Summary: We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her Disabled Facilities Grant application. This is because it is unlikely our involvement would lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Miss B complains about Council delays completing housing adaptations for her disabled child, C, which she requested through a Disabled Facilities Grant application. This means her home does not meet C’s needs. Miss B wants the Council to complete the works she says were agreed in 2024 and pay further compensation for her stress and inconvenience.

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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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 the complainant and the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Miss B is a social housing tenant. Before Miss B brought her complaint to us, she completed the Council’s complaints process and escalated her complaint to the Housing Ombudsman.
5. In its final response, the Council acknowledged there had been delays progressing the adaptations and offered Miss B £250 for her time and trouble. It also outlined a new proposal for the works after Miss B complained its previous proposal did not align with its Occupational Therapist’s recommendations. It seems Miss B did not agree the proposed works met C’s needs and so the work did not start.
6. The Housing Ombudsman considered the Council’s handling of the adaptations as Miss B’s social landlord. It made recommendations to prevent further delays. These included improving communications with the Council’s planning department and updating Miss B on timescales for the proposed adaptations, once she authorised these works.
7. In response to our enquiries, the Council said it had not yet completed the adaptations because Miss B had not agreed to the proposed works. It said it offered Miss B a new Occupational Therapist assessment to review C’s needs and would consider if this merited any changes to the proposals. Miss B recently agreed to this, and an Occupational Therapist has now completed a further assessment.
8. We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint. The Council has acknowledged there have been delays and offered a suitable remedy for the distress caused. I recognise the adaptations have still not progressed. However, on balance, it seems this is due to a disagreement between Miss B and the Council about the works required to meet C’s needs. The Council’s arrangement of a new Occupational Therapist assessment offers an appropriate way forward in these circumstances. It is unlikely an investigation by us would achieve anything more or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint. This is because it is unlikely our involvement would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman