Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of an application for a disabled facilities grant for his child. The Council confirmed to Mr X it does not exclude non-visible disabilities from these applications, offered a fresh assessment of his child’s needs and had given the family a high priority for a move to a larger property it could adapt. Investigation by us would be unlikely to achieve any more.

The complaint

1. Mr X said the Council prevented his family receiving a disabled facilities grant (DFG) for his child. He said there were systemic barriers that excluded his child from an occupational therapy assessment because the disability is non-visible.

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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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. The Council’s correspondence with Mr X stated it does not exclude non-visible disabilities and approves DFG applications where need is created by non-visible conditions . Its statement that not all assessments are carried out by occupational therapists (OTs) is in line with government guidance.
6. Regardless of that, the Council offered in both of its responses to re-assess Mr X’s child’s needs via an NHS paediatrician. It also stated it had accepted the family’s housing application for a move and had given them a high priority for re-housing because it agreed they had an urgent need for a larger property. I note the Council’s website allows applicants in the family’s priority band to bid on up to three properties per week, and that the Council stated it had provided written support for their bids. On that basis, its view was that it would be better to adapt the new property. Were we to investigate, we would be unlikely to recommend more than the Council has already offered Mr X. And there is not enough evidence of systemic fault in policy to warrant our further involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

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

• Investigating would be unlikely to lead to a different or better outcome than that offered by the Council; and
• This is not enough evidence of systemic fault in Council policy to warrant our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman