Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Disabled Facilities Grant. Part of the complaint is late, and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the adaptations to her home, made under a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG), did not meet her and her disabled child’s needs.
2. Miss X complains about delays in the Council’s complaint’s handling procedure.
3. Miss X says she is exhausted from going through the complaints procedure. She wants the Council to provide suitable adaptations and complete the complaints procedure.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
5. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. This complaint is against the social care authority, the County Council. The local housing authority is the Borough Council. The County Council is responsible for meeting the needs of the disabled child and for the Occupational Therapist’s (OT’s) role in making sure the adaptations are necessary and appropriate.
9. Miss X complains an OT assessment done in 2023 did not adequately reflect her or her child’s needs. Miss X complained to us in December 2025, and I see no reason she could not have brought a complaint to us sooner. So, the restriction in paragraph five applies.
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 you disagree with the decision the organisation made. The Council commissioned a new OT assessment in July 2025. I have seen no evidence of fault in how the assessment was done, so we cannot investigate it.
11. Ms X says she the contractors finished working on the adaptations in December 2023, and she raised concerns with the Council about the quality of the adaptations throughout 2024. Due to restriction in paragraph five, we will not investigate how the Council responded to those raised concerns. Additionally, the Council is not responsible for overseeing the physical construction of the adaptations, and Miss X has separately raised complaints with the local housing authority about physical defects.
12. The County Council and the local housing authority are still working to identify and install the necessary adaptations to meet Miss X and her child’s needs. An investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. So, we will not investigate.
13. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we decide not to investigate the substantive issue. In any case, since Miss X complained to us, the Council has completed its complaints procedure.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because parts of the substantive complaint are late, and an investigation is unlikely.to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman