Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to agree to the complainant’s request to for the removal of a wall at his home. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr X, complains that the Council has unreasonably refused his request to remove a wall at his home as part of adaptations to be carried out under a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG).

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

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. Mr X’s son has complex additional needs. The Council has agreed to carry out adaptations under a DFG to meet his assessed needs. Mr X says the removal of a wall is necessary to create a larger kitchen area for his son’s safety and the safety of other family members.
6. The Council has declined to agree to the removal of the wall as part of the agreed adaptations. While it accepts that removal may be desirable, it points out that it was not identified as an assessment need in two occupational therapy assessments. Mr X believes the Council’s position is flawed and amounts to discrimination against his son because he is not a wheelchair user.
7. It is not for the Ombudsman to take a view on whether it is appropriate to remove the wall. Rather, it is to consider whether there is evidence that the way the Council considered the matter was demonstrably flawed. There is no such evidence.
8. The Council’s report at Stage 2 of the complaint procedure says that Mr X made the Council’s occupational therapist aware of his view that the wall should be removed, and the reasons for this view. But successive occupational therapy assessments did not identify the removal as essential. The Council was entitled to rely on the professional view of the occupational therapists and to decline the request. The Ombudsman cannot criticise the merits of that decision or intervene to substitute an alternative view. There are therefore no grounds to investigate the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman