Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision in relation to his father’s request for major adaptations to his home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the outcome of his father’s, Mr Y’s, occupational therapy assessments and the Council’s decision his needs can be met via the provision of a stairlift rather than a downstairs extension.

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)
3. 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))
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Disabled Facilities Grants are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Councils have a statutory duty to give grant aid to disabled people for certain adaptations. Before approving a grant, a council must be satisfied the work is necessary, meets the disabled person’s needs, and is reasonable and practicable.
8. Mr X complained to the Council about the outcome of Mr Y’s occupational therapy assessments in relation to his request for major adaptation works via a Disabled Facilities Grant.
9. The Council carried out two in person occupational therapy assessments with Mr Y. These found that his needs could be met via the provision of a stairlift
10. Mr Y wants a downstairs extension rather than a stairlift because the space is small and a stairlift would be inconvenient for other family members. The Council confirmed this would be possible via the notional scheme. However, it explained the level of funding it would contribute towards the costs of the preferred works would be equivalent only to the cost of the provision of a stairlift. The remainder would need to be self-funded by Mr Y. It is satisfied there is sufficient room for a stairlift to be installed in the property and for others to use the stairs.
11. Whilst I acknowledge Mr X and Mr Y’s dissatisfaction with the Council’s decision, there is no sign of fault by the Council here. It has assessed Mr Y’s needs via its suitably qualified officers in two in-person assessments. The officers have used their professional judgement in reaching their decision that Mr Y’s needs can be met via a stairlift rather than requiring a downstairs extension and that there is sufficient space for one to be installed and for the stairs to be used by others. It is a decision it is entitled to make. We are not an appeal body and it is not our role to question the merits of the Council’s decision and the officers’ professional judgement where, as here, there is no sign of fault in the way in which the decision was reached.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to merit an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman