Broxbourne Borough Council (17 004 197)

Category : Adult care services > Disabled facilities grants

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 18 Jun 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council delayed determining a disabled facilities grant application. She made the application in May 2017 and there is nothing to suggest the Council ever made a decision, which is fault. However, Mrs X has not been significantly affected by this as she wanted adaptations she had never been assessed as requiring.

The complaint

  1. Mrs X complains the Council delayed in determining a disabled facilities grant (DFG) for adaptations at her property and the adaptations suggested do not meet her needs.
  2. The failure to make a decision on the DFG application has frustrated Mrs X and left her without the facilities she considers she needs to meet her disability.

Back to top

What I have investigated

  1. I am only investigating the Council’s actions from May 2017 when Mrs X submitted a new DFG application. I explain at paragraph 27 below the matters I have not investigated.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. 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

  1. As part of the investigation, I have:
    • considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
    • made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
    • discussed the issues with the complainant;
    • sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and taken account of their comments in reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Mrs X is disabled and wants a DFG so she can have a downstairs bedroom and bathroom. The Borough Council has responsibility for determining DFG applications. As part of the consideration of a DFG, the Borough Council can make a referral to the County Council’s occupational therapists (OT). The OT’s will carry out an assessment of the applicants need and make recommendations to the Borough Council regarding suitable adaptations.
  2. Mrs X has been seeking a DFG for many years. This investigation is only concerned with the application made in May 2017. Mrs X had previously been assessed for a DFG which included a through floor lift and alterations to her upstairs bathroom to include a level access shower. Mrs X has never wanted this and has been pushing for a downstairs bathroom with a bath.
  3. Mrs X completed a new application form and submitted it to the Borough Council in May 2017. Her application included plans showing a bath. Mrs X said in her application it was her choice to include a bath
  4. The Borough Council contacted the OT at the County Council to seek comments on the application and plans. It asked if the plans met Mrs X’s needs and it the area was large enough.
  5. The OT contacted the Borough Council saying it had been four years since it had carried out an assessment of Mrs X’s needs and so she was not happy to sign off any plans.
  6. Mrs X visited the Borough Council offices on 6 June and spoke to two officers. The case was discussed in detail. The officers explained that while Mrs X wanted a bath, the previous OT assessment has recommended a level access shower. The Council told Mrs X her case was on hold awaiting further input from the OT. On 13 June the Borough Council told Mrs X it was waiting for a new assessment to be completed by an OT.
  7. In June Mrs X contacted the County Council. The Council treated this as a self referral to its Adult Social Care service. It advised her to seek a medical report from the GP to support her claim that her medical needs required her to bathe rather than shower. Mrs X then made a complaint to the County Council about its failure to agree adaptations at her property.
  8. An officer from the Borough Council spoke with an OT on 11 July. The OT confirmed she would be visiting Mrs X on 20 July regarding a complaint Mrs X had raised.
  9. On 20 July a social care manager and OT visited Mrs X at her home. The Council says that during this visit Mrs X would not consent to an assessment which would consider her needs within the existing footprint of the property. The Council says its assessment process considers what is necessary and appropriate and it would not consider an assessment for an extension to a property without first considering if the person’s needs can be met within the property footprint.
  10. The County Council says it did not communicate the outcome of the visit on 20 July to the Borough Council. It says it never received a referral from the Borough Council for an OT assessment and it would therefore not pass on information. The Council says it advised Mrs X a through floor lift and level access shower would meet her needs. It says if Mrs X had consented to an assessment it could have completed a DFG application and specification of works which it would have forwarded to the Borough Council.
  11. The Borough Council wrote to Mrs X on 9 August saying the application and plan submitted in May 2017 had been sent to the OT’s for confirmation the works were suitable. It said an OT assessment was still required.
  12. In October 2017 all DFG cases, including Mrs X’s, were transferred to Hertfordshire Home Improvement Agency (HHIA). The Borough Council wrote to Mrs X on 3 October explaining this and providing contact details for HHIA.
  13. HHIA says Mrs X refused to engage with it regarding the DFG application and OT assessment. No evidence has been provided to indicate a decision has been made on Mrs X’s DFG application or that this decision was communicated to her.

Analysis

  1. Mrs X has a very clear idea of what adaptations she requires. The evidence provided shows Mrs X has been in dispute with the Council for several years. Mrs X wants a ground floor extension including a bathroom with a bath. The previous OT assessments found that Mrs X’s needs could be met within the existing property and recommended a through floor lift with level access shower.
  2. Mrs X made an application for a DFG in May 2017. Mrs X included her own plans which showed a ground floor extension and bathroom with a bath. On receipt of the application the Borough Council sought advice from the OT’s at the County Council regarding the suitability of the plans. This action was appropriate in the circumstances.
  3. The evidence provided by the Borough Council and County Council in response to my enquiries shows there was contact between them about Mrs X’s application. The Borough Council was seeking an opinion from the OT’s about the suitability of the adaptations Mrs X applied for. There is nothing to suggest the Borough Council ever made a formal referral for a new OT assessment. However, there was direct telephone contact between the two councils and I am satisfied the County Council was aware the Borough Council wanted its view on the suitability of Mrs X’s application.
  4. Officers from the County Council visited Mrs X at home on 20 July. Mrs X declined the offer of a functional assessment during this visit. The County Council did not notify the Borough Council of the outcome of the visit. There is nothing to suggest the Borough Council contacted the Council to chase the outcome of the visit. Its further communication with Mrs X in August indicated it was waiting for an OT assessment in order to make a decision on her DFG application.
  5. The Borough Council did not take appropriate and timely action to determine Mrs X’s DFG application. It believed an assessment would be completed on 20 July during a visit by the County Council. However, the Borough Council did nothing to chase up the outcome of this visit or ensure an OT assessment would take place. The Borough Council wrote to Mrs X on 9 August saying an OT assessment was required but it did nothing to make this happen. It was fault for the Council to delay taking action to determine Mrs X’s DFG.
  6. A new organisation, HHIA, took over the administration of DFGs for the Council in October 2017. The Borough Council notified Mrs X of this change in administration. I am aware she did not wish to engage with this new organisation and so HHIA, acting on behalf of the Council, did not take any further action. If HHIA was unable to determine the application because Mrs X would not engage with it, it still should have written explaining the outcome of her application. While HHIA should respond to complaints about its service, it is acting on behalf of the Borough Council and so the Council should ensure it is responding appropriately to any complaints.
  7. I have identified fault by the Borough Council and so have to consider what, if any, remedy is appropriate. As I stated before, Mrs X only wanted a ground floor extension with a bath and would have rejected any other adaptations. While I cannot know with any certainty what the outcome of a full OT assessment would have been if it had been completed in 2017, on balance I am not persuaded a recommendation would have been made to provide the adaptations preferred by Mrs X. I am therefore not persuaded there would have been a different outcome even if the fault identified had not occurred.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. Subject to further comments by Mrs X and the Council, I intend to complete my investigation as I am not persuaded Mrs X has suffered a significant enough injustice to warrant further investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

  1. Mrs X has been making DFG applications since 2006. She says the problems go back to that date. The Ombudsman does not normally investigate complaints unless they are made to him within 12 months of the person first becoming aware that something had happened which affected them. As Mrs X made a new DFG application in May 2017 it is appropriate to consider matters from that date onwards. There is nothing to suggest Mrs X could not complain sooner about earlier matters and so I will not exercise discretion to investigate them.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings