Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council handled her Disabled Facilities Grant request for her son, Y. We will also not investigate her complaint about how the Council handled its statutory housing and safeguarding duties. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council has refused to add asbestos removal to works it approved under a Disabled Facilities Grant for her son, Y. She also complains the Council’s decision does not meet its statutory housing and safeguarding duties to Y. She says this has put Y at risk, and caused her stress, anxiety, and financial pressure. She wants the Council to apologise, fund removal of the asbestos, and review its decision-making processes.

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, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. I also considered the Council’s housing assistance policy, dated March 2023.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, councils can award Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG) to people whose disability means their home needs adaptation.
7. A council must approve a DFG application if it is satisfied the proposed works are:

• for a purpose in section 23 of the Act, such as making the dwelling safe for the disabled occupant;
• necessary and appropriate to meet the disabled person’s needs; and
• reasonable and practicable, given the condition of the property to be adapted.

8. In 2025, Mrs X successfully applied for a DFG for her son, Y. Mrs X said she then found asbestos in her flooring after a floorboard collapsed. She told the Council she was concerned the disturbed asbestos was a greater risk to Y as he spends a lot of time on the floor in the area. She asked the Council to add removal of the asbestos to the approved DFG works.
9. The Council said the asbestos was not in the same area of the property where the DFG works were taking place, so it would not fund its removal as part of the agreed works.
10. Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision. She said the law allows using a DFG to make a house safe for a disabled occupant and the Council’s policy said it will consider works to remove hazards, particularly if there is risk to a disabled person. She said removing the asbestos was necessary due to Y’s disability-related needs, including asthma.
11. In its complaint response, the Council said it did not approve Mrs X’s request. It said the works it agreed under Y’s DFG were not in the affected area, so it had no reason to remove the asbestos. The Council said a DFG can be used to make a home safe if there is a risk specific to the disabled person’s condition, but not to remove general hazards in their home.
12. We will not investigate this part of Mrs X’s complaint. The Council has considered her request in line with the relevant law and explained why it has reached its decision. Where there is insufficient evidence of fault in how a council has considered a matter, we cannot question the outcome, even if a person disagrees with it. There is not enough evidence of fault in its decision-making process to justify investigation.
13. Mrs X also complained the Council should act under its enforcement duties in the Housing Act 2004 and its safeguarding duties in the Children Act 1989.
14. In its complaint response, the Council said Mrs X was a homeowner, so she was responsible for works to remove hazards in her home. Under its housing enforcement policy, it said it offered owner-occupiers like Mrs X advice on testing and removing asbestos.
15. In response to our enquiries, the Council said Y has a children’s social worker and its paediatric occupational therapist is involved in his approved DFG works. It maintained its position that it considered the asbestos removal Mrs X’s responsibility, as a homeowner.
16. We will not investigate these remaining parts of Mrs X’s complaint. Although I acknowledge Mrs X does not agree with the Council’s decision, it appears to have appropriately considered its statutory duties. There is not enough evidence of fault in its handling of this matter to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman