Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs X’s disagreement with the Council over adaptations to her home under the Disabled Facilities Grant scheme. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained that following an assessment by an Occupational Therapist (OT) the Council decided to approve a stair lift as opposed to a ground floor extension. She said it did not consider her medical conditions and circumstances. Mrs X said this caused her distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X was assessed by an OT under the Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) scheme to determine what adaptations were required to her property to meet her needs. The OT recommended a stair lift as the first option. Mrs X’s preferred choice was a ground floor extension.
7. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the Council made.
8. The Council’s records show it considered the appropriate legal guidance and its own policy when determining which adaptations Mrs X required. In making its decision, it considered Mrs X’s medical conditions and circumstances and the reasons why she preferred a ground floor extension as well as the OT’s recommendations.
9. It determined Mrs X’s needs could be met by installing a stair lift, which was more a more cost-effective option than Mrs X’s preference for a ground floor extension. The Council was entitled to take costs into account when making its decision. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision. Therefore, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman