Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of disabled adaptations. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons to investigate now. Further, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of disabled adaptations for his children, funded by a disabled facilities grant. He said the Council:
• asked him to arrange some work privately, for which it would reimburse him, but it did not offer a reasonable amount towards the work;
• refused to put right underground waste pipe work it carried out, which meant a toilet and the kitchen were not connected;
• refused to agree to use contingency money to cover the cost of changing the window colour so they matched the rest of the house; and
• sided with the contractor at every stage in the process.
2. Mr X said the Council’s failings meant the work was not completed and the family has been living in a building site for over two years. This caused safety issues for his children, who still do not have their own rooms. He said the failings caused the family emotional distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

8. Mr X applied to the Council for a disabled facilities grant (DFG) to fund adaptations to meet the needs of his two disabled children. The Council assessed the children as needing their own rooms and agreed to fund an extension to provide two ground floor bedrooms and a shower room. The Council went out to tender and appointed a contractor to carry out the DFG funded work, which started in July 2023.
9. In addition to the DFG funded works, Mr X wanted to make further alterations to the family home, which he was arranging and funding privately. This included a second story above the children’s bedrooms, which meant there was no need for the flat roof above those bedrooms that had been included in the contractor’s quote. The Council agreed to pay a sum equivalent to the cost of constructing the flat roof towards the second story pitched roof. Council communications show the contractor confirmed the amount included for the flat roof, which was not evident from the original quote which grouped some elements of the work together. The Council offered that sum to Mr X and explained how it was calculated, including the VAT implications. Mr X did not consider the sum offered was sufficient.
10. In August, building control identified some concerns with the steelwork in relation to the private works that required rectification. And the contractor reported some difficulties in progressing the DFG works due to the impact of the private works. They said they would pull off site and return later to complete the bedrooms and shower room. Building control signed off on the steelworks and roof in late October 2023 and in November the contractor offered to return to site. However, Mr X said he did not want further work to be done until various questions had been addressed, including the contribution towards the cost of the pitched roof. That matter was not resolved so no further DFG works were done.
11. Mr X made a formal complaint and the Council responded in July and October 2024. In its complaint responses it said:
• the DFG covered the cost of the level access shower, toilet and hand basin with waste pipes out towards the road. As part of the privately funded works, the contractor had agreed to add an extra section of pipework to allow connection to an extra toilet in the garden. No work on kitchen and bathroom waste pipes was included in the DFG;
• the DFG funding was to meet the disability needs of the children, which included two bedrooms and a shower room. The DFG included a sum for white windows. If Mr X preferred a different colour to match the rest of the house, he could pay the extra £280 they would cost, but they were not required to meet a disability need. It also refused to use the contingency fund, which was available for unforeseen circumstances, to meet the cost of a preference;
• explained it had provided a breakdown from the contractor of the sum allowed for the flat roof and had shared appropriate evidence of this with Mr X in communications with him between August and December 2023;
• its records did not show it had sided with the contractor.

My assessment

12. We usually expect people to complain to us within 12 months of the events complained about. Mr X complained to us in August 2025 about events from July to December 2023. I note the Council signposted to us in its final complaint response in October 2024. There is no indication Mr X could not have complained to us earlier and no good reasons to decide to investigate now.
13. Even if we considered the whole period of the complaint, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigation. The records seen show the Council was clear about what was, and what was not, covered by the DFG funding. The records also show it sought clarification from the contractor about the sum included in their quote for the flat roof and explained how the amount offered was calculated. It also explained its reasons for deciding not to fund the extra amount required for coloured windows and why the contingency fund could not be used for that purpose. The DFG work was not completed because Mr X did not allow the contractor back on site after they left in August 2023, although I note the Council agreed in its final complaint response to identify an alternative contractor to carry out the DFG works in an effort to resolve the matter. The records do not show the Council sided with the contractor.
14. For all the above reasons, we will not consider the complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to decide to investigate now. In any case, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman