Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (22 010 013)
Category : Adult care services > Assessment and care plan
Decision : Upheld
Decision date : 21 Mar 2023
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his request for adaptations to his council-owned property, and the way it decided an alternative property was suitable for the family. The Council was at fault for not telling Mr X he could apply for a disabled facilities grant. The Council will apologise, review its processes and update the information on its website.
The complaint
- Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his request for adaptations to his council-owned property to meet his own mobility needs, and the needs of his son, Z, who also has disabilities. In particular, he complains that:
- the Council did not take action following an OT report in 2018, which said Z could not share a room with his sibling, and that it was not feasible for the room to be partitioned;
- following a further assessment of their needs in early 2022, the Council refused to consider extending his current home, and decided he should instead move to a larger property;
- following his complaint to us, the Council has offered him an alternative property, which he considers unsuitable for the family’s needs;
- the Council promised to install a stairlift at his current home, but later withdrew that offer.
- Mr X says the Council’s failure to adapt his current home is significantly impacting on his family’s health and wellbeing. He says his inability to get upstairs without assistance from outside the family means he can only take a bath once a week, and he has to sleep on the sofa downstairs. He also says that because Z is unable to share a room, his wife has to share a bedroom with Z’s sibling.
What I have and have not investigated
- I have not investigated complaint a). As explained below, we will not usually investigate complaints about events more than 12 months before the complaint to us unless there are good reasons to do so.
- In this case, Mr X complained to us in October 2022 about events from 2018. He told us he was not able to complain earlier because of his health problems, and because he was working with the Council to resolve the matter, and action was delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic.
- I have decided not to investigate complaints about events from 2018, because I consider it is unlikely I would be able to make robust findings and reach a worthwhile outcome about those events and because I am not persuaded Mr X could not have complained earlier.
- I have investigated events from October 2021, which was shortly before the Council first offered a stairlift assessment to Mr X.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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)
- We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
- We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
- 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)
- For cases involving council tenants, where the council is both the adult social care authority and the social housing landlord, some aspects of complaints may be within our jurisdiction and other aspects may be for the Housing Ombudsman. (Memorandum of Understanding between The Housing Ombudsman - following the amendments to the Housing Act 1996 as a result of the Localism Act 2011.)
- If we are satisfied with an organisation’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)
How I considered this complaint
- I considered:
- the information Mr X provided and spoke to him about his complaint;
- the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries;
- relevant law and guidance, as set out below; and
- our guidance on remedies, available on our website.
- Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Relevant law and guidance
Housing allocations
- Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. Many councils maintain a housing register which records those waiting for housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
- An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:
- homeless people;
- people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
- people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
- people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;
(Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3)) - This Council’s policy prioritises applicants using three groups:
- Group A: Urgent housing need. This includes applications by those who have previously served in the Armed Forces. Applicants within group A are prioritised based on the date of their application.
- Group B: High housing need.
- Group C: No housing need.
- Applicants within each group are prioritised based on the date of their application.
Adaptations
Disabled adaptations for council tenants
- Where a council is the social housing landlord, it can make adaptations for its disabled tenants as their landlord. It may assess the need for these disabled adaptations using an Occupation Therapist (OT), separately from a council’s social care authority’s assessment of their social care needs. Where the council is acting as social housing landlord, we cannot consider its actions.
Disabled Facilities Grants
- Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG)s are capital grants that are available to disabled people of all ages and in all housing tenures (i.e. whether renting privately, from a social landlord or council, or owner-occupiers) to contribute to the cost of adaptations to enable eligible disabled people to continue living safely and independently at home. People can apply, in writing for a DFG, so long as their application contains certain specified information. (The Housing Renewal Grants Regulations 2016)
- Government guidance (Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) delivery: guidance for local authorities in England) published in March 2022 sets out that ‘disabled Facilities Grants are capital grants that are available to people of all ages and in all housing tenures (i.e. whether renting privately, from a social landlord or council, or owner-occupiers) to contribute to the cost of adaptations’. Eligible council tenants can apply for a DFG in the same way as any other applicant, although the adaptations are funded differently. Before approving a grant, a council must be satisfied the work is necessary and appropriate to meet the disabled person’s needs and it is also reasonable and practicable to carry out the works.
- DFGs for children are not means-tested. The maximum grant is £30,000 but Councils can give more help if they think it is necessary.
- A recent High Court case concluded a council tenant’s DFG application must be treated on the same basis as would an application by an owner occupier. The judge concluded ‘in my judgement it is not lawful to refuse a DFG on the ground that the claimant must move home’. (McKeown, R (On the Application of) v London Borough of Islington [2020 EWHC 779)
- The Council’s website says:
- major adaptations are those that cost more than £1,000, and include stairlifts, internal adaptations and extensions;
- if a person is assessed as needing a major adaptations the process is different depending on who owns your house;
- if the house is Council owned and the adaptations cost more than £10,000, the Council will discuss what options are open. “We’ll consider if adapting your home is the best solution or if its better to support you to seek a more suitable home environment”.
Care Act assessments
- Sections 9 and 10 of the Care Act 2014 require councils to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. They must provide an assessment to everyone regardless of their finances or whether the council thinks the person has eligible needs. The assessment must be of the adult’s needs and how they impact on their wellbeing and the results they want to achieve. It must also involve the individual and where suitable their carer or any other person they might want involved.
Disabled children
- Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 says councils must safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need. A child is in need if they are disabled. Under the Act, councils can provide financial assistance to the child or family and the courts have said this can extend to providing major adaptations to a child’s home.
- Under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, councils with social services functions have a duty to arrange for adaptations to a person’s home to secure their safety, comfort or convenience.
What happened
- This decision statement provides a summary of the key events. It is not intended to be a comprehensive account for everything that happened or every document I have considered.
- Mr and Mrs X live with their children in a council property. Mr X has an injury that affects his mobility. He cannot access the upstairs in his current home without support from a relative who lives elsewhere. This means he can only use the bath or shower when the relative is able to assist him. It also means Mr X is mainly sleeping on the sofa downstairs, which he says is aggravating his injury.
- One of the children, Z, has been diagnosed with ADHD, and displays some challenging behaviour, particularly at night-time. Mr and Mrs X wanted Z to have his own room, so he did not disturb his siblings if he was awake at night.
Refusal of extension
- Mr X said the Council refused to extend his current Council property and insisted said the family had to move to a larger property. He said it had told him it did not extend Council properties, although he said it had extended other Council properties in the area. He also said the Council told him an extension would cost £140,000, which was not justifiable. Mr X disputed the extension would cost that much and said it would be disruptive to Z to move from the current property.
- We can consider whether a council has appropriately considered its duty to provide adaptations to meet the needs of a disabled child, and whether and how a council has considered an application for a disabled facilities grant (DFG).
- In response to my enquiries, the Council said it had never considering extending the property. It had previously considered dividing a bedroom so the siblings could each have their own room, but decided this was not feasible.
- Mr X then told it that he also had medical needs, which it assessed, although there was a delay in doing that due to COVID-19 restrictions. It then decided, given the lapse of time, it needed to reassess Z’s needs. This also included confirming Z needed his own room as there had been conflicting views from professionals about this at this point.
- In light of these assessments, the Council considered the family needed to move to an alternative property. It awarded Group A priority on its housing register, which recognised their urgent need to move. Its letter confirming this, dated 20 March 2022, said:
- the assessed need was for a four bedroom property or a three bedroom property that also had a room downstairs that could be used as a bedroom by Mr and Mrs X;
- Mr and Mrs X could bid on properties and would be assessed in line with its allocations policy;
- if Mr and Mrs X refused three offers of accommodation, without good reason, the application would be disqualified for 12 months and they would not be considered for other properties during that period.
- Relevant professionals met with Mr and Mrs X at their home in late March 2022 to discuss the outcome of the assessments and discuss moving to another property. The record of this meeting shows:
- Mr and Mrs X said they wanted to stay in the same area;
- Mr X asked whether the Council could consider a five bedroom property so his brother could live with them to support Mr X. The Council said five bedroom properties were not available and that once a stair lift was installed Mr X would not need his brother to support him;
- Mr X also asked whether two properties could be knocked into one and was told this would only happen if there were a large number of children, and therefore a high bedroom requirement;
- it was agreed the Council would look for a suitable four bedroom property and that Occupational Therapists (OTs) would assess the suitability on any property identified.
My findings – refusal of extension
- The Council could consider extending the current property but complaints about a decision not to do so would usually be outside our scope as it would be acting as social housing landlord when making that decision. We can consider how a council has considered adaptations to meet the needs of a disabled child, although it is not entirely clear in this case whether the extension Mr X is seeking is to meet his own needs or those of Z.
- When an extension to a council property is considered, Mr and Mrs X can apply for a disabled facilities grant (DFG) in the same way as applicants who are not Council tenants can do so. The DFG process says the Council would need to be satisfied the work is necessary and appropriate to meet the disabled person’s needs, and that it is reasonable and practicable to carry out the works.
- The Council said it had not considered extending the current property. There is no evidence of a request for an extension in the period I have investigated, nor have I seen evidence the family did not want to move. But equally, there is no evidence the Council considered extending the current property or advised Mr X he could apply for a DFG. I also note the Council’s website does not specifically refer to the possibility that a council tenant can apply for a DFG, which means council tenants are not aware they can do so. This is fault. I cannot say that Mr X would have applied for a DFG if he had been made aware he could do so, nor can I say what the outcome would have been if an application had been made. However, there is some uncertainty about this, which is an injustice to Mr X.
- After assessing the household’s needs the Council decided the family needed an alternative and larger property. To help them achieve this, it awarded Group A priority, which is the highest priority on its housing register, to recognise their urgent need to move. The records seen do not show Mr X raised concerns about moving, although he is unhappy about the suitability of the property the Council has since offered, which I will consider further below.
Suitability of alternative property
- Mr X complained the Council had offered an alternative property that was not suitable for the family and said it would not assist them further if they refused it.
- The Council identified property A in September 2022 and an officer discussed it with Mr X. The officer explained property A had three bedrooms upstairs and a bedroom downstairs large enough for Mr and Mrs X, with an adjoining wet room. The record says Mr X said he was interested, and the officer explained it was subject to financial and OT assessments to check it was suitable.
- In October 2022, an OT visited property A with a housing officer. The record of the visit stated they assessed the property as suitable and recorded:
- there were ramps to the front and rear doors, making property A more accessible for Mr X that the current property;
- the ground floor bedroom and wet room met Mr X’s needs and meant there was no need for a stairlift;
- the Council should consider door sensors to alert Mr and Mrs X if Z left his room during the night, and anti-climb fence panels were needed to ensure Z’s safety in the garden.
- Following this visit, there was a further discussion with Mr X, who said he was concerned about:
- unlicensed bikes using the road as a cut through; and
- the children sleeping upstairs without adult supervision.
- I have seen a record showing an officer did follow up with a colleague the concern about bikes, but no record of the outcome of that. The Council said that other relevant professionals involved with the family did not consider it was unsafe for the children to have bedrooms upstairs and their parents downstairs, and had noted that having one parent upstairs had not prevented Z from getting up during the night. The Council also said the property was in an area close to where the family currently live and on the same road as another property they had expressed a keen interest in. It would consider further adaptations to the property such as window locks, door sensors and garden safety.
- In response to my enquiry about the advice given about refusing the offer, the Council said it advised Mr X that properties like property A do not become available very often and that if he refused this it could not say when another property would become available that would meet their needs. It said it had not said it would not support them.
My findings – alternative property
- It is not my role to say whether property A is suitable, but I can consider whether there was fault in the decision-making process.
- The family were assessed as needing either a four bedroom property or a three bedroom property with a room downstairs that could be used as a bedroom by Mr and Mrs X. This was so that Z could have his own room.
- Appropriate professionals, who were involved with the family and understood their needs, visited property A to assess whether it would be suitable. It considered Z’s needs arising from his ADHD, and Mr X’s mobility needs. It specifically considered whether it was safe for the children to be upstairs and their parents downstairs and decided this was not unsafe.
- On the basis of the information seen, there was no fault in the way the Council considered whether property A was suitable.
- It is open to Mr and Mrs X to refuse the offer and I have not seen any evidence the Council said it would not assist them further if they did so. The Council said in its letter dated March 2022 that, if an applicant refused three offers, without good reason, their application would be disqualified for 12 months. It was not fault for the Council to explain that properties that would meet the family’s needs do not come up very often and that therefore there could be a long wait before it could identify another suitable property if Mr and Mrs X refused property A.
Request for stair lift
- Mr X said the Council initially offered to instal a stairlift but later withdrew its offer. In response to my enquiries, the Council said the plan was for it to identify a four bedroom property for the family to move to and its offer was to instal a stairlift in the new property.
- The records show the Council identified the need to consider a stairlift in early October 2021, but Mr X declined an assessment then because he was concerned about the risks to Z. At that stage, the Council was reassessing Z’s needs, following which relevant professionals met with Mr and Mrs X at their home in March 2022. At that meeting, the professionals explained why they did not consider installing a stair lift posed a risk to Z. However, in June 2022, Mr X mentioned he had been having blackouts. The Council then said it could not consider a stairlift until the blackouts had been explored with health professionals, due to the risks to Mr X if he had a blackout whilst using a stairlift.
My findings – request for stairlift
- The records confirm the plan was to identify a larger property for the family but are not clear about whether the intention was to install a stair lift in the current property or in the larger one. That said, it is clear the Council was willing to assess Mr X for a stairlift until he said he was experiencing blackouts, at which point it became concerned about his own safety whilst using one. The Council was not at fault for not continuing to consider the stairlift in those circumstances.
Agreed action
- Within one month of the date of the final decision, the Council will apologise to Mr X for not telling him that he could apply for a DFG if he wanted adaptations made to his current property rather than moving to an alternative property, and provide him with the relevant information/form to make an application if he wishes to do so.
- Within three months of the date of the final decision, the Council will:
- review its processes to ensure that when a Council tenant needs disabled adaptations, it tells them they can apply for a disabled facilities grant, and that it assesses any such application in line with relevant law and guidance;
- amend the wording on its website to make it clear that a Council tenant can apply for a disabled facilities grant in the same way that those rent from other landlords or own their own home can do so; and
- provides guidance to relevant staff to ensure that complaints by Council tenants about a refusal to extend a council property are signposted to the Housing Ombudsman Service, and complaints about its handling of disabled facilities grants are signposted to us.
- The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
Final decision
- I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to personal injustice. I have recommended action to remedy the injustice and prevent recurrence of the fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman