LGO calls on council to pay £5k for wrongly refusing disabled facilities grant
The Local Government Ombudsman has recommended that a local authority pay £5,000 in compensation after it refused to provide a disabled facilities grant (DFG) on grounds not permitted by law.
Northampton Council’s decision had caused “considerable injustice”, the Ombudsman, Dr Jane Martin, said.
The grant was to be used for an extension so that a disabled man could access bathing facilities. But the authority refused it on the basis that the applicants lived in a privately rented property without a secure tenancy.
The couple had rented the home for more than 20 years. Two occupational therapists assessed the man as needing an extension to the house so he could be cared for and bathed.
The council’s assessment suggested that the extension was necessary and appropriate for the disabled man’s needs. Planning permission was later granted for the extension.
But Northampton then refused the grant application. It offered alternative housing, installed a stair lift and a wet room, but persisted in refusing the extension originally planned.
The complainants told the LGO that they felt that the council had misled them into believing they had to consider moving to a council-owned property, even though they did not want to take that step.
They argued that none of the council properties offered were suitable, and that they had been treated differently from a home owner.
The council claimed that it had acted reasonably and in the complainant's best interests, arguing that they could be evicted from their home by the licensor at any time whereas in a council owned home they would have security of tenure. It said it did not want to spend almost £30,000 on the provision given the lack of security of tenure.
Northampton also said under the Regulatory Reform Order (Housing Assistance) 2002, it acted correctly in considering alternatives. It had refused the DFG because the complainants had expressed a willingness or intention to move into an adapted property. The authority said the works approved had met the family's needs, which could further be met by rehousing.
Concluding that there had been maladministration, Dr Martin said the applicants had met all the necessary criteria to receive the grant.
She said: “In my view it was maladministration to refuse the DFG on the grounds that are not permitted under the HGCRA [Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act] 1996.
“This has led to a delay in providing the provision originally assessed as being required to meet [the complainant]’s needs which has given rise to considerable stress and anxiety and left them living in very difficult conditions.”
She also recommended that Northampton:
- Pay the complainants £250 for the time and inconvenience in pursuing their complaint
- engage an independent occupational therapist to review the husband’s current needs
- consider the occupational therapist’s conclusions
- provide funding for any provision identified
- provide funding for respite care for the couple while any works are completed
- review its procedures, and
- provide training to ensure that staff are aware of what is appropriate for considering applications for disabled facilities grants.
Philip Hoult
