Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about delays in the Council accepting a disability facilities grant referral and completing an occupational therapy assessment. This is because an investigation would not lead to any worthwhile outcomes.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council delayed in accepting a disability facilities grant (DFG) referral. He says as a result he started building an extension at his own expense. He feels if not for the delay, the DFG would have been agreed to cover the works.

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 an investigation if we decide there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (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 the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X’s mother has care needs. Mr X wanted his mother to move to his house and wished to build an extension to his home to enable this. Mr X applied to his Borough Council for disabled facilities grant (DFG). A DFG can be awarded to a disabled person for adaptation works to be completed to their home.
6. In September 2023, as part of the DFG process, the Borough Council made a referral to the Council for an occupational therapy (OT) assessment to be completed. The Council declined to progress this referral and did not complete an OT assessment. The Council accepted this was a mistake, which was made because of incorrect information being given to the social worker by the OT service. Due to the refusal, Mr X commissioned a contractor to start works on the extension and paid for this himself.
7. In October 2023, a second referral was made to the Council for an OT assessment to be completed. This time the referral was accepted, and the OT assessment was completed in December 2023. At this point, the extension works had been started.
8. The Council sent the Borough Council its recommendations at the end of December 2023. This noted the extension for a wet room had been started and Mr X wanted funding to fit the wet room with a level access shower, non-slip flooring, specialist wash/dry toilet, and wall mounted wheelchair accessible hand wash basin with lever taps. The OT also noted support for funding for the cost of building a bedroom for Mr X’s mother.
9. Mr X wants the Council to reimburse him for the costs he incurred in starting the extension works. He considers this would have been funded under a DFG if not for the Council’s delay in accepting the DFG referral.
10. An investigation is not justified as it would not lead to any worthwhile outcomes. This is because it would not be possible to say, even on balance, what works the OT would have recommended if it had progressed the referral earlier. We also would not be able to make any finding that the OT would have recommended an extension and so would not be able to recommend Mr X was reimbursed.
11. Further, the Council is only responsible for completing the OT assessment and making the recommendations on what adaptations the individual needs. Decisions on the amount of grant to be awarded is made by the Borough Council. This includes any decision to approve a grant if works have already started. Therefore, any complaint about the decision not to reimburse Mr X needs to be made to the Borough Council.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation would not lead to any worthwhile outcomes.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman