Date of decision: 28 September 2025
Summary
A disabled woman complained about a significant delay in the DFG process, which she had initiated three years previously. The Council had not progressed her case, and the Occupational Therapy (OT) assessment was delayed by over a year. Even as a non-urgent but complex matter, it significantly departed from the government’s recommended timescales.
What happened
Mrs Y approached the Ombudsman in January 2025 about an application first initiated in 2022 about which she had not complained – but the Ombudsman used discretion to consider matters from 2024 onwards, until June 2025, due to the ongoing nature of Mrs Y’s complaint.
In April 2024, Mrs Y’s MP contacted the Council to query the status of the DFG application stating that Mrs Y ‘often used a wheelchair indoors and there will be no room to manoeuvre with the downstairs bathroom being the size planned’. Internal emails showed discussion by Council Officers about reverting back to the 2022 plans, but they said the reference to wheelchair use presented a significant change to Mrs Y’s needs and mobility. They explained to Mrs Y that an updated assessment of needs by an Occupational Therapist would be required.
An OT completed a screening assessment in July 2024 when Mrs Y explained that although she had access to a wheelchair she mobilised with two walking sticks inside and one walking stick outside. The OT recommended ground floor living due to risk of falls on the stairs but Mrs Y did not want to live on the ground floor.
The Duty OT advised Mrs Y that the waiting list for an OT assessment was 18 months plus. On 22 November Mrs Y expressed unhappiness at the length of time she was due to be waiting and described her continuing lack of mobility. The OT agreed to pass the case for discussion at the next allocations meeting.
An OT assessment did not take place on 25 June 2025.
When Mrs Y’s MP had contacted the Council on 18 April 2024, the Council ‘screened’ the request and categorised Mrs Y’s case as non-urgent but complex, which meant that the entire DFG process should be completed within 180 working days, but the Council failed to meet even that target.
A new Occupational Therapy (OT) assessment should have been completed by mid-May 2024, followed by a period for gathering documentation and submitting a full application by late July 2024.
The Council should have approved or refused the application by late October 2024 but it was only allocated to an OT in January 2025, and the assessment itself did not take place until June 2025.
Mrs Y expressed her dissatisfaction and unhappiness about the existing waiting list for assessment being 18 months or more, where her application for the DFG was still pending.
What was found
The Council confirmed that Mrs Y’s case was allocated to an OT in January 2025 and the subsequent OT assessment took place in June 2025. The Ombudsman found that the delay was significant and the Council did not provide any good reason to explain why it departed from the timescales.
The delay caused injustice to Mrs Y in the form of avoidable frustration and distress. However the Ombudsman could not yet measure any injustice because the Council had yet to formally decide the application. Therefore the Council should make a symbolic payment in recognition of the distress and decide Mrs Y’s application without further delay.
The report suggested that Mrs Y may wish to complain again once the DFG process is complete so the full extent of any injustice arising from fault can be measured, and reminded Mrs Y of the 12 month rule for complaining.
The Council agreed to:
- Ensure Mrs Y’s request for a DFG progresses to the next stage of the process, to ensure, as far as possible, that it completes subsequent stages without delay. The Council will not be held responsible for any delays arising from any lack of engagement by Mrs Y.
- Apologise and pay £500 to Mrs Y in recognition of avoidable distress.
- Within eight weeks, draw up an action plan with target timescales to reduce the delay in dealing with DFG referrals to ensure it is meeting the best practice time targets for other applicants.
- Provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with the above actions.
Points to note for councils, professionals, people using services and their carers, advocacy groups and members of the public
This decision highlighted the significant delay in the DFG process.
Firstly, councils’ housing authority teams should actively review every referral or request based on whether a person’s needs are urgent, health condition or daily living circumstances – an assessment for Care Act purposes could have been inferred to have been necessary, after all.
Councils should carry out an updated OT assessment when a significant amount of time passes or there is a substantial change in needs. This is important to ensure that they keep accurate and accessible records in delivering efficient service that accords proper priority as people’s needs change. Councils should not simply close an application due to the applicant’s non-response (which is what had happened in 2022, prior to the events complained about), without further attempt to ascertain circumstances) or ability to engage with the applicant. In contrast, councils should always follow-up and review requests, to prevent confusion and frustration.
Moreover, councils should always maintain clear and transparent communication with applicants throughout the DFG process. Applicants should always be informed about the expected timeframes by Councils and receive regular updates. If there are any delays or unforeseen circumstances, councils should ensure that applicants are supported to get information and advice to manage applicants’ expectations and reduce their frustration while waiting for their adaptations. Applicants should be well-informed about the expectations of each stage and get an explanation of reasons whenever any delays occurred.
Councils should follow non-statutory guidance in processing DFG to ensure efficient delivery of adaptations. Councils are obligated to create a clear plan of action to set out specific targets about the timeframes for each step of the process. Councils should prioritise meeting these deadlines at every stage and ensure that individuals’ needs are addressed promptly. Prolonged delays towards vulnerable individuals could cause significant distress and impact wellbeing.
Although the guidance is non-statutory it would be relevant in any public law challenge, and we wonder whether – had Mrs Y obtained legal advice, correspondence from her legal representative might have resolved this matter, sooner.
CASCAIDr’s 2025 overview of Disabled Facilities Grants on this site provides further information. We highlight a potential ambiguity as to what is or is not ‘an application’ with a knock-on effect for applicable timescales. The date of any ‘application’ ‘was not the issue here, however – it was with progressing the OT input, without which the Housing Department cannot make the necessary decision as to the reasonableness and practicability of the proposed works.
The report states that the Council did not provide any good reason to explain why it departed from the timescales.
We would assume that this was a resources issue, related to a shortage of OTs nationwide – and while that is not a good reason to depart from the timescales, it would highlight that there can be underlying reasons for a council’s failure to follow guidance which recourse to complaints procedures will not solve (no more would a legal challenge, but the remedies are broader and can be firmer from a Court). The recommendation for an action plan with target timescales may suggest, however, that the Ombudsman considered the problem to have been systemic or organisational.
In the context of delay it is note-worthy that the absolute statutory duty to make a decision within 6 months of the application, is not mentioned by the investigator.
Although the Ombudsman accepted the Council’s explanation as to why it closed Mrs Y’s case in 2022, their account was not accepted by Mrs Y. The Council’s records showed that the Council called Mrs Y twice in July 2022 but she was apparently unaware of this. We are not told if she had a functioning answering machine or if the Council left a message. We are also not told what method the Council used to inform Mrs Y that they intended to close her case.
We suggest that councils should establish preferred methods of communication at the outset. Although the Ombudsman did not investigate the earlier period, for Mrs Y the delay had lasted since 2022 rather than when she consulted her MP in 2024.
Please use the following link if you want to read the original Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s London Borough of Redbridge (24 017 739) report.
If you are affected by the issues in this report, please consider asking a free, one-off question, anonymously, at a level of principle, here. Our experts’ response will give you an opinion which may then help you and the broader community, when posted.
Did you enjoy this analysis? Want to stay informed with our weekly Alert Service?
Then do click here to find out how you can receive the latest insights from experts and commentators and stay updated on key judicial decisions, ombudsmen’s reports, and critical law and policy changes, all for just £50 per YEAR and sent straight to your inbox or WhatsApp!