Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s assessment as part of her request for a Disabled Facilities Grant. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, complained about the Council’s assessment carried out as part of her request for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) to help support her child (Y). Mrs X says the Occupational Therapist (OT) who carried out the assessment was not suitably experienced. Mrs X says the OT’s report was inaccurate, did not take into account relevant information, and the OT had pre-determined the outcome of the assessment.

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

What I found

Disabled Facilities Grants

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. If the person applying meets the qualifying criteria the council must award the grant.
7. A council must decide if the proposed works are necessary and appropriate to meet the needs of the disabled person. Councils only approve grants if these tests are met. An OT usually assesses need.

Mrs X’s request

8. Mrs X asked the Council to carry out an assessment as part of the DFG process. An OT visited her home and met with Mrs X and Y. The OT observed Y. The OT decided in their professional view they could not support Mrs X’s request for a downstairs bathroom. The OT recommended several options for Mrs X to explore and some other actions for the Council.
9. Mrs X complained to the Council about the assessment and its outcome. In its responses to Mrs X the Council responded to her concerns about some of the OT’s comments. They said the OT had taken into account the evidence they considered relevant. It was sorry if Mrs X felt her attempts to provide evidence were dismissed. The Council said funding should not impact the OT’s recommendations and age was not a reason to deny support. The Council accepted its decision could have been more clearly explained. However, the OT had decided the requested adaptations were not necessary and appropriate. It could not therefore agree to the grant and there were no grounds to carry out a further assessment.

Assessment

10. The Ombudsman is 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 followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the Council made.
11. Mrs X clearly disagrees with the decisions reached by the OT. But the evidence available shows an OT visited Mrs X’s property to carry out the assessments. They observed Y and took into account the evidence they considered relevant. The OT considered the difficulties raised by Mrs X but decided the adaptations were not “necessary and appropriate”. The OT therefore followed the expected process and applied the correct tests. The OT decided what steps the Council and Mrs X should take. The Council considered Mrs X’s complaint and provided what I considered proportional and reasonable responses.
12. So, while Mrs X clearly disagrees with the decisions reached by the OT, there is not enough evidence of fault for us to question their decisions and professional judgment. We will not therefore investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman