Summary: The Council was not at fault for seeking new information to ensure planned adaptations under a Disabled Facilities Grant were necessary and appropriate. The Council was at fault for the way it handled Mrs X’s complaint, causing confusion and uncertainty over what complaints it had responded to. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision following her Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) application. She says the Council has ignored previous assessments which supported more comprehensive adaptations. Mrs X adds the Council has failed to properly consider her repeated complaints on the subject. She says this has left her children without the provision they need and impacted her and her husband’s mental and physical health. Mrs X wants the Council to apologise, compensate her and implement the recommendations of its original assessments.

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. 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. 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

5. The Ombudsman previously investigated complaints from Mrs X regarding her DFG application up to May 2024. I have investigated events May 2024 onwards.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

Disabled Facilities Grants

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

Background

12. Several years ago, Mr and Mrs X applied for a DFG to adapt their property to meet the needs of their children in. The children have a genetic condition causing issues affecting bathing, continence and sleep. A local NHS Trust carried out an Occupational Therapy (OT) assessment. It recommended a wet/dry toilet with space for carers and a separate bedroom and washroom for one of their children, Y, on a separate floor.
13. Shortly after, the Council took over responsibility for OT assessments and carried out a feasibility visit. In October 2023 the Council decided the originally proposed adaptations would go over the maximum grant of £30,000 and it needed to explore if there were other ways of meeting the children’s needs.
14. Between October 2023 and May 2024, the Council paused the application while it awaited the outcome of a related appeal to the SEND Tribunal. Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman about the delay in July 2024. We found the Council at fault for some of the delay and for its complaint handling.

What happened

15. In May 2024 the Council emailed Mrs X summarising several options for adaptations to meet the children’s needs. It said an OT would need to make further enquiries to explore the suitability of any adaptations. It met with Mr and Mrs X and visited their home to review options. At the meetings the Council asked Mr and Mrs X to complete hourly diaries for the children over four weeks so it could get a better understanding of what adaptations may be needed.
16. At the end of June Mr and Mrs X emailed the Council expressing their frustration at the length of time the process had taken. They said they did not believe the additional assessments were needed. They asked the Council to clarify what the next steps were, with a timeline. They said the did not understand why the previous recommended options had not been implemented. Mr and Mrs X refused to complete the diaries as they said this would be over 1000 diary entries for all of their children. They offered to give the Council a summary of the children’s behaviour and sleep patterns.
17. The Council emailed Mr and Mrs X at the start of July asking if they still gave their consent for the Council to proceed with its plan following their complaint. Mrs X replied clarifying that she had not complained but asked questions. She asked the Council what it meant by its plan but confirmed she gave consent for the Council to speak to professionals to move the application forward. The Council agreed to adapt the diaries task for Mr and Mrs X to record three entries per child reflecting what happened most days and nights, and on the worst and best days and nights. It said this would help them understand the situation and tailor the adaptations to the children’s needs.
18. A few days later Mr and Mrs X complained to the Council. They said the Council had not responded to complaints from 2023 or 2024. They said they had not had a response to their June email and would now like this responded to as a formal complaint. They said the Council had no basis to ask for more assessments and consultations and they would not complete the diaries. They said the Council should make a decision based on the information it had.
19. The Council’s reviewed the case and decided to draft a report with a DFG decision based on the information it had. The Council met with Mr and Mrs X the following day. At the meeting the Council explained the further work was due to a lack of detail in the original assessment. Mr and Mrs X said the Council had still tried to pursue cheaper alternatives despite two viable options. The record of the meeting shows the Council went through the existing information it had on the children’s behaviours. The Council said it would compile all the information it had, make a recommendation and present this to its next DFG panel for a decision.
20. The Council sent Mr and Mrs X a report with its recommendations and reasoning in August 2024. It said the original report was not clear over whether additional facilities needed to go upstairs or downstairs and it had to pursue the most cost-effective scheme due to it exceeding £30,000. It recommended a new shower, wash/dry toilet and height adjustable bed but said a new bedroom and bathroom downstairs were not needed as Y was mostly independent using the stairs and could be supervised when needed.
21. Following the report Mr and Mrs X asked the Council for an urgent meeting to discuss the recommendations. They said they were unhappy with the recommendations and wanted to discuss it before it went to panel. The Council asked Mr and Mrs X to put any concerns in writing for the panel to consider alongside the report. Mr and Mrs X submitted a Subject Access Request and said they needed more information before sending their response to the report.
22. The Council’s case notes say it sent a complaint response to Mr and Mrs X on 11 September 2024. The Ombudsman has asked for a copy of this response but has yet to receive one. In late September 2024 the Council said it planned to present its recommendation to the next DFG panel and gave Mr and Mrs X an opportunity to provide comments.
23. A DFG panel reviewed Mr and Mrs X’s application on 4 October 2024 and approved the recommendations. It gave Mr and Mrs X a right of appeal over its decision. Around the same time the Council also provided Mr and Mrs X to the answers to their questions from September 2024. Mr and Mrs X asked the Council further questions which the Council responded to in November 2024.
24. Mr and Mrs X sent the Council a detailed response to its DFG decision in January 2025. They asked the Council to treat the response as both a new complaint and appeal against the panel’s decision.
25. The Council considered Mr and Mrs X’s appeal in March 2025. Its appeal panel did not identify any reasons to overturn the Council’s original decision. It said its decision remained unchanged. Following the appeal outcome Mr and Mrs X escalated their appeal to the next stage. At the same time the Council offered to begin feasibility visits over the proposed works. Mr and Mrs X made a new complaint to the Council in June 2025 over the outcome of the appeal and the Council’s communication. Mr and Mrs X also complained to the Ombudsman at the same time.
26. On 4 July 2025 the Council responded to Mr and Mrs X latest complaint. It explained it had received a high volume of correspondence and complaints from Mr and Mrs X and tried to respond to each one. It said it had made its decision in line with its procedures and the law and was committed to working with Mr and Mrs X to implement a solution as soon as possible.
27. The Council considered Mr and Mrs X’s further appeal in August 2025 and did not uphold the appeal. It said the evidence supported the Council’s decision not to recommend a ground floor extension for a bathroom and bedroom. The Council attempted to arrange a survey to implement the agreed recommendations in October 2025 but received no response from Mr and Mrs X. It told Mr and Mrs X it was pausing the DFG process while it waited for a response.
28. In December 2025, following a home visit, representative from a bathroom equipment company concluded the bathroom could not be adapted to meet Y’s needs. In January 2026 the Council drafted a further report into Mr and Mrs X’s DFG application. It concluded that while Y had mobility challenges, its physiotherapists had assessed Y could negotiate the stairs safely with adult supervision. It concluded Y did not meet the grounds for a ground floor bedroom. It said Mr and Mrs X’s current bathroom was not suitable for Y’s needs and could not be reconfigured. It recommended providing Y with a ground floor bathroom. The report recommended the case be resubmitted to the Council’s DFG panel for urgent consideration.

My findings

The DFG application

29. The Council restarted the DFG assessment process in May 2024. Given the length of time that had passed since the previous assessment the Council was under a duty to ensure its scheme was necessary and appropriate to meet the needs of Mr and Mrs X ‘s children. The Council was entitled to seek up to date information before deciding on the DFG application. The Council was not at fault.
30. When Mr and Mrs X informed the Council they would not engage with the new assessment, and to make a decision based on the information it had, the Council did so. It gave Mr and Mrs X an opportunity to comment on its recommendations and its DFG panel considered all the information before coming to a decision in October 2024.
31. 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 someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
32. In making its decision, the Council took account of the relevant guidance, information from occupational therapists and Mr and Mrs X. The Council followed the appropriate procedures when making this decision and I cannot therefore criticise it. The Council was not at fault.
33. The Council later rejected two appeals by Mr and Mrs X. Again, the evidence shows at each appeal it considered the information available and came to a professional decision on the outcome of the appeal. The Council was not at fault.
34. In January 2026 the Council revisited its decision, to consider updated information from professionals and Mr and Mrs X and following a home visit. While the Council has now recommended a separate bathroom for Y, it does not follow its October 2024 decision was flawed. The October 2024 decision was based on the information available at the time. The Council was entitled to consider new information and update its recommendation. It is open to Mr and Mrs X to decide whether to proceed with the recommended scheme or not.

The Council’s complaint handling

35. The Council has engaged in a high volume of correspondence with Mr and Mrs X since May 2024. Having reviewed the Council’s correspondence with Mr and Mrs X it has not always been clear which complaints the Council has responded to. At times the Council has engaged in unnecessary piecemeal responses to individual questions, leading to confusion over the progress of Mr and Mrs X’s complaints.
36. While the Council made every effort to respond to Mr and Mrs X, on balance, it lost control of its complaint process, accepting new complaints on matters it had already responded to, and responding to other complaints outside of the formal complaint process. This was fault, causing confusion and uncertainty over the outcome of Mr and Mrs X’s complaints and their queries on the DFG application.

Back to top

Action

37. Within one month of the final decision the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr and Mrs X for the confusion and uncertainty caused by the failures identified in its complaint handling. 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.
38. We publish the Complaint Handling Code which sets out best practice in how councils should deal with complaints. In this case, we found the Council at fault because it failed to control its complaint correspondence with Mr and Mrs X. In order to prevent similar faults from happening in future, the Council should consider our guidance and tell us what action(s) it will take to improve the way it deals with complaints. The Council should do this within three months of the final decision.
39. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

40. I find fault causing injustice which the Council has agreed to remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman