Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a disabled facilities grant or the Council’s decision not to waive a local land charge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained, on behalf of Mr Y, about the Council’s decision-making in relation to a disabled facilities grant. Mr X said The Council’s decision affects Mr Y’s ability to pay for his residential care.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Disabled Facilities Grant

7. In 2017, the Council agreed to a disabled facilities grant (DFG) to install a level access shower and stair lift in Mr and Mrs Y’s property. Its letter confirming the grant explained that a local land charge (which meant part of the grant may have to be repaid in certain circumstances) would be registered for £10,000. After answering some queries from Mr and Mrs Y and their daughter, Ms Z, Mr and Mrs Y confirmed their agreement to the DFG and the works were completed.
8. Mr X says the Council should not have made the grant because:
• Mr Y did not have mental capacity to sign the agreement and Mr X, who had a lasting power of attorney (LPA) for Mr Y, was not consulted;
• Mrs Y was terminally ill at the time; and
• the Council relied on evidence from occupational therapists (OTs) rather than clinical psychologists.
9. In its complaint response, the Council explained that:
• it had no concerns about the couple’s capacity to agree to the adaptations or DFG at the time, and was not aware Mr X had an LPA; and
• Mr and Mrs Y were fully aware of the process and their daughter, Ms Z, was also kept informed.

DFG – My assessment

10. We usually expect people to complain to us within 12 months of the events complained about or within 12 months of having notice of them. I acknowledge Mr X was not aware of the local land charge until 2024, so the complaint is not late.
11. The law says people should be presumed to have capacity to make a decision for themselves unless it is established that they lack capacity. The Council was not required to consult medical or other professionals to assess capacity in the absence of any issues that raised concerns about this. Further, there was no need for the Council to consult Mr X, the holder of an LPA for Mr Y, unless it had established Mr Y did not have capacity to decide the matter for himself.
12. An OT assessed the adaptations were needed to allow the couple to continue to live in their home as long as possible. There is no indication that this was not in their best interests at the time.
13. The Council provided appropriate information about the terms of the DFG, including the local land charge, and answered the family’s questions before Mr and Mrs Y signed the agreement.
14. We will not consider this part of the complaint further because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Local land charge

15. In 2024, Mr X arranged for Mr and Mrs Y’s home to be sold. Although the Council initially advised him the DFG did not need to be repaid, it later said the local land charge did apply and Mr Y would need to repay £10,000 from the sale proceeds. Mr X challenged that decision on the grounds it would affect Mr Y’s ability to pay his care home fees. The Council considered the appeal, but decided the local land charge should stand.
16. The Council provided a record of his decision-making to show it had considered the factors it was legally required to before demanding repayment. These include “the extent to which the recipient of the grant would suffer financial hardship were he to be required to repay all or any of the grant”. In its decision letter to Mr X it explained it had considered all the information Mr X had provided about Mr Y’s finances before deciding that repayment would not cause Mr Y financial hardship.

Local land charge – My assessment

17. The Council apologised for initially giving the wrong advice about repaying the DFG. Its apology was sufficient to remedy any injustice caused.
18. We are not an appeal body. We consider the decision-making process but, unless there was fault in that process, we cannot comment on the decision reached.
19. The Council considered relevant factors in line with the law and the information Mr X provided, and it has explained its decision. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way it made its decision to justify further investigation. Therefore, we will not consider the complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

20. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman