Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint, brought by Mrs Y, about the Council not. There is not enough evidence of Council fault in its decision-making process to warrant us investigating. We also cannot achieve the outcome sought from the complaint.

The complaint

1. Miss X is Mrs Y’s daughter. Miss X is disabled with complex needs. Mrs Y complains the Council has refused a property adaptation of a ground-floor extension to meet Miss X’s needs.
2. Mrs Y wants the Council to agree to the extension, to which she believes Miss X is entitled.

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. 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mrs Y, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process and, but for that fault, officers would have reached a different conclusion. So we consider the processes councils have followed to make their decisions. We cannot replace a council’s decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision was reached after following proper process.
7. The Council has assessed Miss X’s property for adaptations four times in the last five years. Four different Occupational Therapists (OTs) did the assessments, the latest of which was in spring 2025. None of the OTs determined Miss X required an extension to meet her assessed needs at the property. The OT in 2025 concluded an extension was not necessary or appropriate and that there was no clinical grounds for the Council to fund such a project. They recommended a second handrail on the stairs, a level access shower, and front and back door handrails. Miss X and Mrs Y declined the stair rail and level access shower. The Council proceeded with the door handrails.
8. The OTs reached their decisions based on information about Miss X’s conditions, her mobility, and an assessment of her home. Each concluded there was insufficient justification for the Council to fund an extension to meet Miss X’s assessed needs. They made similar recommendations of works they considered should be done to meet those needs. These are professional judgements officers were entitled to make after gathering and assessing the relevant information during the OT processes.
9. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision‑making processes here leading to their adaptations decisions to justify an investigation. We recognise Miss X and Mrs Y disagree with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
10. We understand the outcome Mrs Y wants is for the Council to agree to fund an extension to the home. We cannot order councils to agree such works. That we cannot achieve the outcome she seeks from the complaint is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s and Mrs Y’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant us investigating; and
• we cannot achieve the complaint outcome sought.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman