Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on Ms X’s Disabled Facilities Grant application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault, in how the Council decided the matter, to justify investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X applied for adaptions to her home under disabled facilities grant (DFG). The Council accepted the application but proposed an alternative adaption to the one Ms X sought. Ms X appealed this decision, but the Council maintained its refusal. Ms X also complained about the Council’s handling of her complaint. Ms X states this caused her distress.

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

My assessment

6. Ms X states the Council refused her request for a ground floor level access shower.
7. Under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, councils must approve adaptations that are necessary, appropriate, and reasonable for the disabled occupant.
8. The Council completed two occupational therapy assessments, considering safety, functional needs, family circumstances, and the practicalities of building work. It initially recommended a through‑floor lift, but when Ms X reported that this was not possible because the property owner refused permission, the Council proposed installing a shower pod instead. The Council told Ms X it would monitor her use of the adaptation and carry out further assessments if her needs changed.
9. 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.
10. In this case, the evidence shows the Council considered Ms X’s application in line with its published policy and explained its decision. I have not seen the evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision therefore will not be investigating.
11. Ms X also complained about the Council’s complaint‑handling process, particularly that it used a single‑stage procedure for her complaint.
12. I will not investigate the Council’s complaint handling. The Council followed Ombudsman guidance in using a single‑stage procedure, so there is not enough evidence of fault in how it handled the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman