Summary: We cannot investigate Ms Y’s complaint about the Councils handling of her mother’s Disabled Facilities Grant. The complaint is late. For the remainder, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, and we cannot achieve the outcome Ms Y wants.

The complaint

1. Ms Y complained on behalf of her mother that housing adaptations were not completed in reasonable time. She also complained that her mother’s living conditions were poor and that there were delays in her complaint responses.
2. Ms Y said the matter has caused distress.
3. Ms Y wants the Council communications to improve and reconsider the compensation provided.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

9. A Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) was awarded in November 2023 for housing adaptations to the home of Ms Y’s mother.
10. We cannot investigate this part of Ms Y’s complaint. The time for receiving complaints is from when someone became aware of the matter they wished to complain about, not when they complained to the Council. It was reasonable to expect Ms Y to complain to us sooner.
11. In its complaint responses, the Council included information Ms Y disputed and found distressing. The reliability of the information could not be verified because there is no independent corroborating evidence that would support either recollection of what was discussed. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
12. The Council apologised and offered a symbolic financial remedy of £50 for Ms Y’s time and trouble. Ms Y asked we reconsider this amount. I have considered our guidance on remedies, and the Council’s offer appears broadly in line with what we would recommend.
13. We will not investigate this part of Ms Y’s complaint. We cannot achieve the outcome Ms Y wants.
14. Additionally, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms Y’s complaint because it is late. For the remainder, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, and we cannot achieve the outcome Ms Y wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman