Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms X’s application for a relocation grant. There is not enough evidence of fault causing significant enough personal injustice to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council incorrectly handled her application for a relocation grant. Ms X says she moved house before the application could be approved because of delays by the Council. Ms X says this caused her significant stress and financial loss and wants the Council to review its decision.

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 Ms X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X applied to the Council for a relocation grant in July 2019 which it approved in August 2020. The grant was withdrawn in September 2021 as her house sale fell through. The Council’s policy states an applicant must complete their house move within twelve months of application approval or the relocation grant expires. This relocation grant is no longer available to Ms X.
7. Ms X applied for a further relocation grant in July 2025 based on a new set of circumstances.
8. The Council’s policy states relocation grants may be available to applicants who own or privately rent their property and adaptations to their current home are not practicable. The applicant must intend to live in the new property for a minimum of five years.
9. Any offer of a relocation grant will be subject to a report from a Council approved Occupational Therapist (OT) detailing why the existing property is not suitable for adaptations or it is not cost effective, and the suitability of the new property is considered the most suitable. The applicant must intend to live in the property as their only or main residence.
10. In October 2025 the Council rejected Ms X’s application for the relocation grant for the following reasons:

• the relocation involved a move temporarily into her relative’s home which is not Ms X’s intended long-term location;
• the relative’s home has not been adapted to Ms X’s needs and additional adaptations would be required. As Ms X’s existing property was already adapted in accordance with previous OT recommendations, relocating would not result in a more cost-effective solution;
• Ms X’s move to her relative’s home and sale of her existing property was already in progress when she reapplied for the relocation grant. The Council cannot approve grants where the property sale is underway in line with section 29 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996.

11. Ms X complains her application should not have been rejected as she only moved into her relative’s property before approval because of the Council’s ongoing delays in the handling her case.
12. I have considered the documents and cannot see evidence of substantial delay. The Council made its decision within three months of receiving Ms X’s application. Ms X appears to have placed her property on the market approximately a month prior to submitting her application to the Council in late July 2025. Although Ms X was frustrated by the time the Council took, I am not persuaded this caused her significant personal injustice because the application was ultimately rejected due to Ms X’s existing property sale being underway before application submission.
13. The Council’s policy clearly sets out the eligibility criteria for a relocation grant. The Council has considered this and decided Ms X did not meet the criteria. We are not a right of further appeal and cannot question decisions when the proper process was followed and decisions were properly made without fault.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault causing significant personal injustice to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman