Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide them with care and support and has not assisted them with repairs to their privately owned property. There is no fault in the way the Council has assessed Mr X’s care needs or responded to Mr X’s request for repairs.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide them with care and support and has not assisted them with repairs to their privately owned property. As a result, they say they have not received the support they need.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided to us by Mr and Mrs X and information provided by the Council in response to our initial enquiries. I have considered the relevant law and guidance.
5. I gave Mr and Mrs X and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered any comments I received in reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The relevant law and guidance

Disabled facilities grant

6. Under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, councils can award Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG) to people whose disability means their home needs adaptation. If the person applying meets the qualifying criteria the council must award the grant. DFGs are means tested and are used to cover a wide range of adaptations such as a stairlift or walk in shower. Minor adaptations (such as stair rails or shower seats) are provided free of charge without the need for a DFG.
7. A council must decide if the proposed works are necessary and appropriate to meet the needs of the disabled person. It must also be satisfied it is reasonable and practicable to carry out the works given the condition of the property to be adapted. An occupational therapist usually carries out the assessment of the need for adaptations.

Care needs assessment

8. The Care Act requires councils to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. The assessment must be of the adult’s needs and how they impact on their wellbeing and the outcomes they want to achieve. It must also involve the individual and where appropriate their carer or any other person they might want involved.
9. An adult’s needs meet the eligibility criteria if they arise from or are related to a physical or mental impairment or illness and as a result the adult cannot achieve two or more of the following outcomes and as a result there is or is likely to be a significant impact on well-being:
• Managing and maintaining nutrition
• Maintaining personal hygiene
• Managing toilet needs
• Being appropriately clothed
• Making use of the home safely
• Maintaining a habitable home environment
• Accessing work, training, education
• Making use of facilities or services in the community
• Carrying out caring responsibilities.

(Care and Support (Eligibility Criteria) Regulations 2014, Regulation 2)

What happened

10. I have considered what happened from November 2022, when Mr X requested an assessment for a DFG, until June 2024 when we accepted Mr X’s complaint. The following is a summary of the key events:
11. In November 2022 Mr X requested a disabled facilities grant (DFG) and help with repairs to his privately owned property. The Council told Mr X it could not help with his repairs and advised him to contact the local assistance fund or household support scheme. It agreed to assess him for adaptations.
12. An Occupational Therapist (OT) visited Mr X in December 2022 to complete an assessment for adaptations. They found Mr X was doing very well physically but was impacted by his environment which was cluttered, needed clearing and needed some repairs carrying out. The OT recommended minor adaptations of a drop down shower seat and grab rails. The OT advised Mr X to contact Somerset Independence Plus (SIP) to see if he could get help with repairs and with clearing clutter. SIP is the Council’s home improvements service which provides information and support around home adaptations. They also referred Mr X to Somerset Village and Community Agents (a charity who provide support to those in the Council’s area) for support with clearing the house and for applying to the Council’s housing register.
13. In early January 2023 Mr X told the Council he was not prepared to move and so did not want to join the housing register. Mr and Mr X complained to the Council about the lack of care and support they received from the Council and that their house was dangerous. The Council responded and confirmed an OT had assessed Mr X’s needs and recommended minor adaptations. They had also shared the details of SIP with Mr X regarding his repairs.
14. In late January 2023 Mr X contacted the OT. He said he had requested a DFG and was offered grab rails and a drop down shower seat instead. He requested another OT assessment for him and Mrs X. The OT explained Mr X did not require a DFG as he did not need adaptations other than those recommended and DFG’s were not for property repairs. The main issue was disrepair in the house. The OT provided Mr X with the telephone number for SIP. The OT told Mr X he would benefit from being rehoused.
15. Officers from the charity visited Mr and Mrs X. They updated the OT that SIP advised Mr X to request a needs assessment from Adult Social Care and to approach Lendology (a social enterprise that offers low cost loans) regarding his home repairs. SIP had said if he was ineligible for support via Lendology he may be signposted to SIP for a Decent Homes grant but as part of the policy, he must explore the other avenues first.
16. In late February Mr X called the Council. He said SIP had referred him to Lendology for a loan to assist with his house repairs but he did not want a loan as he did not think he could afford it. The Council referred Mr X to an advice service for advice and assistance and reiterated a DFG was not for house repairs.
17. Mr X continued to contact the Council. In April 2023 an OT spoke to Mr X’s advocate and explained Mr X would not be reassessed unless his needs had significantly changed. Mr X had requested a stairlift, but the OT confirmed they had assessed Mr X as able to safely manage the stairs. The advocate reported Mr X did not want to sell the house and move into social housing as the capital from the sale would affect his benefits and they did not want to take a loan out for repairs.
18. In May 2023 Mr X requested a care needs assessment. The Council wrote and advised Mr X that there had been no significant changes which identified the need for an assessment. The Council had previously assessed Mr X’s care needs in 2021 which found he did not have any eligible care needs. Following a discussion with Mr X’s advocate the Council agreed to carry out a further OT and care needs assessment.
19. In late June the GP referred Mr X for a mobility assessment with a physiotherapist. The Council considered this was required before it assessed his mobility as part of an OT assessment for adaptations.
20. Mr X complained to the Council in September 2023 about not getting care. An officer spoke with Mr X. The notes record that Mr X accepted Adult Social Care could not directly help with house repairs. Mr X said he was still waiting for his shower seat and rails but then said he did not want them at present. The officer confirmed Mr X was on a waiting list for another OT assessment.
21. In November 2023 an OT visited Mr X to carry out a further assessment. Mr X’s advocate was also present. During the visit Mr X highlighted repair issues. The OT reiterated these were not for a DFG. The OT recommended a shower seat and toilet frame and concluded Mr X did not need the shower adapting. They noted they would check if any loans or grants may be available to help with home repairs. The equipment order was later cancelled as the company could not get hold of Mr X to arrange delivery.
22. In a call during December 2023 Mr X confirmed Lendology had offered a loan but he had declined this.
23. In January 2024 an OT and physiotherapist visited Mr X. They found Mr X was not eligible for a stair lift. Mr and Mrs X said they did not want the Council to reorder the shower seat and toilet frame.
24. In February 2024 an officer visited to complete a care needs assessment for Mr X. They noted Mrs X said her issues were health related. She needed help to reduce the time she spent supporting Mr X, but she had no care needs. They concluded Mr X may need some support with personal care and to give Mrs X a break. They recommended Mr X attend a day centre one day a week to improve his wellbeing and to support Mrs X and receive 30 minutes support each morning to help with personal care and dressing.
25. In early March, the Council identified a care provider but it and the day centre had difficulties contacting Mr and Mrs X to arrange a start date. Mr X then told the Council he did not require this support. The Council ended the care package.
26. Mr X contacted the Council again in May 2024 to complain about the lack of care support. The officer explained Mr X had declined the care package. Mr X said he would like to attend the day centre and the officer agreed to get the day centre to write to Mr X. Mr X confirmed he did not want carers attending his home. The day centre continued to have difficulty contacting Mr X.

Findings

27. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide what care and support a person needs. That is the Council’s role. We look at the process the Council followed to make its decision. If it followed the process correctly, we cannot question the decision itself. The Council assessed Mr X for adaptations in late 2022 and concluded Mr X did not need a DFG. It recommended minor adaptations to aid Mr X which Mr X declined. Mr X raised further issues and the Council reassessed Mr X in September 2023. It again recommended equipment which Mr X declined. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council assessed Mr X for a DFG.
28. Mr X’s main concern has been repairs to his privately owned property. The Council’s Adult Social Care Team has repeatedly explained it cannot fund repairs. It appropriately referred Mr X to SIP for support who advised Mr X to contact Lendology. Mr X declined a loan. He also declined to join the Council’s housing register. The Council is not responsible for repairs to privately owned properties. The Council is not at fault.
29. Mr and Mrs X requested a care needs assessment. The Council originally refused this as it considered their needs had not changed since they were last assessed. It then agreed to do so. The Council assessed Mr X’s care needs and there is no evidence of fault in the way it did this. It recommended Mr X receive some daily care support and a day at a day centre. Mr X originally declined this support. It is open to Mr X to contact the Council and/or day centre should he now wish to pursue this further.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I have completed my investigation. There is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman