Summary: Mr X complained that the Council is withholding part of the mandatory Disabled Facilities Grant for his daughter and refused to provide a discretionary top-up grant. We find no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making, but we do find fault in the Council’s lack of joined-up working with the county council. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and improve its services.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his application for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) for his daughter, Y. He specifically says the Council:
1. is withholding part of the mandatory DFG; and
2. has refused to provide a discretionary top-up grant.
2. He says this has caused him distress, uncertainty, and significant financial strain.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. For part a) of Mr X’s complaint, I have not investigated the Council’s 2023 decision to release 90% of the DFG during the first phase of the work, with the remaining 10% to be paid upon completion of the garden access. For part b), I have not investigated the Council’s 2021 decision to refuse a discretionary top-up grant.
7. This is because Mr X was aware of both decisions for more than 12 months before bringing his complaint to us. These are therefore late complaints, and there is no good reason to investigate them now. However, I have investigated the Council’s decisions made from November 2023 onwards.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Disabled Facilities Grants

10. 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.
11. Councils only approve grants for work they decide is necessary. An occupational therapist usually assesses need. Where a borough council is responsible for DFGs, the occupational therapist may work for a county council. Borough and county councils should work together to provide a well-coordinated DFG service.
12. The maximum amount of mandatory grant is £30,000. Grants for children are not means-tested. Councils can decide to give more help if they think it is necessary. If an adaptation is required to meet an assessed need and the cost of the works will exceed the maximum grant available, the remainder could be met either by the borough/district council using its discretionary powers or by social services departments at the county council under the other legislation set out below.
13. The DFG can either be paid in instalments as the work progresses or in full on completion. If paying by instalments, no more than 90% of the grant can be paid before the works are completed. (Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, section 35)

Other sources of funding

14. In 2002, the government introduced the Regulatory Reform (Housing Assistance) Order. This provided councils with wide discretionary powers to give assistance for adaptations. Such assistance may be subject to conditions including repayments or making a contribution towards the cost of the work. Where councils choose to exercise these discretionary powers, they should publish a policy which sets out how they will so do.
15. Under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, councils with social services functions have a duty to arrange for adaptations to a person’s home to secure their safety, comfort or convenience.
16. Under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989, councils with social services functions have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need in their area. A child with a disability is considered to be a child in need. Under the Act, councils can provide financial assistance to a child or family. Such financial assistance may be unconditional or subject to repayment in full or part. Before providing financial assistance, councils should consider the child or parents’ financial circumstances. The courts have said the functions of a council under Section 17 of the Act can extend to providing major adaptations to a child’s home.

Approach to DFG by the Council

17. The Council’s DFG policy in place at the time of event stated that grant payments will be made when the grant eligible works are completed satisfactorily and on receipt of the contractor’s (or in the case of materials, supplier’s) invoice. Council Officers may inspect the grant works during their progress and are able to make interim payments where appropriate.
18. Discretionary grants depend on the availability of funding, and mandatory grants will always be given priority. Discretionary funding is only available for eligible works.
19. The Council has a discretionary top-up grant of up to £30,000 per property. This grant is intended to help where a major adaptation is essential to meet the needs of a disabled person or child, and all other options such as moving home have been considered. For this discretionary grant, the financial means test will be on the owner or tenant of the property irrespective of whether they are considered the relevant person for the purposes of the mandatory Disabled Facility Grant application.
20. A local land charge for the full amount will be placed on the owner-occupied property for up to a ten-year period in addition to any mandatory grant local land charge.

What happened

Background information

21. In 2021, Mr X was in contact with the Council about applying for a DFG to make improvements to his home to support his child, Y. The Council explained the proposed works were likely to exceed the £30,000 DFG limit. A means tested discretionary top-up grant might be available, but if he was not successful at securing this, the cost of the work over £30,000 would need to come from Mr X. Mr X was found ineligible for top-up funding.
22. Mr X wished to carry out additional, non-essential works (his preferred scheme) beyond those eligible under the DFG. The Council agreed to this, provided he could demonstrate he had the necessary private funds. As the total cost exceeded his private funds, Mr X decided to complete the works in two phases.
23. In February 2023, the Council told Mr X that if the works were phased and garden access for Y was not included in the first phase, only 90% of the DFG would be paid initially. The remaining 10% would be released upon completion of the garden access. Drawings of the phased works and evidence of private funds were submitted in September.
24. In October, Mr X formally submitted a DFG application for adaptations to support Y. As Y is a child, the full £30,000 grant was approved. Work began the following month.

Mr X’s complaint

25. In November 2023, Mr X asked the Council to reassess him for a discretionary top-up grant. The Council provided the application form and advised him that unless his financial circumstances had changed since 2021, the outcome would likely be the same. Mr X was also advised to explore funding options from West Sussex County Council. He did not submit a new application.
26. In April 2024, Mr X requested the Council consider his case exceptional and award the discretionary top-up. The Council asked him to complete an application form but maintained that his circumstances did not appear exceptional. He was again advised to contact the county council for additional support.
27. Later that month, Mr X complained to the Council about the refusal to award the discretionary top-up and for withholding 10% of the DFG. He referenced a 2021 email stating that the DFG would fund only one access point to the property, which had been completed. He requested the final 10% be released.
28. In May, the Council issued its final response. It confirmed that Mr X had been found ineligible for the discretionary top-up in 2021, and a recent reassessment produced the same result due to no significant change in his income or the eligibility criteria. The Council considered Mr X’s individual circumstances but did not find sufficient grounds to exercise discretion and award the top-up. The Council acknowledged the total cost of eligible works exceeded the DFG limit but noted Mr X had provided evidence of sufficient funds to cover the difference. It clarified that while Mr X chose to pursue a preferred higher-cost scheme, the DFG only applies to the simplest and most cost-effective adaptations necessary. The Council reiterated that part of the DFG was allocated for garden access and that the remaining 10% would be released upon completion of the work.
29. In November, Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.

My findings

Withholding part of the grant

30. The Council informed Mr X in February 2023 that because the works would be phased, and garden access would not be completed in phase one, only 90% of the DFG would be released initially. Although Mr X later referred to previous advice stating only one access point would be funded, the Council confirmed that garden access was part of Y’s assessed needs. Once this work is completed, the remaining 10% will be paid. The Council’s actions are in line with the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (paragraph 13). There is no fault in the Council’s actions or decision.

Discretionary top-up grant

31. Mr X was awarded the full £30,000 DFG. His application for a discretionary top-up was declined due to his income. He later demonstrated he had sufficient private funds to complete the eligible works and chose to undertake a more extensive preferred scheme. The Council advised Mr X to contact the county council, which later provided a letter supporting his application for a grant to help cover the cost of a piece of equipment.
32. In 2024, Mr X again requested the Council consider his case exceptional. The Council reviewed this request but decided not to exercise discretion. The Council followed its own DFG policy in making this decision. As there was no fault in the decision-making process, I cannot criticise the decision itself. The Council has also ensured that it has considered Mr X’s specific circumstances and has not fettered its discretion.

Joined-up working

33. The Council does not have social services functions under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 or the Children Act 1989. These are functions of the county council. Therefore, the Council could not make other funding available under these acts.
34. As per paragraphs 11 and 12, borough and county councils should work together to provide a joined-up and well-coordinated DFG service, particularly where a case involves both housing adaptation and social care needs. While the Council did direct Mr X to the county council, there is no evidence of proactive collaboration or follow-up to ensure the appropriate support was in place. Simply signposting an applicant to another authority is not sufficient to meet the expectation of joint working. In complex cases such as this, where a disabled child’s needs span both housing and social care, it is particularly important for councils to collaborate effectively. The lack of coordinated effort was fault and caused Mr X avoidable distress and uncertainty.

Back to top

Action

35. To remedy the injustice caused by the above fault, within four weeks of the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology.
36. Within three months of the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to review existing joint working arrangements with the county council and either adopt an established protocol or develop its own to ensure effective, coordinated delivery of DFG-related services. In doing so, it should refer to good practice examples, such as the joint working protocol available on the Foundations website.
37. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

38. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy the injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman