Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a disabled facilities grant. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council did not process her Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) properly and paid a contractor for works that were not completed. She stated a Council officer was dishonest and the Council had not investigated the matter properly. Mrs X stated she had to complete building works at her own cost and there were still issues remaining with the building work. Mrs X stated the process was very stressful. Mrs X would like to confirm the Council’s overspend to the contractor is recouped, and for the Council to cease working with the contractor.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. 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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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

3. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Adaptations to Mrs X’s home were carried out under a DFG in 2024. The Council appointed a contractor to carry out the adaptations and oversaw the work. The relationship between Mrs X and the Council-appointed contractor broke down. Mrs X asked the contractors not to return to her home.
6. Mrs X stated the contractor double charged and invoiced the Council for work that had not been completed. In its complaint response, the Council stated it had checked and approved invoices before payment. The Council also stated that its Audit Team had reviewed the payment process and concluded there were no significant issues.
7. We will not investigate this part of the complaint. Any complaints Mrs X has about the Council’s decision to pay the contractor has not caused her a significant injustice. In addition, the Council stated that it checked the invoices before payment, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions paying the contractor for works at Mrs X’s property.
8. Mrs X stated that her husband had to complete some of the adaptations to their home. The Council stated it reviewed the works at Mrs X’s home and adjusted the final invoice paid to the contractor to reflect the work carried out by Mrs X’s husband.
9. Mrs X stated that a Council officer had been dishonest about the DFG process and invoicing. In its complaint response, the Council stated its Audit Team had examined Mrs X’s claims and concluded they were unsubstantiated. We will not investigate this part of the complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
10. The Council stated it had since awarded a Private Sector Assistance discretionary grant to complete the outstanding works at Mrs X’s property. The Council completed a site visit in January 2025 and confirmed that all outstanding work was due to be finalised shortly. Any concerns about the finished work would need to be considered under a new complaint.
11. Mrs X stated that she would like the Council to stop working with the contractor that carried out works on her property. We will not investigate this part of the complaint because we are not able to achieve the outcome Mrs X wants.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, and any injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman