Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council followed its assessment process when considering disabled adaptations. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council refused to assess his needs for disabled adaptations despite him asking it to do so. Mr X says the Council told him he needs to wait six months for an assessment. He says he has mobility difficulties and the situation causes him difficulty and impacts on his wife who is his carer. Mr X wants the Council to assess his needs and provide the adaptation he needs so he does not want to move to a different property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X describes himself as disabled with mobility issues and a wheelchair user. He says he has had issues with a stairlift installed at his property which is no longer fit for purpose.
6. The Council said its occupational therapist identified Mr X could not use his current stairlift safely. It recommended a vertical left would meet Mr X’s needs and was safer.
7. The Council said Mr X’s social landlord refused the request to install a vertical lift and offered to rehouse Mr X instead. Mr X asked the Council’s adult social care team to assist him. The Council said it contacted Mr X’s landlord and the landlord later agreed to proceed with the adaptation.
8. Mr X’s landlord and its suppliers continue to communicate with Mr X and the Council to consider all relevant factors and a suitable adaptation. The Council said Mr X’s landlord is responsible for any decisions relating to the installation of the lift.
9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint as there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating. The Council has completed an assessment and identified Mr X needs a different lift. As Mr X lives in a home owned and managed by a registered social landlord the Council can only liaise with the landlord. Mr X should complain to his landlord and then to the Housing Ombudsman Service if he wants to complaint about any delays relating to the installation of a different stairlift or vertical lift.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman