Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s disagreement with the Council over adaptations to his home under the Disabled Facilities Grant scheme. This is because further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council refused a disabled parking bay and a walk-in bath despite medical evidence, leaving him unsafe and anxious. He asks for a case review, correction of records, approval for a walk-in bath, and reliable home access or funding guidance.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complains that the Council refused his Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) request for a walk-in bath and a disabled parking bay. Under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, councils must approve adaptations that are necessary, appropriate, and reasonable for the disabled occupant.
6. The Council carried out two occupational therapy assessments, considered safety, functional needs, family circumstances, and building practicality, and explained its reasoning.
7. It decided a level-access shower met Mr X’s needs and was safer than a walk-in bath. For parking, the Council assessed mobility, explored alternatives, and advised on options within its remit.
8. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body. We review whether the Council followed the correct process, not whether its decision was right or wrong. The Council’s records show it considered legal guidance, policy, Mr X’s medical conditions, and OT recommendations. It also offered Mr X the option to trial equipment and to review the situation following this trial.
9. Although Mr X disagrees with the outcome, disagreement alone does not indicate fault.
10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman