Summary: Mrs F complained the Council delayed completing adaptations to her home following her application for a disabled facilities grant. We found fault which caused the adaptations to be delayed by about a year. This has caused significant distress to Mrs F who was unable to access suitable bathing and kitchen facilities independently. The Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment of £4,200 to Mrs F to remedy that injustice and make service improvements.

The complaint

1. Mrs F complained the Council delayed completing adaptations to her home following her application for a disabled facilities grant.
2. Mrs F said this has caused her significant distress and has adversely affected her independence and day-to-day living, including preparing food for her family, overall wellbeing and family life.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
6. 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

7. Mrs F came to the Ombudsman in August 2025. So her complaint about events prior to August 2024 are late. As set out in paragraph 4, I have decided to exercise discretion to investigate from the occupational therapy assessment and recommendations of October 2023. This is to make sense of the complaint and because any avoidable delay from then may have caused injustice to Mrs F. The period of my investigation is therefore October 2023 to August 2025.
8. I have decided I do not have sufficient grounds to exercise discretion from May 2022 to October 2023. This is because Mrs F could have complained at the time, I have seen no good reasons why she could not have complained sooner, there is no evidence of fault and I do not consider it is proportionate to now investigate to look for any fault.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I spoke to Mrs F’s representative about the complaint and considered the information he sent, the Council’s response to my enquiries and relevant law and guidance, including the Government’s publication “Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) Delivery: Guidance for local authorities in England”, March 2022 (“the Guidance”).
10. Mrs F and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Disabled Facilities Grants - relevant law and guidance

11. Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs) are provided under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Councils have a statutory duty to give grants up to a maximum of £30,000 to disabled people for certain adaptations. These include enabling the disabled person to access their home and essential facilities within the home.
12. Where adaptations will cost more than £30,000, councils have discretion to provide more funding if they have a locally published Housing Assistance Policy (made under the Regulatory Reform (Housing Assistance) (England and Wales) Order 2002).
13. The Government funded organisation, Foundations, provides support and advice to councils on providing DFGs and adaptations to property. It recommends that councils adopt a “high-cost home adaptations protocol” to consider how to deliver adaptations above the DFG threshold.
14. We expect councils to consider whether interim equipment, support or temporary works should be provided when it will take them a long time to secure a permanent solution.

DFG process

15. The process of applying for a DFG usually requires:
• An assessment by an occupational therapist (OT) or other qualified assessor to identify the person’s needs;
• A schedule of works setting out the adaptations to meet the identified needs. Complex adaptations might also need plans or technical drawings;
• Quotes from at least two contractors for the cost of the works; and
• Certificates and approvals from both a tenant and a landlord, where the applicant is a tenant, or an owner's certificate if the applicant owns their own home.
16. Before approving a grant, a council must be satisfied the work is necessary, appropriate for the disabled person’s needs, and is reasonable and practicable. Councils usually do this by assessing the feasibility of the works. When the council has all the necessary information, the formal grant application is complete.
17. The Council’s Home Adaptations Policy from 2020 says it considers that an application for a DFG has been submitted only at the point when a satisfactorily completed application form, along with quotations for the work, landlord certificates and any relevant permission has been received. Where a grant is to be means tested, evidence of financial income and savings and signed certificates of future occupation will be required.

DFG application timescales

18. The Act says the council should decide a grant application as soon as possible and must do so within six months. The council must pay the grant in full within 12 months of the application date.
19. The statutory timescales do not begin until the council receives a complete application. However, the preparatory work before the application is made is still part of the overall process and must be carried out without unreasonable delay.
20. The Guidance identifies five key stages in the process and sets out expected timescales that should be met in 95% of cases. The timescales depend on the urgency and complexity of the works required. The target timescales for “non-urgent and complex” works are:
• Stage 0: First contact with the service. Councils should ensure the public has access to information and advice about the DFG process.
• Stage 1: First contact to assessment and identification of the relevant works. An OT will assess the person’s needs and potential solutions through home adaptations. – 35 working days
• Stage 2: Identification of the relevant works to submission of the formal grant application. The person completes and submits the application form together with designs and costing for the works. – 55 working days
• Stage 3: Grant application to grant decision. The Council will check the application and issue a decision letter. If a council refuses a grant, it must explain why. – 20 working days
• Stage 4: Approval of grant to completion of works. The works are arranged and carried out and the necessary quality checks made. – 80 working days
21. This means it is best practice for 95% of non-urgent and complex works cases to be completed within 180 working days (about eight months) of the person’s first contact.
22. Paragraph 4.19 of the Guidance says councils should put information about the DFG process on their websites. This should include target timescales for operating different parts of the process, such as times taken for assessment, survey, approval and construction stages. The Council’s Home Adaptations Policy does not set any timescales for carrying out Stages 1 and 2; it says grants will be approved within six months of receiving a valid application.

What happened

23. I have summarised the events.
24. Mrs F uses a wheelchair and owns her own home where she lives with her husband and son. In 2022, Mrs F was sleeping in a room downstairs. There was a downstairs toilet but Mrs F could not access the upstairs bathroom. She could not safely use much of the kitchen because the worktops, sink, cupboards and appliances were not wheelchair accessible. There was an OT assessment in May 2022 which recommended a stairlift and kitchen adaptations.
25. The stairlift was installed but Mrs F told the Council that she did not feel safe using it without the help of her husband, who was often abroad. There was a discussion about installing a lift in February 2023, but Mrs F did not consider this would be suitable.
26. Mrs F completed a means test form for a DFG in June 2023. An OT visited on 30 June and found there was not enough space to install a level access shower on the ground floor.
27. On 2 August, the OT completed an assessment which recommended a ground floor extension to provide a bedroom, level-access shower room and adapted kitchen. At this point, the best practice would be for a feasibility assessment to be done, designs drawn up and quotes obtained so that a DFG application form could be submitted within 55 working days (i.e. by 18 October 2023).
28. A council officer and a design consultant visited Mrs F’s home on 12 October to assess the feasibility of the extension. The report of this assessment was sent to the Council on 7 November. It found that an extension would cost more than the DFG limit and would therefore also require a discretionary grant. A Council manager approved progressing with the scheme in December.
29. In response to Mrs F’s complaint and my enquiries, the Council referred to a financial review needing to be done in early 2024 to determine if the scheme could go ahead, but I have seen no evidence of this.
30. In February 2024, there were further visits to Mrs F’s home to discuss the design requirements. A design consultant was appointed on 5 March to draw up the plans. The consultant visited Mrs F with the proposed plans on 19 April. Mrs F then asked for some changes to be made. Amended plans were sent to the OT on 1 May for approval.
31. Adult social care assessed Mrs F’s care and support needs on 9 May. This found Mrs F’s husband had been away since 30 April and so she had been unable to access the shower upstairs. The Council put in place support of two visits a day to help Mrs F with washing and dressing. This ended on 24 May. I have not seen the reason why the support was ended.
32. The Council applied for planning permission on 20 May which was approved on 23 July. There were then discussions with utilities. Building regulations approval was applied for on 19 September and received on 6 November.
33. The Council says a tender pack was compiled in January 2025. It sent out a tender pack to three contractors on 7 March. Three quotes were submitted by 31 March.
34. Mrs F complained on 26 April that the adaptations had not yet been started. She said she could not use the stairlift independently.
35. On 1 May, a Council Director declined the quotes and said the project would need to be advertised on the Council's tendering portal. This was done on 22 May.
36. The Council’s complaint response of 29 May acknowledged that the length of time taken was frustrating. The Council said it had been progressing the project in good faith and had needed to re-tender. Mrs F asked to escalate her complaint to the final stage.
37. On 23 June, a Council Director said DFG works did not need to be advertised on the Council's tendering portal. The Council sent the three original quotes to Mrs F on 21 July. On 31 July she notified the Council of the contractor she wished to use.
38. The Council’s final complaint response of 14 July said the adaptation scheme had now been approved and was expected to take around 12–14 weeks to complete. The Council suggested Mrs F may need to move out temporarily while the work was carried out. The Council apologised for the delays which it said were caused by the complexity of the project, procurement changes and staffing issues. The Council did not consider compensation to Mrs F was appropriate. Mrs F came to the Ombudsman.
39. The Council sent its DFG paperwork to Mrs F on 15 August for her to sign. Works started on 4 September. The works were completed on 2 March 2026, following some pauses for a hospital admission, changes to the kitchen layout and Christmas.

My findings

40. After the OT recommended an extension in October 2023, the DFG process moved to Stage 2. This includes carrying out a feasibility assessment, drawing up plans and obtaining quotes from contractors. To be in line with the timescales in the Guidance, Stage 2 should have been completed by 18 October 2023 and a grant application decided by 18 April 2024.
41. In this case, the DFG application process was not completed until August 2025. I accept that in a major, complex, high-cost adaptation it is unlikely that the best practice target timescales will be met. However, I have found the following delays by the Council.
42. The feasibility assessment started in October 2023. I can see no good reason why it could not have started in August 2023 once the OT recommendation was received. My view is this is delay. It took about four weeks to complete, so I consider it should have been completed by about 4 September rather than 7 November. I therefore find there was about a 9-week delay in the feasibility assessment.
43. The designs, plans and drawings took about seven weeks to be completed. But the design consultant was not commissioned until 5 March 2024. There were some discussions with Mrs F in February but it is unclear why these had to take place before plans could be requested. The Council has also said it had to do a financial review in early 2024, but I have seen no evidence of what this was or why it was necessary. I therefore find it was fault not to ask the design consultant to draw up plans once the feasibility assessment had been completed in November 2023. So I find there was a delay in commissioning the design consultant of about 12 weeks.
44. If there had been no earlier delay in the feasibility assessment, the design consultant could have been appointed in September 2023 and the plans sent to the OT for approval in November 2023, rather than May 2024.
45. I do not consider there was a delay in applying for building regulations approval. Although the planning permission was granted on 23 July 2024 and the building regulations approval was sought on 19 September, there were discussions with utilities in between. I have not seen any evidence of delay caused by fault by the Council.
46. Once it had plans and permissions in November 2024, the Council could obtain quotes from builders. But it did not do so until March 2025. I have seen no good reason for this delay, so I find it to be fault. This means there was about a 16-week delay in obtaining quotes.
47. The quotes were received on 31 March 2025. At this stage they should have been shared with Mrs F so a contractor could be chosen and a DFG application form submitted for approval. Instead, the Council sent the quotes to a Director for approval and then advertised the job on the Council’s tendering portal. This decision was overturned in June and the quotes shared with Mrs F on 21 July. I therefore find there was a 16-week delay in progressing to stage 3 of the DFG process.
48. I have not seen any evidence of an application form being submitted or of any formal decision to approve the DFG, discretionary grant and top-up grant. I consider this to be fault as the Council should have proper records of DFG applications and approvals. But this in itself does not cause significant injustice to Mrs F.
49. The Guidance says councils should publish information about the DFG process on their websites, including information about target timescales. The Council’s website has a link to its Home Adaptations Policy, which pre-dates this Guidance, but the policy does not include any timescales. My view is this is fault but it does not cause significant injustice to Mrs F.
50. I have not seen any evidence of delay in the building works which were caused by fault by the Council.
51. If the Council had met the target timescales in the Guidance, the grant application would have been submitted by 18 October 2023. The Act says councils have six months to approve the application, so it would have been decided by 18 April 2024 and works completed within 80 working days, so by 12 August 2024. Instead they were completed in March 2026.
52. As this was a complex project it is likely it would not have met the Guidance timescales and I note that some of the time was taken up with obtaining planning approvals, discussions with utilities and drawing up and amending plans, which was not fault. But the Council was aware that Mrs F’s condition was deteriorating and it should have therefore tried to progress the scheme as quickly as possible. Instead, as set out above, I have found there were delays totalling 53-weeks. This is fault.
53. Mrs F needed the extension so that she could access a shower when her husband was away and cook independently. I have no information about how often her husband was away and the Council put some support in place in May 2024. Nonetheless, the delay in completing the DFG process meant Mrs F was unable to access a shower independently or use the kitchen for about a year longer than necessary. This is a significant injustice.
54. When we have evidence of fault causing injustice, we will seek a remedy for that injustice which aims to put the complainant back in the position they would have been in if nothing had gone wrong. When this is not possible, we will normally consider asking for a symbolic payment to acknowledge the avoidable distress caused.
55. Our guidance on remedies says that where someone has been deprived of adaptations which would have increased their independence and improved their daily life, we will usually recommend a remedy payment in the range of £150 to £350 a month. 
56. Taking into account that Mrs F was unable to independently access bathing facilities and could not access them at all for at least some of the time, could not cook, had a deteriorating condition and that no interim support was put in place by the Council, I consider that a sum of £350 per month is appropriate.
57. In my draft decision, I recommended the Council review its 2020 Home Adaptations Policy to ensure it is in line with the 2022 Guidance and consider adopting a high-cost home adaptations protocol. In response the Council said it is currently undertaking a comprehensive review of its housing and support services, including a review of its Adaptations Policy. The new policy will incorporate clear service standards and target timescales and ensure that the revised policy aligns with the requirements and principles set out in the Guidance. The Council will also consider whether to adopt a high-cost home adaptations protocol. The Council expects this review to be completed by April 2027.

Back to top

Action

58. Within a month of my final decision, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs F for the delay in completing the DFG process and pay her £4,200 (£350 x 12 months) to remedy the significant distress this caused.
59. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.
60. Within three months of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Publish target timescales information on its website to comply with paragraph 4.19 of the Guidance.
2. Produce a procedure for dealing with DFG applications. This should clarify what application form needs to be completed and that an application is complete once quotations for the work, landlord certificates and any relevant permission have been received. It should also include how grants will be approved and how this will be recorded.
61. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

62. There was fault by the Council. The actions the Council has agreed to take remedy the injustice caused. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman