The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mrs Y complained about the Council’s decisions on her request for payment of additional costs of adaptations to her property funded by a Disability Facilities Grant. We have not found fault by the Council in the way it made its decisions.
The complaint
Mrs Y complains about the Council’s response to her request for payment of additional costs for adaptations to her property funded by a Disability Facilities Grant. Mrs Y says the Council should pay these additional costs because they were incurred as a result of unforeseen changes to the work required under the supported scheme.
The Council agreed to pay some of these costs. But it says it is not responsible for the remaining additional costs as these were for work commissioned by Mrs Y outside of that required under the supported scheme.
Mrs Y says, because the Council has wrongly refused to repay the remaining additional costs, she now owes a debt to her contractor. She wants the Council to pay these further costs.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these.
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) 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) 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(1), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered evidence provided by Mrs Y and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
Mrs Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
What I found
What should have happened Disabled Facilities Grants Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG) are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Councils have a statutory duty to give grants 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.
DFG Process In March 2022 the government issued non-statutory guidance “Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) Delivery: Guidance for local authorities in England.
The guidance includes the following: Councils should ensure the public has access to information and advice about the DFG process; An occupational therapist (OT) will assess the person’s needs and potential solutions through home adaptations; The person completes and submits the application form together with designs and costing for the works (where necessary); Councils will check the application and issue a decision letter. If a council refuses a grant, it must explain why; and The works are arranged and carried out and the necessary quality checks made.
The Council’s DFG procedure An applicant can apply for DFG funding for adaptations to their home under a: supported scheme: this is the scheme the Council has approved as meeting need, and able to fund through a DFG; and the Council can appoint the contractor and manage the completion of the supported scheme work on the applicant’s behalf.
preferred scheme: this is the scheme used where an applicant wants to make considerable changes to the supported scheme and has agreed to provide the additional funding for these changes. Applicants must appoint their own architect and contractor to complete their preferred scheme; and the amount of the DFG funding is based on whichever is the lower of the Council’s costing of work for the supported scheme or the applicant’s contractor’s quotation for the supported scheme.
The Council and the applicant sign an agreement for the DFG funding. This says, where the applicant has chosen to use a preferred scheme: any costs resulting from works that are unforeseen variations to the original scheme shall be the responsibility of the Council to fund if, in the sole opinion of the Council, the variation is directly related to the scheme ‘supported’ by the Council. Any variation in cost incurred on any part of the scheme that is resultant from, or a consequence of, a ‘preferred’ scheme option shall be met by the ‘customer’ Any variation in cost that can be attributed to both the ‘supported’ scheme and ‘preferred’ scheme shall be shared proportionately; when funding a building project, a contingency of around 15% should be allowed for, in addition to the cost quoted by your builder, to cover the cost of any works that are unforeseen. You are strongly advised to make allowance for this within your budget. Failure to do so may result in your scheme not being completed; and for the avoidance of any doubt your grant will NOT be increased to make allowance for any unforeseen works and resultant costs that can be attributed to your own ‘preferred’ scheme that you are unable to meet.
Where the applicant is using their own contractor, the Council will schedule and agree payments for the work funded by the DFG with the contractor. It will make the final payment when the adaptation work has been completed, and all disability needs met What happened I have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened. It is based on my review of all the evidence provided about this complaint.
Background
Mr Y is disabled and a wheelchair user. An OT in the Council’s Adult Social Care team assessed he would benefit from adaptations to their home to provide level access, ground floor accommodation for sleeping, bathing and toilet facilities.
Mr and Mrs Y applied to the Council for DFG funding for a ground floor extension to their home to provide these adaptations.
The Council’s Home Improvement Service, together with the OT, produced a supported scheme for the adaptations required to meet Mr Y’s needs.
Mr and Mrs Y’s decision to use their own preferred scheme Mrs Y told the Council they would complete the adaptations through a preferred scheme (which included additional work and changes to that in the supported scheme) using their own architect and contractor.
The cost of the supported scheme was £61,000. The Council approved a DFG of £61,000 for the build cost of the adaptations in the supported scheme.
In June 2024 the Council and Mr and Mrs Y signed the DFG funding agreement. This confirmed: Mr and Mrs Y were using their own architect and contractor and had chosen to progress their own preferred scheme. The DFG would only cover the cost of the supported scheme; and Mr and Mrs Y were liable for any extra building costs over the cost of the supported scheme.
The agreement also included the provisions set out at paragraph 14.
Mrs Y’s request for payment of additional costs The Council made the payments to Mr and Mrs Y’s contractor in accordance with the agreed schedule.
After the work had been completed, Mrs Y told the Council her contractor had carried out additional work to that included in the supported scheme. She said this additional work was due to unforeseen changes to the supported scheme and asked the Council to pay for this additional work.
The Council says it was not asked to approve the additional work or its cost, before its completion. It was only told about this after the event, when Mrs Y asked for payment for the additional work.
The Council’s response The Council considered Mrs Y’s request for payment of the cost of the additional work to her contractor.
It told Mrs Y in December 2024 it had contacted her contractor about the additional work. The contractor had provided it with information on the variations and costs. Based on this, the Council said: it would agree to share proportionately with Mr and Mrs Y the additional costs it accepted were attributable to both the ‘supported’ scheme and ‘preferred’ scheme; it would make a contribution as a goodwill gesture to certain of the additional costs; and it would not pay the remaining additional costs which it considered were a consequence of the preferred scheme.
The Council set out details of the additional costs it agreed to pay and its reasons for not paying the other costs in its responses to Mrs Y.
I understand it has made payment of the amount it agreed to pay directly to the contractor.
The Council’s decisions on the request for payment of additional costs Mrs Y asked the Council for the payment of additional costs for the following: changes to the roof design: Mrs Y told the Council the original roof designed by their architect had to be altered because of changes required by the building inspector. She said the Council should pay for this because the roof was included in the supported scheme. The Council said: the changes to the roof design were not a building inspector requirement. Mrs Y’s contractor asked for the roof design to be altered because the pitch in her architect’s design was inadequate; there is no evidence the roof design in the supported scheme had to be altered in this way. The architect’s roof design, contractor’s requested change, and cost of the re-design were all a consequence of the ‘preferred’ scheme; and it could have argued, as the additional costs of the changes to the roof design may not have been incurred had the Council’s fully supported scheme been progressed, they were solely Mr and Mrs Y’s responsibility. But it agreed to treat the work as an ‘unforeseen variation’ that impacted both the supported and preferred scheme elements and split the additional costs 50/50 as a fair apportionment in accordance with the DFG agreement.
plumbing and electrics for the extension: Mrs Y said the additional costs were due to an unforeseen variation to the work required to complete the supported scheme. It was only discovered, after the work started, the existing plumbing and wiring in the main house was not adequate for the connections into the extension. The Council said: Mrs Y’s contractor had identified and confirmed the cost of the additional work required to address this issue; and it considered this was an unforeseen variation affecting both schemes and agreed to pay half of the additional costs.
electrical re-wiring in the existing house: Mrs Y said the electrical work in the extension could not be completed without remedial work to the wiring in the house. The state of the wiring in the house was not discovered until after the work on the extension had started. The re-wiring had to be done to complete the supported scheme work. The Council said: all the electrical wiring for the extension was included within the supported scheme cost; neither Mrs Y nor her contractor provided any evidence to verify the condition of the electrical wiring within the house to verify this claim; and it would not make any payment towards this additional cost.
ramp and patio: Mrs Y said the building inspector required the addition of a ramp from the outside door of the extension and a concrete turning area for Mr Y’s wheelchair to provide a safe emergency exit from the building. This additional work was required to complete the supported scheme. She paid the contractor separately for the extended patio area which was not included in the supported scheme. The Council said: this adaptation was not included in the OT’s recommendations on which the DFG was based, nor Mrs Y’s architect’s original design; the change was not required by the building inspector; and although the additional work was not part of the original recommendation, as a goodwill gesture it would contribute £1,000 towards the cost because it could see some merit in this.
widened doorway and patio doors: Mrs Y said the building inspector required an outside door wide enough for wheelchair access as an emergency exit from the extension. This wasn’t part of the preferred scheme and would have been required for the supported scheme. The Council said: the original design included a 900mm wide wheelchair accessible single door adequate for wheelchair access; the alterations were arranged by Mrs Y directly with her contractor, Neither the building inspector nor the Council were party to the change; and it would not make any payment towards this additional cost.
My view – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?
The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly and decide there was no fault in how it made its decision, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
In this case I have considered how the Council made its decisions about payment for the additional costs requested by Mrs Y.
The DFG agreement sets out the position regarding additional costs. It says it is for the Council to decide whether a variation is directly related to the supported scheme. If it is, the Council will fund all the additional cost. Otherwise, any additional cost resulting from the preferred scheme is to be met by the applicant, and any cost attributable to both schemes will be shared proportionately.
I have looked at the process the Council followed, and the information it took into account, before making its decisions. The information I have seen shows the Council considered: the information provided by Mrs Y about the reason for the additional costs and the work involved; the information provided by Mrs Y’s contractor in response to its enquiries; the details of the supported and preferred schemes; and the terms of the DFG agreement with Mr and Mrs Y.
In my view the Council followed the proper process and properly considered the relevant information before making its decisions. It explained the reasons for its decisions to Mrs Y.
I have not found fault in the way the Council made its decisions. On that basis I cannot question whether these decisions were right or wrong.
Decision I have not found fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman