Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s assessment for a Disabled Facilities Grant. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council did not assess his finances correctly for a Disability Facilities Grant.
2. Mr X said it has caused distress and left him without adaptations needed in his home.
3. Mr X wants the Council to reconsider his grant application.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

5. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. Under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, councils can award Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG) to people whose disability means their home needs adaptation. If the person applying meets the qualifying criteria the council must award the grant.
9. Mr X asked the Council to carry out an assessment as part of the DFG process. An Occupational Therapist visited his home and made a recommendation for an adapted bathroom. As part of his application Mr X was required to submit evidence of his household income to the Council.
10. The Council calculated that his household income excluded Mr X from receiving a grant. The Council informed Mr X of its decision. Mr X complained to the Council that the financial assessment was not correct and income from his limited company was not relevant.
11. Mr X sought advice from his accountant and asked the Council to review his application once he had updated his financial information. The Council agreed and reassessed his application, it found that the financial contribution Mr X needed to make was unchanged from its previous calculation. The Council signposted Mr X to other sources of support.
12. 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.
13. It is clear Mr X disagrees with the decision reached by the Council. In this case, the Council provided proportional responses to his complaints and reassessed his application upon request. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council followed the DFG process to justify investigating.
14. The DFG does not have an appeals process, the Council provided Mr X with a reassessment as part of its response to his complaint. It also told Mr X where he might be able to access other sources of support. We will not investigate this complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman