant Legal Duty is a legal obligation on certain public bodies, including local authorities, to have due regard to the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant when carrying out certain functions in healthcare, education and housing. It has been in force since November 2022. The government has published statutory guidance on the duty for local authorities which says councils must have due regard to:
• the unique obligations of, and sacrifices made by, the armed forces;
• the principle that it is desirable to remove disadvantages arising for Service people from membership, or former membership, of the armed forces; and,
• the principle that special provision for Service people may be justified by the effects on such people of membership, or former membership, of the armed forces.
14. Special provision is the taking of actions that go beyond the support provided to reduce or remove disadvantage. Special provision may be justified by the effects of the unique obligations and sacrifices of Service life, especially for those that have sacrificed the most, such as the bereaved and the injured (whether that injury is physical or mental).
15. The duty is about informed decision-making, and means that specified bodies should think about and place an appropriate amount of weight on the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant when they consider all the factors relevant to how they carry out relevant functions. It is not prescriptive about the actions specified bodies should take to comply with their legal obligations, and it does not mandate specific public service delivery outcomes.

What happened

16. Mr B is an adult man who lives in a house with his family. He has medical conditions which affect his mobility. Mr B is an armed forces veteran.
17. The Council’s occupational therapist (OT) assessed Mr B in 2022 and recommended some adaptations to his home which included rails in the bathroom and stairs and a ramp at the front door.
18. Mr B told the OT that he would like a hardstanding in front of his house. One of his children had autism and sometimes ran off from the car so parking in the road was not ideal. Mr B also said his car had been written off due to an accident when the car was parked on the corner of the street.
19. The OT said Mr B’s ‘mobility and ability was too good to ask for these adaptations’, but Mr B could try asking for an OT’s assessment of his child’s needs to decide whether this would entitle him to a DFG for hardstanding.
20. It is my understanding that Mr B approached a charity which supports the armed forces community later to obtain support. In August 2024, an OT (not employed by the Council, but funded by the charity) and a representative from a company that supplies scooters visited Mr B for ‘an assessment for a mobility scooter to allow him to go out independently.’
21. The OT observed Mr B ‘walked with a step through gait without aids, independently and safely, though with apparent effort and pain and an antalgic gait’. Mr B said he could walk 50 metres on a good day but he could not walk long distances. The OT said Mr B would benefit from a scooter. Mr B said he would use the scooter mainly to go to the gym and to walk to dogs, but also to go out on trips with the family.
22. Mr B said he could not fit the scooter into his car so he needed a trailer to transport the scooter. The OT said Mr B could not store the trailer on the road as it was a busy road and did not have access into the garden. Mr B also needed a facility to store the scooter and there was plenty of room in his back garden for a shed.
23. The OT recommended that Mr B should be provided with the following:
• A mobility scooter to enable him to go out independently.
• A shed in the back garden with level access to store the scooter safely.
• A trailer so that he could have days out with his family.
• A dropped kerb and hardstanding to store the trailer safely.
24. The charity agreed to fund the scooter, the trailer and the storage shed in the garden, but not the dropped kerb and hardstanding.
25. Mr B asked the Council to fund the hardstanding using DFG grant.
26. The Council’s OT considered the request and responded in February 2025. The OT said the Council had guidance on when a DFG could be used to fund a hardstanding but this included, for example, situations where the person was unable or was at risk by walking the distance between their parked car and their home. The aim of the DFG was to enable access to the home. Mr B wanted a hardstanding to store a trailer and this did not fall within the eligibility of DFG funding.
27. Mr B complained about this decision in April 2025. Mr B said:
• The DFG was unjustly denied as the Council said it was only needed for storage of a trailer.
• He had a medical condition which meant that he had to warm up his car before driving to prevent muscle spasms and pain caused by cold exposure. He needed the hardstanding to allow the car to warm up as he could not leave the car idling on the road. This was separate from the need to store the trailer.
28. The Council responded in May 2025 and said:
• The hardstanding was needed to store the trailer and this need did not meet the criteria for a DFG.
• A DFG could be used to assist a person in moving freely in and out of the property, but Mr B had already been provided with ramp access with rails to his house.
29. Mr B took his complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process in May 2025 and said:
• The ramp to the front of his house was too narrow to facilitate a scooter and he could not store the scooter inside his home. So he needed the hardstanding to access his home which was in line with the Council’s guidance on the use of DFGs for hardstanding.
• He was a veteran of the Armed Forces and therefore the statutory Armed Forces Covenant duty was likely to apply.
30. The Council responded in June 2025 and said:
• The Council had no duty to fund the hardstanding as a DFG for the reason it had previously explained. It may be that Mr B could obtain funding from the charity or the local council.
• The Council had reviewed the case and admitted that it would have been good practice to offer Mr B a full OT assessment. It apologised for this and offered Mr B a full OT assessment.
31. The OT assessed Mr B in July 2025 and said:
• Mr B was independently mobile with a step through gait a short distance in and out of the property and around the garden with no aids during the visit.
• Mr B reported he was unable to use walking aids as he could not push down through his hands due to the pain from his medical condition.
• At the time, the road was very quiet and there were no parked cars within eye distance. Mr B said it was usually much busier.
• At the time of assessment Mr B was able to access his car if parked on the road outside his home.
• The OT said Mr B was able to walk short distances and he could use the mobility scooter for long distances.
32. Mr B complained about the OT assessment in August 2025 and said:
• The OT had told him that his wife could drive the car further away if they could not park outside the house.
• In response to Mr B’s statement that the car had to be heated before he could enter the car, the OT said that Mr B’s wife could sit in the car while it heated up, but his wife also had a medical condition which would make this difficult.
33. The Council responded and said Mr B was able to walk from the car to his home and was able to use the mobility scooter to access his local community. The OT had discussed alternatives as his request for a hardstanding did not meet the criteria for a DFG. These included:
• A parking bay outside his house, but Mr B had declined this offer.
• He could change his car to a car that could accommodate his scooter.

Further information

34. Mr B has said that the charity has now provided him with a scooter and with a shed in the back of his garden to store the scooter.
35. Mr B sent in five additional documents with complaints about the Council’s decision after the Council’s final complaint response. I explained to Mr B that the Ombudsman could not consider new complaints which had not gone through the complaints process, but I would give the Council the option to respond to any new complaints as part of my current investigation as the complaints were related.
36. Mr B’s complaint documents covered mostly complaints he had already made, but one document highlighted problems with taking the scooter on the existing path (which he says are too narrow) to the storage shed, now that the scooter and the shed had been provided by the charity.
37. The Council responded and said it had already provided the Council’s response to Mr B’s complaint.
38. I asked the Council whether it had considered its statutory duty under the Armed Forces Covenant. The Council said that no special consideration had been made but the Council was willing to review the matter.
39. Mr B has responded to the draft decision and has made further comments about the OT assessment dated July 2025. He said:
• The OT said he could get in and out of the car, but that was not based on an observation as the car was not parked near the house during the OT visit.
• The OT said he visited a forest. Mr B explained that he could not walk in a forest/park on his own for the last five years.
• The OT said he opened the rear gate but Mr B clarified that the gate had been adapted to his needs.

Analysis

40. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to carry out an OT assessment or to say what works are ‘necessary and appropriate’ to meet Mr B’s needs. Only the Council can do this. I have considered whether there is any fault in the way the Council decided that Mr B did not qualify for a DFG.
41. Mr B asked the Council in February 2024 to fund the hardstanding with a DFG. The Council’s OT responded and said that the request did not meet the criteria for a DFG but the OT did so without carrying out an assessment of Mr B. Presumably the Council’s OT relied upon the independent OT’s assessment for their conclusion.
42. In my view there was fault in the Council’s failure to offer Mr B a full OT assessment at this stage. I appreciate that the independent OT had assessed Mr B, but this was an assessment to decide whether Mr B could benefit from a scooter, not an assessment for eligibility of DFG, which would be decided by different criteria.
43. Only a Council’s OT assessment could determine whether any works were necessary and appropriate to meet his needs in line with the DFG criteria. However, I note that the Council addressed this problem by carrying out a full OT assessment in July 2024 so any injustice in this respect has already been remedied by the Council’s actions.
44. I have also considered the Council’s OT’s assessment. I note the Council’s OT visited Mr B at his property. The OT considered Mr B’s needs and came to similar conclusions than the independent OT which was that Mr B was able to walk short distances. Mr B did not need a hardstanding to access his home as he could walk the distance between the car and the home. The OT also offered Mr B the option of a parking bay which would resolve any problems in terms of parking near the home. The OT also considered that Mr B had storage for the scooter at the back of the house.
45. The Council properly assessed Mr B’s needs by employing an OT to do a full assessment. The Council considered the correct test which is whether the works were ‘necessary and appropriate’ to meet Mr B’s needs. So overall I find no fault in how the Council considered the DFG works in light of the Housing Grants, Regeneration and Construction Act 1996.
46. However, there was fault as the Council failed to properly consider its statutory duty under the Armed Forces Covenant. The Council failed to consider whether special consideration should be given to Mr B’s request, as he is a veteran of the Armed Forces. I note that the Council has agreed to review the matter and this is an appropriate remedy for the fault I have found.
47. I also note that the Council did not fully address Mr B’s complaints in its complaint responses, for example the complaint about the Armed Forces Covenant or the medical condition (which Mr B says which means the car must be heated before he can enter the car). There was some fault in that respect and the Council should provide its response to the medical condition
48. Mr B has also complained that he is having difficulty accessing the shed with his scooter on the existing paths. Mr B did not yet have the scooter or the shed when the OT visited him so this is a new issue that Mr B has raised and I will leave it to the Council’s discretion on how to respond.

Back to top

Action

49. The Council has agreed to take the following action within two months of the final decision. It will:
• Apologise in writing to Mr B for the fault I have identified.
• Consider its duties under the Armed Forces Covenant relating to Mr B’s application for a DFG and provide him with a written response on how it has reached a decision. This response should also address the medical condition (paragraph 46).
• Remind relevant officers of the Council’s duties under the Armed Forces Covenant.

Back to top

Decision

50. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed the remedy to address the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman