on the lessons that can be learnt from our complaints about end of life care given in care homes and in the home.
Category : Adult care services > Disabled facilities grants Decision : Closed after initial enquiries Decision date : 29 Jan 2026
The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about works offered under a disabled facilities grant. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. The recommended works changed but the Council made its decisions following the proper process.
The complaint
Ms B said the Council has not agreed to the original house adaptations recommended by the Occupational Therapist. Ms B wants the Council to agree to an extension to meet her adult social care needs.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
If you are disabled and need to make changes to your home, you can ask the Council for a disabled facilities grant (DFG). The Council needs to be happy the work is: Necessary and appropriate to meet the disabled person’s needs Reasonable and can be done.
Ms B asked for works to her home and the Council sent an occupational therapist (OT) to assess. The OT recommended the Council build a bedroom. The assessment form makes clear the case would be heard by a local workshop and then the Council will send a written outcome. The assessment form says the Council might make an alternative recommendation to what is stated on the form, and the form is not a guarantee the Council will give a DFG.
When Ms B got the written outcome, the recommended work was different. Ms B appealed the decision, and the Council explained its reasons. The Council does not consider an extension is necessary and appropriate as it can meet Ms B’s needs in a different way.
We are not an appeal body and cannot question or criticise a Council decision that is properly taken, even though the complainant disagrees with it.
Ms B is also unhappy with the way the Council responded to her complaint. But it is not a good use of the Ombudsman’s resource to look at complaint handling where we are not investigating the substantive issue complained about.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. I understand Ms B’s disappointment the Council has not adopted the original recommendation, but there is no requirement for it to do so, and we cannot make it do Ms B’s preferred scheme.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman