Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed getting permission from the freeholder for adaptations under a disabled facilities grant. He also complained the Council did not properly consider it’s anticipatory duty under the Equality Act 201 as it failed to consider using discretionary funding to pay for the works. There was an initial delay by the Council in seeking permission but most of the 12 month delay was down to the freeholder. The Council will provide an apology for its failings which caused Mr X frustration and impacted on his safety, dignity and wellbeing.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council delayed getting permission from the freeholder for adaptations under a disabled facilities grant. He also complains the Council has not properly considered its anticipatory duty under the Equality Act 2010 as it has not considered using discretionary funding to pay for the works.
2. Mr X says the delays have left him without essential adaptations affecting his ability to access his property independently impacting on his safety, dignity and wellbeing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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 considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant Legislation

7. Disabled Facilities Grants are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Councils have a statutory duty to give grants 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. A council should decide a grant application as soon as reasonably practicable.

Amount of Grant and the Means Test

8. The maximum grant payable by a council is £30,000. A council can award other discretionary help if it thinks it is necessary. The council grant amount is subject to a means test. The test does not apply to applications from landlords, or from parents for grants for their disabled children. Regardless of who makes the application, the means test applies to the disabled person (the ‘relevant person’). If the relevant person has a partner, their finances are assessed jointly.

Key facts

9. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
10. The Council received a referral from the County Council’s occupational therapist (OT) in January 2024 for a disabled facilities grant on behalf of Mr X. Mr X is a wheelchair user and struggles to access the communal areas of the property. The application was to make changes to the doors to enable easier access for Mr X. The referral noted that permission would be required from the freeholder and provided contact details.
11. The Council contacted the organisation named on the OT referral, assuming it was the freeholder, seeking permission to carry out works to the communal areas. When no response was received, the Council contacted the organisation again which said it would need to check and would contact the Council when this was done. Mr X contacted the organisation himself in June seeking an update. The organisation then told Mr X it was not the freeholder. It said that as the works were only for the communal areas then the freeholder’s permission was required. It sent an email to the freeholder’s agent and copied in the Council.
12. In July, Mr X emailed the freeholder’s agent asking it to liaise with the Council about the proposed works. Two weeks later Mr X contacted the agent again seeking an update. The agent replied asking Mr X who he should liaise with at the Council. It also said it needed to manage his expectations about the time it would take as permission would be required from the freeholder as well as consulting with fire services.
13. The agent contacted the Council on 5 August asking what works were proposed and what information the Council needed. In October the Council emailed the agent asking for an update on whether the freeholder would give consent for the proposed works to the communal areas. The agent asked the Council to reiterate what was being proposed saying there was a lot to review before a decision could be made.
14. In March 2025 the Council again contacted the agent saying Mr X had been in touch seeking an update. The agent provided a copy of the email it sent to the freeholder asking for its view on the proposals. Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council about the delay. The Council responded on 20 March saying it had not yet received the permission of the freeholder and so was unable to proceed with Mr X’s application.
15. After trying to get a response from the agent and the freeholder, the Council contacted Mr X on 23 April explaining the situation. It asked Mr X if he had any communication with the freeholder about the situation and wondered if he could make contact.
16. Mr X contacted his MP about the situation who then contacted the Council. It explained that it was still waiting for permission from the freeholder. The representations from the MP on behalf of Mr X also concerned the cost of the works. A preliminary financial assessment found that Mr X’s finances meant he would not be entitled to a DFG. He argued that delays in the process had altered his financial circumstances and that he would have been entitled to financial assistance if the works had progressed without delay. In response the Council acknowledged the time taken, that the freeholder had still not given permission and that even if Mr X’s previous income figure had been used, then he was unlikely to be entitled to any grant.
17. On 31 July 2025 the freeholder gave permission for the proposed works. It also stated that it would not provide any funding.
18. Mr X has asked the Council to provide the adaptations using discretionary funding. He says that the adaptations should be made to meet duties under the Equality Act. The Council informs me that it is in the process of developing a policy with a national organisation concerned with DFG’s. It says it cannot pre-empt what the policy will say or how this might apply to Mr X’s case.
19. The Council says that it has also contacted the freeholder, its management agent as well as the housing association that owns the lease for Mr X’s flat to see if they can provide financial assistance. It has asked the housing association if there are any other residents who may benefit from the works and be eligible for a DFG. The Council says that it is continuing to work with the agent to obtain quotes for the works should funding become available.

Analysis

20. This complaint is about the actions of the Borough Council from January 2024 onwards. This is the date the Council received the referral. Any actions before that cannot be considered actions of the Borough Council and so do not form part of this complaint.
21. After receiving the referral in January 2024, the next evidenced action by the Council is on 23 April when it contacted the organisation named on the referral form. While this was not the freeholder, there is nothing to suggest the Council should have known this. However, waiting over three months to contact the organisation it thought could grant permission for the works is delay and therefore fault.
22. The Council found out in June that the organisation it had contacted was not the freeholder and so could not grant the necessary permission for the works. By July the freeholder’s agent was aware of the request and indicated it was seeking permission.
23. There is evidence of the Council chasing the agent in October 2024 and then in March 2025. This shows there was a period of approximately five months when no action was taken by the Council. While I can understand Mr X’s frustration, I cannot conclude this amounted to fault causing a significant injustice. From March 2025 onwards the evidence shows the Council taking timely action to contact the freeholder and its agent. However, it was not until 31 July that the freeholder granted permission for the works to take place.
24. When looking at the overall time taken by the Council in this case, the time is excessive. However, the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction only covers the actions of the Council and from July 2024 onwards the delay was due to the actions of the freeholder and not the Council. While it could be argued the Council could have done more to chase the freeholder to provide a response, particularly in the period from October 2024 to March 2025, I cannot say this would have resulted in a quicker outcome.
25. The Council should apologise to Mr X for the delay in starting the process until April 2024.
26. Mr X also complains the delay meant his financial circumstances changed and so the amount he was assessed as requiring to contribute increased. The information provided by the Council indicates the cost of the works will be between £15,000 and £20,000. The Council has completed two preliminary financial assessments using his current and previous income information. Both show that Mr X would need to cover the full cost of the works.
27. Mr X says that the failure to provide discretionary funding could be considered discrimination and a breach of the Equality Act. Only a court can determine if there has been a breach of the Equality Act as this is a legal matter. How a council uses any discretionary funding is a matter of judgement and I note the Council is currently in the process of producing a policy on this. There is nothing to suggest the Council has identified any funding that could be used though I note it has made approaches to try and assist. I find no fault on this point.

Back to top

Action

28. To remedy the injustice caused as result of the fault identified above, the Council should, within one month of my final decision, apologise to Mr X. 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.
29. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

30. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault for the reasons explained in this statement. The Council has agreed to implement the actions I have recommended. These appropriately remedy any injustice caused by fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman