Summary: Ms X complained about the outcome of a Disabled Facilities Grant application for adaptations to meet her child’s needs. The Council accepts it delayed in deciding the application and based its decision on inaccurate information. The Council has agreed to apologise, carry out a new assessment and make a payment to Ms X.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the outcome of a Disabled Facilities Grant application for adaptations to meet her child, Y’s, needs. She says the Council took too long to make its decision and failed to properly consider all the information she provided. Ms X says this has caused her family distress. She wants the Council to properly consider her application and compensate her for its failings.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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

How I considered this complaint

4. I have discussed the complaint with Ms X and considered the information she provided. I have also considered information provided by the council.
5. Ms X and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I will consider their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Disable Facilities Grants

6. 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.
7. A council must decide if the proposed works are necessary and appropriate to meet the needs of the disabled person. It must also be satisfied it is reasonable and practicable to carry out the works given the condition of the property to be adapted. An occupational therapist usually assesses need.

What happened

8. Ms X’s child, Y, is autistic and received an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan in February 2020. Y’s younger sibling shares a bedroom with Ms X due to Y’s aggressive behaviour toward them. Ms X asked the Council to assess Y for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). She wanted an extra bedroom to provide Y with more space.
9. An occupational therapist (OT) from the Council assessed Y. The Council’s records show they decided to refer the case to a more senior OT due to its complexity. The senior OT carried out the new assessment and presented the case to the Council’s adaptations panel, along with documents supplied by Ms X. The panel decided it needed more information to decide on the grant. However, rather than ask an officer to collate the information, it placed Y’s case on its waiting list in error and took no further action.
10. The panel considered Y’s case again a year later and did not approve the grant. It said Y was attending a mainstream school without an EHC Plan so did not need extra support. Ms X complained to the Council. The Council apologised for the delay in obtaining extra information for its panel but said Y did not meet the threshold for a DFG. Ms Y complained to the Ombudsman.
11. In response to our enquiries the Council accepted it had mistakenly placed Y’s case on its waiting list following the first panel. It also accepted Y had an EHC Plan. The Council said while this would not have automatically led to a different decision, it had based its decision on inaccurate information. It offered to pay Ms X £500 for the frustration and uncertainty caused, and complete a new assessment of Y.

My findings

12. The Council accepts it delayed in deciding whether to award Y a DFG following its assessment. It also accepts it based its eventual decision on inaccurate information. This is fault and caused Ms X frustration and uncertainty.
13. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we find fault in those processes, it is not for us to decide what the decision would have been, but we ask the Council to take the decision again, without fault.
14. The Council was at fault. In response to our enquiries, it has offered to carry out a new assessment of Y and pay Ms X £500 to recognise the impact of the frustration and uncertainty caused. I am satisfied with the Council’s offer, which is in line with our guidance on remedies.

Back to top

Agreed action

15. Within one month of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Ms X. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
2. Carry out the new assessment of Y. The Council should then present the findings, and any information Ms X wishes to present, to its adaptations panel without delay.
3. Pay Ms X £500 to recognise the impact of its failings.
16. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I have completed my investigation, finding fault causing injustice, which the Council has agreed to remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman