Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to charge Mrs X for respite care while a Disabled Facilities Grant was approved and works completed.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mrs X, says the Council is at fault for charging her for respite care whilst a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) was approved and works completed. She says the works should only have taken 6 weeks to complete but took longer because of delays by the Council. Mrs X says she could not return home until the works were completed as there was not enough space for the equipment she needed.

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. As part of my investigation I discussed the complaint with Mrs X and considered the details of her complaint. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response.
5. I also sent Mrs X and the Council a draft copy of this decision and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. A person can apply to their local authority if they (or somebody living in their home) are disabled and adaptations are required to the property so they can continue living in their home. This is known as a Disabled Facilities Grant.

Thurrock Council’s Disabled Facilities Grant Policy

7. This policy explains how the Council will consider and process applications for a Disabled Facilities Grant.
8. The policy says that once it had awarded the grant applicants can progress with instructing the approved contractor to start works. The policy does not say the Council will liaise with the approved builder about this process or that it will be responsible for applying for any other permissions included Building Notices.

Key events

9. Mrs X lives with her husband in their own home. She has conditions including arthritis and cellulitis.
10. In May 2018 she was admitted to hospital following a fall at her home. Mr and Mrs X said they did not want her to be discharged from hospital until their home had been adapted to facilitate Mrs X living there.
11. Mrs X was told that she could not remain in hospital as she was medically fit for discharge. A number of options were discussed with Mr and Mrs X including her returning home with support. However, Mrs X decided that she should go into respite care while she pursued an adaptation to her home.
12. A financial assessment was carried out for Mrs X to determine how much she should contribute towards the cost of her respite care.
13. Mrs X moved into respite care on 1 June 2018.
14. An Occupational Therapist (OT) visit was carried out at Mr and Mrs X’s home in early July following a request for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) submitted on their behalf by their local Councillor, Cllr Y.
15. The OT recommended removal of 2 walls between the lounge and former kitchen to create a downstairs living area and provision of a platform and ramp at the rear door to allow for wheelchair access. The recommendation was received on 5 July.
16. Care records for Mrs X, show that she and her husband were advised that she could return home while the DFG was being progressed and return to respite care when works began. However, Mrs X remained in respite care as she and her husband considered it would be unfavourable for her to live in the small space available in their home.
17. Mr and Mrs X were told to complete a Provisional Means Test form so their financial assessment towards the DFG could be assessed. They returned the form on 10 July.
18. On 12 July the Council received a quote for the works from Cllr Y. The email suggested a second quote was attached but this was not the case. The Council asked for this to be provided as it requires at least two quotes to be submitted.
19. On 16 July the Council visited Mrs X at her respite placement to help her and Mr X complete the DFG application.
20. The Council received the second quotation for the works on 30 July.
21. The DFG was approved on 31 July and approval documents given to Mr X. The Council advised they could now arrange for works to start with the approved builder.
22. Works were due to commence on 14 August, however Mr and Mrs X’s builder had not obtained a Building Notice and so the works could not proceed.
23. By early September works had commenced at the property. However, owing to the delay in obtaining the correct paperwork the builder was dividing his time between works for Mrs X and other clients.
24. Mrs X left respite care and returned home on 21 October.
25. The Council signed off the works on 12 November.
26. Following completion of the works the Council sent Mrs X a bill for her contribution towards the cost of her respite care. The bill was for the 21 weeks that she was in respite care.
27. Mr and Mrs X disputed the bill. They said the they were told the works would only take six weeks and therefore they should not be charged for any weeks beyond this as the delay was not their fault.
28. The Council considered their request but initially concluded that no reduction should be offered. This was because it was open to Mrs X to have returned home prior to works beginning and the delays in commencing works were not down to the Council.
29. Mr and Mrs X continued to challenge the Council resulting it reducing the bill from 21 weeks to 15 weeks on the grounds that there were delays in building works starting because the Building Notice had not been applied for.
30. However, Mr and Mrs X remain unhappy and say they should only pay for six weeks respite care.

Analysis

31. The Council received Mrs X’s DFG application from the OT on 5 July. It had approved the grant by 31 July. I do not consider this timescale represents delay by the Council.
32. I note that matters could have progressed more expediently if two quotes had been provided to the Council earlier however this is not the result of fault by the Council who notified Cllr Y that only one quote was attached on receipt of his email.
33. Mrs X says the Council is responsible for delay in works commencing because their builder had not obtained a Building Notice to do so. Obtaining such a notice is not the responsibility of the Council’s DFG department. It is for the approved builder to obtain the notice from the relevant Council department.
34. Nevertheless, the Council has reduced the amount of the invoice by six weeks. This is longer the period of the alleged delay owing to the lack of a Building Notice which lasted from the 14 August to 5 September. I am therefore of the view that even if obtaining the Building Notice had been the responsibility of the DFG department, the Council’s offer addresses any injustice that Mrs X would have incurred.
35. I am aware that Mrs X says works took longer to complete because her approved builder was working on more than one project because of the delay in starting works. However, for the reasons explained above I do not consider this delay was the fault of the Council.
36. I note that Mrs X strongly believes she could not have returned home until the works were complete, and I acknowledge that Mrs X returning home prior the DFG works being completed would not have been ideal.
37. However, care records show professionals involved in her care concluded that returning home prior to DFG works commencing was feasible. This is a decision it was entitled to make, and the Ombudsman is therefore unable to question this.
38. It was therefore Mrs X’s choice to opt to stay in respite care before DFG works began and to bear the associated cost. I cannot conclude that further reductions to the amount Mrs X owed for respite are warranted on these grounds.

Back to top

Final decision

39. I have concluded my consideration of this complaint, with a finding of no fault by the Council

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman