Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about delays in the disabled facilities grant process. Some of the matters complained about are late with no good reason to consider them now. In relation to the others, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:
• delayed installing a wet room under the disabled facilities grant (DFG) scheme for around six years; and
• gave him two options but then failed to progress the option he preferred. Mr X says the Council’s preferred option does not comply with Building Regulations.
2. He says that as a result, he does not have suitable facilities for his disabled children.
3. He wants the Council to give him the grant money to spend directly, provide more time for him to obtain quotes and for an independent organisation to work with him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council/ has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. 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)
6. 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

7. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. The Council opened and closed two of Mr X’s DFG applications in 2019 and 2021 either because he declined to sign the plans off or would not allow access to the property. We will not investigate these events because they happened too long ago and I can see no good reason why Mr X did not complain to us sooner.
10. The Council reopened a third application in June 2022. Although much of what has happened since then is late and Mr X could have come to us sooner, I have decided to exercise discretion to consider the period from June 2022 because the matters remain ongoing.
11. Mr X says the Council gave him two options and he chose option 2. The Council says the architect drew up two options but it informed Mr X it would only fund option 1 because it was the most cost-effective option. It said an occupational therapist approved these plans and Mr X signed them.
12. The Council said Mr X then chose to explore option 2, which was more expensive, under the equivalent cost scheme. This meant Mr X would get the adaptations done and pay any extra costs over the costs of option 1. However, Mr X was unable to find builders to quote for the work. Therefore, because of the amount of time that had passed, the Council retracted its permission for Mr X to carry out the work under the equivalent cost scheme and engaged its own builders to go ahead with option 1. Mr X declined permission for the work to start.
13. The Council has now closed this current application because of the various obstacles it has encountered. It said it will restart the process if it receives a referral from Adult Social Care and Mr X agrees to comply with the DFG process and agrees to option 1.
14. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council was entitled to take costs into account when making its decision on which option to choose. This option was approved by an occupational therapist and met building regulations. It therefore acted in line with guidance and there is no evidence of fault in how it made its decision.
15. The Council allowed Mr X to pursue option 2 under the cost equivalent scheme but because of the time taken, withdrew its approval. This was also something it was entitled to do and there is no evidence of fault in how or why it made that decision.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaints. Some are late and for the others, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman