Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council rejecting Mr X’s application for assistance to replace rotten wooden windows in his home. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X says his home was not improved on a government grant scheme 15 years ago in his area when others in his area were. He says his windows are rotten and he has disabled family members. He applied to the Council’s Staying put Agency for help to replace his windows but his request was rejected.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6))

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 says his wooden windows in his home are rotten and do not keep out draughts or traffic noise. They provide poor insulation in winter and he asked the Council for grant assistance to replace them. He applied to the Council’s Staying Put Agency and it advised him that it does not carry out window replacement. The Agency provides adaptations for private householders to help them remain in their homes when they have a disability or are elderly.
6. The Council advised Mr X to consider applying for an improvement loan because means-tested grants are normally awarded on an area-basis improvement when government funding is available. The Council told Mr X that improvement loans are used for window and door replacement and may be funded by monthly repayments or by a charge on the property to protect the public interest.
7. Mr X suggested that the Agency has discriminated against him because of his families’ disabilities. The Council has made it clear that the Agency simply is not the body which can assist with window replacement for any applicant because this is funded by a different means which householders may apply for.
8. The Ombudsman is concerned with process. We are not a court of appeal. When considering complaints, we may not question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer any opinion on whether or not we agree with the judgment of the Councils’ officers or members. This means we will not intervene in disagreements about the merits of decisions.
9. There is no statutory duty to offer improvement grants to individual private homeowners. The process is discretionary and the Council has explained to Mr X why he must apply for an improvement loan if there are no grants available to him.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council rejecting Mr X’s application for assistance to replace rotten wooden windows in his home. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman