The complaint
Mr X complains about the Council’s failure to arrange adaptations to his home, funded by a disabled facilities grant since 2014.
He says this has had a significant impact on his mental and physical well-being because he has been unable to carry out basic daily living tasks.
What I have investigated Mr X says the issues that led him to complain to the Council and the Ombudsman started in 2014.
The Ombudsman normally expects people to complain to us within twelve months of them becoming aware of a problem. We look at each complaint individually, and on its merits, considering the circumstances of each case. But we do not exercise discretion to accept a late complaint unless there are clear and compelling reasons to do so.
The Council says the first record of Mr X’s funding application was from 2017. This Council says this, and a subsequent application, in 2018 did not proceed because Mr X did not complete financial assessment forms and did not participate in the process. I have seen evidence to support this.
Mr X has been unable to provide evidence of any Council involvement between 2014 and 2018. This absence of earlier records and any evidence to contradict the Council’s version of what happened in 2017 and 2018 means it would be highly unlikely I carry out a meaningful investigation.
I see no reason why Mr X could not have complained much sooner about these earlier applications. This aspect of his complaint is therefore late, and the Ombudsman will not exercise its discretion to investigate because there is little prospect of being able to make a conclusive finding.
For this reason, I have only investigated events from October 2019 onwards. This was the date the Council received the referral from the local social services authority.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) 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) This complaint involves events that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government introduced new and frequently updated rules and guidance during this time. We can consider whether the Council followed the relevant legislation, guidance and our published “Good Administrative Practice during the response to COVID-19”.
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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered the information provided by Mr X. I asked the Council for information and specific questions. I considered its response. I also considered the relevant law and guidance.
Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Property adaptations and disabled facilities grants Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG) are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. The legal framework for DFGs is set out in the Housing Grants, Constructions and Regeneration Act 1996.
Mandatory DFGs are available, subject to a means test, for essential adaptations to give disabled people better freedom of movement into and around their homes and to give access to essential facilities within the home. A council should give the applicant for a DFG a decision as soon as reasonably practicable and within six months of the date of the full grant application. However, before it can process an application, the Council as housing authority, needs to confirm adaptations are necessary and appropriate to meet a disabled person’s needs. The law says housing authorities shall consult with social services authorities to decide this, and information may come from an assessment of need by an occupational therapist (OT).
What happened I have set out below a summary of the key events. But it is not meant to show everything that happened.
In 2014, Mr X suffered a life changing trauma, leaving him blind, severely physically disabled and with PTSD. He says he made an application for a DFG to fund adaptations to his home but says this was ignored. He made further applications in 2017 and 2018. As I have explained above, I have not investigated Mr X’s complaint about these earlier applications because it is too late.
In October 2019, the Council received a referral form from the relevant social services authority (“the County Council”). The Council needed more information from Mr X. This was requested in December 2019. The Council accepted this should have happened sooner and apologised.
Mr X replied in late February 2020. A preliminary site visit took place in March 2020.
The application was paused because of the Covid-19 lockdown. Mr X was notified of this in March 2020.
Mr X contacted the Council in September 2020. The Council promptly carried out a feasibility visit with an OT and project manager. It was decided a new OT report was needed. This was completed in January 2021 and forwarded to the project manager to devise a specification.
This specification, that included a through-floor lift and wet room conversion, was sent to Mr X in February 2021 for his approval.
In his email response, Mr X said he had rented out the first floor of his property to three tenants. The Council was unaware of this and explained the specification was based on Mr X having sole use of the first floor.
Mr X denied he had tenants. He suggested alternative proposals using available space on the ground floor and a side extension. The Council explained this would require another OT assessment.
The Council remained concerned Mr X renting out part of his property and it being a possible House of Multiple Occupation (HMO). The Council asked Mr X to provide more information and would carry out a site visit. Mr X says he was not told about this and says he was distressed by the officer’s conduct. Mr X refused entry to his property.
In April 2021, Mr X was asked to complete a financial assessment. The Council was concerned about his eligibility and asked for more information. The Council became aware there was a live planning application for significant home improvements that would cost in the region of £300,000 to complete. This led the Council to believe Mr X had not been truthful about his financial affairs.
In July 2021, the Council decided it was unable to approve the application because there was too much uncertainty about his financial eligibility for a grant.
Mr X’s complaint to the Council Mr X first complained in March 2021. This was not upheld and he complained again in July 2021. Mr X said the Council had made repeated false statements and allegations against him.
In response, the Council denied this. It explained its decision was based on information Mr X had given to the project manager and planning information that was on the public record.
The Council told Mr X his DFG application could be reconsidered once he had completed a financial assessment. Mr X asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage three. He says he was frustrated because the Council had not asked for information from him and based its decision on unfair and inaccurate assumptions.
Mr X denied he had made a planning application. He referred to a historical planning application for an annex made by his late parents who were considering moving near to their son. He denied having £300,000 and the Council was wrong to suggest he had this amount of capital based only on the estimated build costs of an application that had since been withdrawn.
In August 2021, Mr X asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage three of its complaints procedure.
The Council responded in February 2022. It made the following comments: The planning application was made by Mr X, not his parents, in April 2021. Land registry documents showed Mr X as being the sole owner.
This application had since been amended in June 2021. It had since been withdrawn but specifically with the intention of submitting revised plans.
This information had not been disclosed by Mr X.
There was some delay in progressing the DFG application. Some delay was caused by the national lockdown and some because Mr X did not provide information quickly. The Council accepted the initial referral took too long. There was also delay by the County Council over which the Council had no control.
The Council had been ready to carry out the adaptations but the process was paused when information came to light about part of the property being rented out and the planning application.
Officers were obliged to visit Mr X when the Council became aware Mr X’s property was a possible HMO. The Council was satisfied the officers acted appropriately and complied with relevant Covid-19 safety requirements during their visit to the property. Mr X was contacted before the visit took place.
The Council had reason to believe the property was a HMO because Mr X had told the project manager during his assessment.
The Council was unaware the property was unhealthy and insanitary as claimed by Mr X. He was asked to provide more information to support his claim.
The Council was able consider the possibility of Mr X arranging the work himself once he had established eligibility for a grant.
The Council had made reasonable adjustments that had been requested by Mr X. No further recommendations had been made by the OT.
The Council apologised for the delay in providing its stage three response.
Dissatisfied with this outcome, Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.
Analysis It is not for the Ombudsman to say whether Mr X was eligible for a DFG. That is the Council’s role. My role is to determine whether the there was any administrative fault in the way the Council reached its decision to refuse his application, including the length of time it took to do so.
Delay The Council received the referral in October 2019. Mr X was told his DFG application was unsuccessful in July 2021, 21 months later.
My assessment is that although the DFG application process took far longer than the expected maximum of six months, this was mainly due to the circumstances of the case and not as a result of Council fault.
The Council accepted it did not act quickly enough at the start of the application and has already apologised to Mr X. Then there was a significant delay of six months from March 2020 due to the pandemic. The Council acted correctly by telling Mr X the service was temporarily unavailable because all relevant staff had been redeployed to frontline services. The Ombudsman accepts there was significant disruption to many council services because of the pandemic. As the Council quickly responded to Mr X’s further enquiry in September 2020, I do not consider the delay of six months to be unreasonable in the context of the exceptional circumstances at the time.
Mr X is unhappy there was then further delay because another OT report was needed. This was not completed until January 2021. Mr X has questioned why this was necessary as the Council already had several OT reports and his needs had not changed. While I understand Mr X’s frustration, the records show there was a legitimate need for another assessment because of the scale of the proposed works. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make. For this reason, I accept this delay was unavoidable and beyond the Council’s control.
The architects’ plans were completed in February 2021. Mr X then changed his mind about use of the first floor and made alternative proposals. This was, of course, his right to do, but I cannot find the Council responsible for the further delay caused by this.
Nor do I find the Council to be responsible for the delay from March 2021 onwards. The records show the Council attempted to engage with Mr X about his financial eligibility. It was unable to proceed until these enquiries were complete.
Overall, I am satisfied the majority of the delay in the progression of the case was not the fault of the Council. It has apologised for the late start, and this is an acceptable remedy. I do not consider this early delay to be so significant to make a formal finding of fault Financial eligibility I am satisfied Mr X was told he needed to complete a financial assessment and why. Mr X believed this was unnecessary because he was a recipient of certain benefits. The Council had legitimate concerns about Mr X’s financial circumstances and was entitled to ask Mr X about this. These concerns were based on contradictory information provided by Mr X.
While I appreciate My X objected to this, the Council had an obligation to ensure public funds are spent correctly.
The records I have seen confirm Mr X gave conflicting information about his circumstances. For example, Mr X refused to accept there was a live planning application, despite this being confirmed by documents in the public domain.
Similarly, I have been provided with a copy of the email from Mr X to the Council stating he rented out the first floor of his property. He later said this he did not receive any payment and so was irrelevant to the application. I accept the Council had grounds to make further enquiries about this arrangement and possible income, particularly as it had wider implications regarding Mr X’s benefit entitlement.
There were many other inconsistencies that justified the Council’s position.This information has been presented to Mr X and summarised at paragraph 35 above.
Overall, I am satisfied the Council followed the correct procedure by inviting his comments before making the decision it could approve his application based on information Mr X had provided so far. I have not found the Council to have acted with fault.
HMO enquiries The Council also had a responsibility to make enquiries when it became aware Mr X’s property may have HMO status for health and safety reasons. This was a reasonable conclusion for the Council to have made based on Mr X’s statement that he rented out three rooms.
I have found no evidence of fault in the way officers conducted these enquiries. Mr X and the Council have different recollections about what happened during a home visit. The Ombudsman makes decisions on the balance of probabilities and this is essentially one person’s word against another. There is no independent witness. As I am unable to prefer one account over another, I am unable to make a finding on this part of the complaint.
Other areas of complaint I note there are many aspects of Mr X’s contact with the Council about his DFG application that he is aggrieved about. But I do not propose to examine these matters here. Our role is not to provide answers to each and every criticism a complainant may have about a council. As I do not find fault by the Council on the main substantive issues that gave rise to Mr X’s grievance – that the Council decided, after a long delay, to refuse his application - I do not consider the other aspects of Mr X’s grievance involving his contact with the Council warrant investigation by this service.
I am also satisfied the Council has fully addressed these concerns in its detailed stage three complaint response. Based on the case records I have seen, I could not add anything further to what the Council has already said.
Final decision
I have not found the Council to be at fault.
Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate I have not investigated Mr X’s complaints about events between 2014 and 2018 because they happened too long ago.
I have not investigated Mr X’s complaint about lack of care provision over several years. This is a social services function carried out by the County Council and is not the responsibility of this Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman