Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the repayment of a Disabled Facilities Grant. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council requested the repayment of a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) it paid to his late stepfather, Mr Y, following the sale of his property. 

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y had a DFG so necessary adaptations could be carried out to his property. The Council funded the works and placed a local land charge on the property. Mr Y passed away within the repayment period and Mr X decided to sell the property.
7. Mr X complains the Council are recovering the charge meaning Mr Y’s family will get less money from Mr Y’s estate.
8. The law says before demanding repayment of a DFG a council must consider whether certain exceptions apply and having done that, whether it is reasonable in all circumstances to require repayment.
9. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation has followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, even if someone disagrees with it.
10. The Council appropriately considered the circumstances and decided the exceptions did not apply. It was satisfied that the requirement for repayment was reasonable, and it decided not to use its discretion to waive the repayment request. The Council considered the law and its own policy when it made its decision. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council made this decision.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman