Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to agree the disabled facilities grant Mr X requested. While it carried out two assessments that were not adequate, its third assessment was not fault as it properly considered his child’s needs. As the third assessment did not result in a better offer, the lack of thoroughness in the previous two did not cause any injustice to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X said the Council had wrongly turned down his request for a disabled facilities grant (DFG) for his child three times. He said it had wrongly stated it could not agree to works costing more than £30,000.

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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.

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

3. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council accepts the first two assessments of the family’s needs it carried out were not sufficiently thorough. However, the third assessment reached the same view about the family’s needs as the first two. The Council therefore made the same offer under DFG funding each time. Mr X had wanted works on a larger scale than the Council decided were necessary to meet his child’s needs.
7. The third assessment decision explained in detail why the occupational therapist who carried it out did not agree with Mr X. It dealt with all the issues raised by Mr X regarding his family. While Mr X has a different view of his family’s needs, the Council’s decision was reached properly after the third assessment. This difference of view is not evidence of fault. I have seen no evidence that the Council’s decision after the third assessment was based on limiting the cost to £30,000 rather than the actual assessed needs.
8. The fault in the previous two assessments did not cause Mr X a significant injustice. He already had the offer of works under a DFG that was validated by the third assessment. And the additional consideration did not result in a different decision, simply one that was more thoroughly evidenced.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:

• There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council reached its eventual decision to warrant this; and
• Its earlier decisions did not create any significant injustice for Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman