Summary: The Council was at fault for delay in deciding Mrs X’s Disabled Facilities Grant application. This has caused Mrs X uncertainty over what adaptations The Council is willing to proceed with. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X, finalise the adaptations scheme it is willing to proceed with and make a payment to Mrs X.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained her landlord, Council B, delayed processing her application for a Disabled Facilities Grant and changed the recommendations from Council A’s OT assessment. She says Council B now wants to proceed with a scheme that has not been properly assessed and does not meet her child, Y’s needs, causing her distress, frustration and uncertainty. She wants Council B to revise its approach based on up-to-date information, apologise and compensate her for the delay.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. 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)
3. 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

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. Mrs X first applied to Council B for a Disabled Facilities Grant in 2022. Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman in March 2025. Part of Mrs X’s complaint is late because it concerns council actions that happened more than 12 months before she complained to us. I have not investigated events before March 2024. It was open to Mrs X to complain to us sooner about events before that date and I consider it was reasonable for her to have done so.
6. Mrs X has also complained about the standard of repair work carried out by Council B to her property. Council B carried out this work in its role as Mrs X’s landlord. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

The Law

9. 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.
10. Councils only approve grants for work they decide is necessary. An occupational therapist usually assesses need. Where a borough council is responsible for DFGs, the occupational therapist may work for a county council. Borough and county councils should work together to provide a well-coordinated DFG service.
11. 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. If an adaptation is required to meet an assessed need and the cost of the works will exceed the maximum grant available, the remainder could be met either by the borough/district council using its discretionary powers or by social services departments at the county council under the other legislation set out below.
12. 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.
13. A council should decide a grant application as soon as reasonably practicable. The guidance sets out the expected timescales for progressing an application and completing the works:
• Urgent and simple works – 55 working days
• Non-urgent and simple works – 130 working days
• Urgent and complex works – 130 days
• Non-urgent and complex works – 180 working days

Background

14. Mrs X’s child Y is disabled. Y has a lifelong movement and coordination disorder, sensory processing disorder and epilepsy.
15. In 2022 Mrs X applied to the Council (Council B) for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) to create a larger ground floor toilet area to allow more space for a carer to support Y. In 2023 Council B proposed a scheme with a wash/ dry toilet and no sink in the existing toilet space. Council B asked the county council (Council A) for its recommendations. Council A said the scheme did not meet Y’s needs as there was not enough room in the toilet for a carer to assist Y. They added a carer would also need access to a sink.
16. Council A recommended removing a wall and expanding the ground floor toilet into an area that housed Mrs X’s washing machine and tumble dryer. Mrs X was unhappy with the decision to relocate the appliances. In November 2023 she refused a joint visit from Councils A and B and told Council A she did not want to continue the process.

What happened

17. In March 2024 Council B emailed Council A asking if it could revisit the removal of the partition wall and whether it was needed for carer support. Council A sent Council B its assessments and possible options for the scheme. At the same time, it spoke with Mrs X to ask if she wanted to continue with the application. Mrs X confirmed she still did not want to proceed due to the impact on her and her family.
18. Council A and Council B met in April 2024. Council A confirmed there was enough space for the adaptations if the white goods were removed.
19. Mrs X complained to Council B in May 2024. She said it had delayed progressing her DFG application and made changes to Council A’s recommendations. Council B visited Mrs X’s property and responded to Mrs X’s complaint in June 2024. It accepted it had mishandled Mrs X’s original DFG application in 2022. It said it did not have an adaptations team in place at the time so passed the matter to its contractor before approving the works. It said the application did not contain enough information to decide if the works were necessary. It apologised and said Council A had since provided its recommendations. It said the space recommended by Council A was unfeasible in the current toilet and the wall that it needed to remove was load bearing. It said it had tried to get more information from Council A but the case was currently closed due to Mrs X not wishing to proceed.
20. Mrs X remained unhappy and asked Council B to escalate her complaint to stage two of its complaint process. Mrs X also pursued a complaint against Council A. In its stage two response Council B accepted it had failed to properly communicate with Mrs X and reiterated the findings from its stage one response. It offered Mrs X £500 to recognise the impact of its failings.
21. Council A carried out a visit in August 2024. Following the visit Council A and Council B liaised over different options for adapting the toilet area without removing the partition wall. Council B spoke to Mrs X in November 2024. Mrs X explained she had to wash a high volume of clothes for Y due to their disability. Mrs X also explained Y’s bathing needs. Council B said it needed a scheme that met Y’s long-term needs. It said it would liaise with Council A.
22. Council A and Council B met in November 2024. Council B said it could not proceed with any of the options that did not involve removing the wall as the negligible space gained did not justify the works. It told Council A Mrs X had also mentioned issues with handling Y on the stairs that could impact any design. Council A said it was happy to review any scheme.
23. Following the meeting Council B emailed Mrs X to say it was working on options and would present her with something soon. It acknowledged by sharing a scheme with Mrs X before Council A it was doing things “the wrong way round” but felt it was necessary to find a solution. In mid-November 2024 Mrs X told Council A that Y had been diagnosed with a rare genetic disorder that may impact their mobility further in years to come.
24. Council B met with Mrs X in December 2024. Mrs X said she felt Y now needed a ground floor bathroom and proposed relocating the kitchen into an existing ground floor bedroom. Council B said it would review options. Following the meeting Mrs X emailed Council B to say she would be complaining to the Ombudsman as she did not feel the plans met Y’s long-term needs. Council B acknowledged the email and said it would return with options.
25. Later in December 2024 Council A asked Council B if there were any updates. Council B said it was in regular contact with Mrs X. It said Mrs X had now raised concerns over whether Y needed a ground floor bath. Council B asked Council A whether its recommendations had changed given Y’s recent diagnosis. Council B said it was concerned about Y using a bath given their epilepsy. It said it would discuss potential schemes with Mrs X before sharing with Council A for its view. It accepted this was different to its usual approach but felt it was necessary.
26. In January 2025 Council A agreed to carry out a new OT assessment of Y’s needs. In early February 2025 it contacted Y’s doctor to gather more information on their recent diagnosis. At the same time, it met with Council B. Council B said it was drawing up plans for a level access shower. Council A said its OT had not recommended this.
27. Council A sent Mrs X its new OT assessment of Y in March 2025. It said while Y had received a new diagnosis it was not clear how this would impact Y’s needs in the future. It said Y was physically capable of using the stairs and its recommendation remained to expand the ground floor toilet. It said any decision on further adaptations was for Council B to take. Mrs X disagreed with the assessment and complained to the Ombudsman.
28. Since Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman Council A met with Council B again. Council A confirmed the current application was to improve accessibility to the ground floor toilet and did not include a need for a level access shower. Council B said it had presented Mrs X with three options which she had rejected. Council B confirmed it was not waiting on any further information from Council A.

My findings

29. Council B has already accepted it mishandled Mrs X’s DFG application before March 2024. I have not investigated this period for the reasons set out in paragraphs four and five.
30. The DFG application Council B was under a duty to decide on was to increase access to Mrs X’s ground floor toilet to allow a carer to support Y. When Mrs X confirmed she wished to continue with her application Council B was under a duty to liaise with Council A and decide if the adaptations were necessary and appropriate.
31. Council A provided its OT recommendations when the application restarted. These recommendations remained unchanged following visits to Mrs X’s property and a new assessment of Y in January 2025. Despite this Council B has still not decided Mrs X’s application.
32. While it is understandable Council B has sought Mrs X’s view on proposed schemes, it has accepted itself it has done things “the wrong way round” which caused prolonged period of drift and delay, with the Council failing to complete the works within the expected timescales. This was fault. Council B has considered longer term adaptations which potentially may be required but which were not part of the DFG application and were not considered necessary by the OT. This added to the delay. Given Mrs X’s objections to the proposed schemes I cannot say the delay has resulted in a delay to any adaptations, as Mrs X has not agreed to any of the three proposed schemes. However, the delay has resulted in a period of frustration for Mrs X as the Council has not progressed her application to completion.

Back to top

Action

33. Within one month of the final decision the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Mrs X for the uncertainty caused by the delays identified in this decision. 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.
2. Pay Mrs X £250 to recognise the frustration caused by the delays identified in this decision.
3. Present Mrs X with an adaptations scheme it considers necessary and appropriate and is willing to proceed with. It is open to Mrs X to accept or reject any scheme.
34. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

35. I find fault causing injustice, which Council B has agreed to remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman