Summary: The Council first delayed and then failed to properly consider Mr B’s enquiries about a Disabled Facilities Grant to alter his wet room floor so he could shower safely. It has now assessed his situation and has taken action to reduce the risk to him while it further investigates how to alter the floor. It will retrain staff and formally apologise to Mr and Mrs B. The Council has agreed to also make a payment to him in recognition of the distress and inconvenience its shortcomings caused.

The complaint

1. Mr & Mrs B complain that the Council has not completed an occupational therapy (OT) assessment requested in early 2019. The Council’s shortcomings meant that Mr B has not been able to apply for a disabled facilities grant (DFG) or other grants to adapt his bathroom. He cannot use the shower and the floor is uneven. Mr B has had a series of falls and this impacts on his independence.

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. If we are 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by Mr and Mrs B’s representative and discussed the issues with him. I considered the information provided by the Council including. I also considered the law and guidance set out below. Both parties have had an opportunity to comment on a draft of this statement. I have considered any comments I received before issuing a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The law and guidance

5. A DFG pays for necessary adaptations to allow a disabled person to live in their home. The Council must approve these if the person has a qualifying condition. How much the Council can award, depends on the income and capital of the disabled person. (Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996)
6. The relevant good practice guidance says referrals and enquiries about adaptations should be dealt with effectively and quickly. (Home Adaptations for Disabled People: A detailed guide to related legislation, guidance, and good practice 2015, paragraph 7.1)

What happened

7. Mr B has complex mental illness and is physically disabled. He uses a walking aid and a mobility scooter. Mrs B is his informal carer and tries to promote Mr B’s independence.
8. Mr and Mrs B bought a flat with a wet room intending that this would help Mr B wash and see to his personal care. A charity commissioned a private OT assessment to help the couple with various adaptations. The OT found that Mr B could mobilise only slowly around the property using crutches or a walking frame. He said that he had poor balance and frequent falls inside. Although he could use the level access shower, he suffered pain and his poor balance made him unsteady.
9. The OT recommended a shower chair, but when the charity came to fit the chair, they found the slope of the wet room floor did not allow the shower chair to be fitted properly. It seemed the wet room would need adaptations and so the charity decided to help Mr and Mrs B apply for a DFG. Their representative contacted the Council on 2 April 2019.
10. The Council’s OT service will assess a case in the first instance and decide whether an OT should visit and assess the situation or if there is a better course of action.
11. The Council’s case notes show that the Council tried to contact Mr B in May 2019, but when it managed to make contact, Mr B had been admitted to hospital for some psychiatric care. The Council closed the case and advised Mr and Mrs B to contact it again when he returned from hospital.
12. In June 2019, Mr B’s representative contacted the Council asking again for an assessment. The case notes say that Mr B also telephoned the Council in July. He told the Council that he had to sit on a stall to wash himself. At the end of July, Mrs B contacted the Council asking for an update. The Council advised that the case had not yet been allocated.
13. In August Mr B had another fall in the bathroom. His representative advised the Council. On 13 September, the Council telephoned Mrs B. She again told the Council that the wet room was uneven and that her husband keeps falling. It told Mrs B that repairs to the floor is her responsibility as homeowner.
14. The Council advised Mrs B to contact its housing department to look into a repayable repair grant to meet the cost of changing the floor. This is financial assistance for vulnerable homeowners paid by the Council. It gave Mrs B and the representative contact details for the team and also asked the team to contact them directly.
15. In September and October, Mr and Mrs B’s representative asked the Council to reconsider visiting to assess whether they needed an adaptation to the wet room floor. The Council confirmed it would not. Mr and Mrs B complained but the Council did not alter its view. It said the problem with the wet room floor was that it was in disrepair and repairs are not the Council’s responsibility and cannot be funded via a DFG. The representative told the Council in November, that she had tried many times to contact its housing department about a repayable grant, but could not get through.
16. Mr and Mrs B made a formal complaint. The Council acknowledged that it had delayed in reaching a decision. On 11 November, in response to the complaint, the Council’s OT visited Mr and Mrs B at home. She apologised to them for the amount of time it had taken the Council to confirm that it would not assess them for a DFG. She did not inspect the wet room floor.
17. In the course of my investigation, the Council has said that it should have investigated the matter more thoroughly and that the decision that an OT should not assess the situation was taken too soon. The Council’s OT has now visited the property and recommended that some equipment is provided. The OT has concluded that the floor is not in a state of disrepair and that the original flooring installed appears to be suitable for use with a shower chair, but has asked for the floor and the configuration of the bathroom to be investigated further. In the meantime, it has arranged to provide a wheeled shower chair so that Mr B does not have to stand or walk in the wet room.
18. The Council has undertaken to retrain relevant staff as to the rights of owner-occupiers and where there is a risk of injury at home.
19. The Council has acknowledged that an assessment could have taken place, much sooner, when it was originally requested. It has committed to resolving the issue and offered to make a formal apology to Mr and Mrs B, and pay them £250 in recognition of the inconvenience that it caused them in pursuing the complaint.

Analysis

20. I am pleased to see that the Council has acknowledged that it should not have assumed the wet room floor needed a repair, and I am pleased the Council has now completed an assessment and taken some action to put things right.
21. The Council’s shortcomings meant that it has taken longer than necessary to find a safe solution to the problem with Mr B’s wet room floor, and Mr B has not been able to bathe as safely as possible. The Council had the opportunity to resolve this sooner but did not because it insisted that the floor needed repairing despite Mr and Mrs B, and their representative clearly saying the problem was not a repair issue. This caused frustration and distress in addition to the problem with the wet room, and on top of Mrs B’s caring responsibilities and the effects of Mr B’s complex mental illness.

Agreed action

22. The Council has agreed that within one month of this decision it will show the Ombudsman it has:
• Made a formal apology to Mr and Mrs B;
• Paid them £250 in recognition of the time and trouble they were put to and the frustration caused when they had to pursue this matter with the Council and with the Ombudsman; and
• Paid them £500 in recognition of the distress and extra difficulties caused to them both by Mr B not being able to bathe as safely as he should.
23. The Council will within two months of this decision show the Ombudsman that it has:
• Completed its recommendations for the wet room and made a plan for any adaptations; and
• Completed training to relevant staff so that this fault does not recur.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have completed my investigation. There was maladministration causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman