Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council carried out adaptations to Ms X’s home that it funded by a Disabled Facilities Grant. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X says the contractors who carried out Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) work wrongly placed the lock on the gate too high and her husband could not reach it from his wheelchair. Ms X further complains the Council refused to lay slabs for a garden path for her husband to access the garden. Ms X says the work took too long and her and her husband, Y, felt insecure. Ms X wants the Council to install a suitable gate and lay paving slabs.

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))

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. Ms X and Y received adaptations to their home funded by a DFG. Y is a wheelchair user, and the adaptations were to allow him to access the garden.
6. Ms X said the contractors positioned the lock too high on the gate and Y was not able to reach it from a wheelchair.
7. The Council said it would re-position the gate lock free of charge. The Council said the contractor attended to move the lock, but Ms X told them she did not want them to lower it. I understand Ms X asked the contractor to add a dead lock bolt to the gate. The Council refused because it was outside the scope of the DFG.
8. Ms X complained the Council said it would complete the work within three weeks, but it took three months. The Council said the delay was because it discovered a concrete column which meant the work would be more complicated and it required a structural engineer.
9. Ms X complained the Council refused to lay slabs to form a garden path to help Y access the garden. The Council said it laid slabs as a base for the garden gate, but the statement of works said the DFG would not fund a pathway to the house. Ms X signed the statement of works to say she agreed with what it said. The Council said the Occupational Therapist did not recommend a pathway.
10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council explained what it could fund through the DFG, offered to move the lock to an accessible height and provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in completing the work. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman