Summary: We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a request for support with the cost of repairs to their home. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complained the Council failed to support them with the cost of repairs to their privately owned property. As a result, they say they remain in a home that is affected by significant disrepair.

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, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr and Mrs X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. In December 2024, Mr and Mrs X contacted the Council’s Home Improvement Agency (HIA) about assistance with the cost of repairs to their roof and bathroom. The Council accepts it overlooked the request and did not respond until Mr and Mrs X contacted it again in March 2025.
6. The Council said it told Mr and Mrs X in March 2025 that the scheme for grants and loans for repairs was on hold, pending a review of the Council’s policy. It said it could add their names to a waiting list for review when the updated policy was in place. Mr and Mrs X were unhappy with the response and made a formal complaint in June 2025.
7. In response to their complaint, the Council offered to do a home visit. An officer visited with a surveyor in August 2025. The Council said its officers confirmed the works needed exceeded the support available (£7,000 prior to the suspension). Mr and Mrs X said they did not receive written confirmation of the outcome of the visit, as promised, nor did the Council arrange for a contractor to visit to provide an estimate of the likely cost of the work needed.
8. In October 2025, the Council had further discussions with Mr and Mrs X, following which it told them they would not be eligible for assistance with the repairs.
9. In a further complaint response, the Council:
• apologised for its delay in responding to their complaint;
• accepted it had not confirmed the outcome of the August visit in writing, for which it apologised and offered to pay them £50;
• confirmed the grant or loan was discretionary and would only be paid if, after carrying out the repairs, the property was left free of category 1 hazards. Mr and Mrs X had said that was not possible;
• said it had sent leaflets from a charity about equity release schemes that may help Mr and Mrs X obtain the funds needed to carry out repairs;
• clarified that its offer was to ask a contractor doing work for the Council in the area Mr and Mrs X live to give them an estimate. As it had not had a contractor working in that area since the visit, it had not been able to arrange this. However, it would ask a contractor to give them an estimate of the cost of roof repairs; and
• explained that, if either Mr or Mrs X had mobility issues, it could ask an occupational therapist (OT) to carry out an assessment to see whether it was possible to use a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) for the bathroom works.

My assessment

10. The Council does not have a legal duty to assist home-owners with the cost of repairs. At the time Mr and Mrs X asked for help its discretionary scheme was suspended. The Council apologised for the initial delay in responding and telling them this, which was sufficient to remedy the injustice caused.
11. Despite not having a “live” scheme, the Council arrange a home visit and gave advice. It apologised for not confirming the outcome of the visit in writing and offered to pay them £50 to remedy this. Further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.
12. The Council provided information about equity release and also offered to consider a DFG for the bathroom if Mr and Mrs X have mobility issues. (A DFG would not cover roof repairs). It has, therefore, provided appropriate support to Mr and Mrs X and there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation.
13. For the above reasons, we will not consider the complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman