Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has been at fault in its response to the complainant’s request for financial support for adaptations to 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 failed to respond reasonably to his request for financial support for adaptations to his home.

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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X and his wife care for two children under a Special Guardianship Order (SGO). The children were previously in the Council’s care. Mr X says the Council’s support plan was inadequate and it has avoided providing appropriate support since the SGO was granted.
6. The specific complaint Mr X has made to the Council relates to his request for financial support to adapt his home to provide an extra bedroom. He says the children currently share a room and this situation has become untenable. He believes the Council should agree to make financial provision. He says his request has not received a proper response.
7. The Ombudsman cannot consider the adequacy or otherwise of the support plan. This will have been considered in court when the SGO was made, and this places it outside our jurisdiction. There is no discretion available to us on this point.
8. Turning to Mr X’s request for financial support for home adaptations, councils may decide to provide support in addition to that set out in the support plan but are not required to do so. The evidence Mr X has provided does not support his contention that the Council has avoided responding to his request. Its position is clearly set out in its responses to his complaint in September and October 2023.
9. The question for the Ombudsman is not whether the Council should make the financial provision Mr X has asked for. That is a matter for the Council. Rather, the question for us is whether there is evidence of significant fault in the way the Council made its decision and, if so, whether it is likely that this led to a decision which is demonstrably flawed.
10. The Council’s response properly sets out why it does not agree to Mr X’s request and places its decision in the context of the regulations and statutory guidance governing SGO support. Its decision is defensible and there is no evidence of fault in how it was made. That being the case, the Ombudsman cannot criticise it, or intervene to substitute an alternative view.

Back to top

Final decision

11. 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