Local Government Ombudsman

> | Accessiblity Options | Text Only | Text Size: A+ A- Reset | Links | Site Map

You are here: Home : : News and press : : 2008 : : July : : Disabled man's indignity and inconvenience caused by Council failures

What's new

Browser support

Browse aloud

Click here for speech assisted browser support

Downloads

Site tools

Files with this symbol pdf icon are in .pdf format. To view these files you will need the Adobe Acrobat Reader software. It can be downloaded below free of charge. Click To Download

adobe acrobat reader

Disabled man's indignity and inconvenience caused by Council failures

Archived press release

Date Published: 04/07/08

A disabled man suffered unnecessary indignity and inconvenience as a result of Sheffield City Council’s failures over the adaptation of his home to meet his needs. He spent 10-14 weeks without access to washing facilities or a toilet.

A disabled man suffered unnecessary indignity and inconvenience as a result of Sheffield City Council’s failures over the adaptation of his home to meet his needs, finds Local Government Ombudsman, Anne Seex. In her report, issued today (4 July 2008), she says that the man (called ‘Mr N’ in the report) spent 10-14 weeks without access to washing facilities or a toilet, and had to borrow £10,000 from relatives to fund the adaptations.

The Ombudsman welcomes the Council’s actions in providing a remedy for the injustice Mr N suffered, by apologising, paying £2,000 compensation, reimbursing the £14,340 costs he had incurred himself, and taking action to review its procedures. 

Mr N was paralysed from the chest down after an accident. About 17 weeks before he was discharged from the specialist NHS Spinal Injuries Unit where he was cared for, an NHS occupational therapist contacted the Council to make the arrangements needed for him at home. The Council took no substantive action for over 10 weeks and the NHS occupational therapist followed up the referral five times before Mr N was assessed by a Council occupational therapist. This assessment was to start the process of arranging a disabled facilities grant (DFG) to adapt Mr N’s home to meet his needs. 

Contrary to national advisory guidance, the Council did not give Mr N accurate information about its criteria, processes or timescales for his DFG application. The Council’s occupational therapist told Mr N, incorrectly, that it would take 12-18 months to provide him with a ramp to get his wheelchair up the three steps to his front door. Mr N therefore arranged for friends to build him a ramp. Mr N was also told that the work to his house would take 6-12 months. 

Mr N spent 10-14 weeks at home without access to washing facilities or a toilet and with a ‘shower chair’ that was too small for him to use as a commode. The result was that he could only defecate by lying on an incontinence sheet on his bed and manually removing faeces. During this time his family asked the Council to give greater priority to the adaptations to his home, and Mr N made a formal complaint. He received no response and, believing that he would have to wait months for the work to be done, borrowed £10,000 from family and friends and instructed builders. The Council did not tell him that it could have continued with his application for a DFG and that approval was only a few weeks away. 

Knowing that the shower chair was too small to be used as a commode, the Council’s occupational therapist delayed ordering a replacement in order to be sure that it would be the right size for the fittings in Mr N’s adapted bathroom. It was only after Mr N made a second formal complaint (to which he also did not receive a response) that the Council began to try to get a replacement, that was eventually delivered six months after Mr N had been discharged. 

The service the Council provided to Mr N fell far short of that envisaged in the Government’s advisory Good Practice Guidance on Delivering Adaptations to Disabled People and was maladministration causing Mr N injustice. 

Since receiving a draft of this report, the Council has:

  • apologised to Mr N;
  • reimbursed £14,340 for the costs he incurred in funding the adaptations work; and
  • paid him £2,000 compensation in recognition of the indignity, inconvenience and distress that he experienced, and his time and trouble in pursuing his complaint.

The Council is also reviewing:

  • its joint arrangements with the NHS for providing equipment and adaptations to people who are discharged from hospital and for providing shower chairs;
  • the information it provides; and
  • how its current practice compares to a checklist in the national advisory guidance.

The Ombudsman considers this is a satisfactory remedy for Mr N’s injustice.

Report ref 06C16349