Summary: The complainant says the Council’s adult social care service approved extensive adaptations to his home, but the Council refused to complete them in its role as landowner. Mr X says it then refused to provide a ramp access to his home preventing him getting in and out of his home for recreation affecting his overall wellbeing. The Council says it can only offer the full adaptation with the approval of the home- owner and will not offer partial adaptations which do not meet the assessed needs of the applicant. The Council accepts it did not follow up telephone communications with the complainant in writing. The Ombudsman finds the Council acted with fault in its communications with the complainant.

The complaint

1. The complainant whom I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council delayed an occupational therapy assessment and refused to provide him with a ramp to help him more easily get in and out of his home. Mr X says the Council has told him he will need to move from the house he has called home for over 30 years. Mr X says that is unreasonable and he and his wife do not wish to move. Mr and Mrs X say the Council failed to provide paperwork showing the reasons for its decisions on their application.
2. Mr X wants the Council to provide a ramp and make changes to his home to enable him to continue living in it even if it cannot carry out the other adaptations.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. If satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
6. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. In considering this complaint I have:
• Spoken with Mrs X as Mr X’s representative and read the information presented with the complaint;
• Put enquiries to the Council and reviewed its response;
• Researched the relevant law, guidance, and policy;
• Shared with Mr X and the Council my draft decision and reflected on their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Council policy

8. Under the Council’s Major Adaptations Policy for Council Tenants the Council will consider if a move to a more suitable property would resolve the need for adaptations and present a better long-term solution for an applicant. This may include arranging a suitable alternative within the council’s stock for which a priority medical banding would be given to enable them to move more quickly.
9. The policy also says where an applicant refuses to take up the option of a move the Council will refuse to undertake the adaptations.

What happened

10. Mr and Mrs X have lived in their Council owned home for over 30 years. Mr X finds it difficult to get upstairs and to get in and out of the home so in August 2018 Mr and Mrs X asked the Council for help.
11. The Council’s Social Care and Occupational Therapy Service first conducted a telephone assessment of Mr X’s needs. The Council told Mr X that as the couple now under-occupied their three-bedroom house the Council may decide to offer to rehouse them rather than adapting their home. Mr X told the Council he did not want to move.
12. In October 2018, the Council conducted an Occupational Therapy Assessment which recommended:
• A step lift to enable Mr X to get in and out of the home including giving him access to his garden. In the professional view of the assessor a ramp is not feasible at the property;
• A through floor lift so he could access the bedroom and bathroom;
• A level access shower.
13. Mr and Mrs X say the Council officers did not visit them in October 2018 to conduct the assessment. The Council says it did and has provided copies of its officer’s calendar showing the appointment. The Council has also provided a copy of the signed and dated consent form, and letter confirming Mr and Mrs X’s eligibility for the work. The Council did not send further paperwork.
14. This being a Council owned home, before the Social Care service could offer any adaptations the applicants needed the Council’s approval as homeowner.
15. The Council, as homeowner refused to give permission for the adaptations because:
• The works needed are too extensive;
• Mr and Mrs X under-occupy their home by two bedrooms because Mr and Mrs X need only one bedroom;
• Mr and Mrs X would have priority for a bungalow in the area and on average two bungalows a year become available;
• There is a need for three-bedroom homes in the area to house families.
16. When the Council officer telephoned Mrs X in November 2018 and gave her the Council’s decision Mrs X said she was not willing to move home.
17. Mr and Mrs X asked the Council to consider funding and fitting a ramp up to the home to enable Mr X to get in and out of it more easily. The family and medical assessments say it would improve Mr X’s well-being if he could get in and out of the home more easily using a ramp.
18. In response to my enquiries the Council says its Social Care services would not agree to providing only part of the scheme of adaptations. The Council explained this is due in its view, to Mr X needing all the proposed adaptations to continue living comfortably and safely in his home. Therefore, the Council refused to fit a step lift or the ramp.
19. As a compromise the Council says it would not object to Mr and Mrs X installing a ramp at their own expense however the Council will not do so. This seems odd to Mr X because all he is asking for is help in providing a ramp which is much cheaper than the extensive adaptations the Council believes he needs.
20. In response to my enquiries the Council says its Social Care services would not support funding a ramp at the property. The Council says this is regardless of whether the Council owned it as a social landlord, or a private landlord owned the house. The Council says it cannot undertake partial adaptations leaving Mr X without access to his bedroom and bathroom and thus his full bathing facilities. Therefore, whoever owned the property the Council would offer the same advice to an applicant in Mr X’s circumstances by recommending seeking a move to alternative property.
21. Mrs X says the Council provided no paperwork for the proposed adaptations. The Council has sent me copies of the signed consent form and a copy of the letter sent to Mr and Mrs X setting out the procedure for applying for adaptations. However, the Council accepts staff shared all the Council’s decisions with Mrs X on the telephone but did not write to her setting out those decisions and the reasons for them. The Council says it is working on improving this in future.

Analysis – is there fault leading to injustice?

22. My role is not to decide whether the Council should provide a ramp for Mr X. My role is to decide if the Council decided the application for adaptations properly by considering all relevant information. If it has not, then I must consider the impact on Mr X and decide what the Council should do to address the injustice.
23. The law says I may not investigate complaints about the Council’s role as a social landlord, those complaints fall within the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman. I have not therefore considered the Council’s decision as landlord to refuse to allow the adaptations its social care service recommended.
24. The Council conducted an assessment although Mr and Mrs X dispute the date of the assessment. However, the information from the Council and applying the balance of probabilities test I find it unlikely the Council would have recommended such extensive adaptations without an assessment. Better record keeping would have helped support the Council’s views. The Council provided recommendations for adaptations to Mr and Mrs X’s home having spoken with them and having gathered all relevant information. Therefore, I find the Council assessed Mr and Mrs X’s needs and recommended adaptations without fault.
25. The evidence shows the Council assessed Mr X’s needs and recommended adaptations which the Council refused to approve as landlord. It completed that procedure between August and November 2018. Therefore, I find the Council decided the application for adaptations without any significant delay.
26. The Ombudsman expects Councils to issue decisions in writing as well as providing decisions by telephone. This ensures the applicant receives the reasons for the decision and understands to whom they should put any questions or how they may challenge the decision. Giving information solely by telephone increases the risks of misunderstandings which a follow up letter may resolve. Therefore, I find the Council at fault for failing to follow up telephone calls between Council officers and Mr and Mrs X with a letter recording the points discussed. I welcome the Council’s commitment to improving this in future. The lack of written records put Mr and Mrs X to avoidable time and trouble in challenging the decision.
27. Where someone applies for adaptations to a home they do not own, the Council may only undertake the adaptations with the property owner’s consent. The homeowner refused permission to carry out the adaptations. That meant the Council could not offer the adaptations it considers Mr X needs to live safely in his home with access to proper bathing and bedroom facilities. The Council offered to consider the couple for alternative housing which would meet their needs.
28. Mr X may consider the Council treated him differently because he did not live in his own home or rent from a private landlord. However, the Council has shown that where the property owner refuses permission to carry out necessary adaptations it will not undertake more limited and, in its view, less safe adaptations. Therefore, I find the Council has not treated Mr and Mrs X unfairly in considering their application for a ramp to their home.

Back to top

Recommended and agreed action

29. To address the injustice arising from the fault I have found I recommend, and the Council agrees to within four weeks of this my final decision to:
• Apologise in writing to Mrs X for the lack of written decisions and explanations of the Council’s decisions;
• Pay Mrs X £100 in recognition of the avoidable time and inconvenience to which the Council put Mrs X in following up her complaint as a result.

Back to top

Final decision

30. In completion of my investigation I find the Council has acted with fault in communicating its decisions on the application for adaptations.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman