Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about delays by the Council’s Occupational Therapy service and its alleged liability for privately arranged works carried out by the complainant. This is because it is unlikely we could add to the previous investigation by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complains on behalf of Mr X. She says the Council delayed unreasonably in progressing an occupational therapy assessment needed to consider adaptations to Mr X’s house. Mr X has spinal injuries arising from military service. Mr X has said he was forced to take his own action “to alleviate his pain, stress, difficulties and retain some dignity”. He spent £29,000 plus £10,000 to carry out works to accommodate his needs and adapt his house.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the complaint information provided by Mrs Y and Mr X which includes the Council’s response. I sent Mrs Y my draft decision and read her comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs) are provided under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Before approving a grant, a council must be satisfied the work is necessary and suitable to meet the disabled person’s needs and also be reasonable and practicable. The amount a council will grant is subject to a means test.
6. Mr X would like the Council to reimburse the additional money he had to obtain through a loan (that is above the contribution level under the DFG means testing rules) to arrange works himself. He says if he had been offered help in a timely manner, he would have been offered a DFG and be asked to contribute £14,864.07 which he would have been prepared to pay.
7. Turning to the Council, it accepts it took too long to finalise Mr X’s needs during the Occupational Therapy (OT) assessment process. It says it should have chased the GP for outstanding medical information earlier than it did.
8. However, it also says that a month after applying in January 2017, Mr X was given a priority visit, in February 2017, due to his armed forces background and military service-related disability. And this visit suggested a stair lift as possibly appropriate. But no further action was taken until the OT service called Mr X in September 2018 and found that Mr X had gone ahead with his own works. The Council then arranged another review visit with another OT.
9. This visit in October 2018 found that Mr X’s needs could be met with the installation of a through floor lift with level access showering facilities on the ground floor. The Council says this was a proportionate scheme to meet Mr X’s needs. It said if Mr X had contacted the Council before arranging his private works he would have been asked to apply for a DFG lift and level access shower installation as the most reasonable and practicable. It also found the cost of this would have been lower than his assessed contribution under the DFG means testing rules so no DFG would have been payable anyway.
10. In terms of future works needed, the Council says it cannot waive Mr X’s legally assessed contribution under the DFG means testing rules. Overall, it concludes it cannot reimburse Mr X for his loan obtained to fund his privately arranged works. It says, in the professional judgement of its officers, a ‘more proportionate’ scheme would have been reasonable and practicable. It highlights that its initial advice given (about a stair lift) would have flagged up to Mr X that the Council may hold a different view to what a ‘reasonable and practicable’ outcome may be. It did, however, recognise his distress and uncertainty caused by the delays in its OT process and offered him £500 as a remedy.

My analysis

11. My final decision is the Ombudsman will not investigate. While the Council delayed in finalising the OT assessment process, I am unable to agree that it is liable for Mr X’s subsequent decision to privately arrange works not agreed with the Council. I appreciate Mr X was caused distress and uncertainty by the delays but the Council’s payment offer remedies this in line with the Ombudsman’s principles of remedies.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate. This is because it is unlikely we could add to the previous investigation by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman