The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: A woman complained about the Council’s decision not to award her a discretionary grant to provide a shower. But we will not investigate this matter because there is no sign of fault by the Council which warrants our involvement.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. So when we look at councils’ decisions, if there was no fault in the decision making we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered the information Ms B provided with her complaint. In addition I considered documents the Council provided about Ms B’s WAG application. I also took account of the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Under its Housing Assistance Policy, the Council has discretion to award a WAG where works to a property are needed to help with someone’s discharge from hospital, or to reduce the risk of someone’s admission to hospital or into care. The Policy says a condition of the WAG is that: ‘The applicant must have the intent to remain in the property.’
The Council helped Ms B apply for a WAG in 2020. This was primarily for the installation of a shower unit over Ms B’s bath due to her difficulties in using the bath.
But later Ms B also approached the Council to enquire about moving to alternative accommodation. In response the Council asked Ms B to confirm if she intended to stay in her property rather than move. However, as Ms B failed to provide that confirmation the Council decided to close her WAG application in late 2020.
Ms B continued to contact the Council about her outstanding needs during 2021 and subsequently made a formal complaint.
In response the Council re-iterated that Ms B still needed to clarify that she would be staying at the property, and this time it said the intention must be to remain for at least five years. The Council also apologised to Ms B for not making the five-year requirement clearer in its WAG application information.
There has been no change in Ms B’s position or the Council’s advice since its final complaint response in June 2021 The Council said its condition about intention to reside for at least five years is detailed in its Disabled Facilities Grant criteria. But in fact the part of its Policy which specifically relates to WAG’s only says that the applicant must have the intent to remain in the property, and there is no reference to a timescale. Therefore the Council may need to review the wording of its Policy as well as its WAG application information if, in practice, it needs an applicant to show intention to stay for five years.
However I am not convinced there are grounds for us to pursue Ms B’s complaint about her own WAG application any further.
The Council is reasonably entitled to seek assurances about an applicant’s intention to remain at their property if it is spending public money on works to facilitate that applicant’s use of the property, and to adopt a policy to that effect.
In this case Ms B has not to date confirmed her intention to stay at her property and, therefore, she has not complied with the eligibility criteria for WAG’s set out in the Council’s Policy. As a result I consider we would be very unlikely to find fault with the Council for deciding not to proceed with Ms B’s application for a WAG, so we would not be justified in starting an investigation in her case.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the Council’s failure to award her a grant for works to her property. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman