Summary: The Ombudsman finds no evidence of fault causing injustice by the Council in its consideration of Mr X’s request for the Council to build an extension to his home to meet the needs of his disabled son.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains the Council failed to properly consider his request for it to build an extension for his disabled son to meet his needs. He says the Council’s officers were biased against him and did not fully consider his son, Z’s needs and wishes as well as the other members of the family’s needs.

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 cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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. I have discussed the complaint with the complainant and considered the complaint and the copy correspondence provided by him. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. I invited the complainant to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X lives with his wife and three children in a two-bedroom council property. Mr X’s son, Z, is disabled and has been diagnosed as autistic. He has other conditions which affect him, and his behaviour can be challenging. Mr X and his wife were educating their children at home.
6. In August 2016 Mr X asked the Council for a disabled facility grant to build an extension to his home to provide a sensory room for his son. He said that this would help his son and his other children who were being affected by his son.
7. The Council passed the request to its occupational therapist (OT) for assessment in November 2016. The OT, Ms A, contacted the health service specialist children’s OT Ms B, who was already considering how to assist the family with Z’s disability. The Council’s notes on its system show they discussed Mr X’s request. They noted that “Z could run the risk of being isolated if playing in a separate room and would not support goals for his sensory and social development.”
8. The OTs visited jointly in November 2016 to assess Z. Mr X says Ms A said an extension “was not normally something we would do”. The Council’s assessment form shows it spoke to Z, his parents and saw the family in the property. Ms A asked what Z liked, where he played and about interaction with other members of the family. The family said it aimed to get Z back into school, but this was a long term goal. Ms A noted that the family was not suitably housed. Mr X said that they had considered seeking rehousing, but were very concerned about how Z would adjust to the change. He said they wanted to stay in their home.
9. Ms A considered the following documents when carrying out her assessment:
• A health service OT report from August 2014. This noted Z’s poor sleep routine, sensory and behaviour difficulties.
• An educational psychologist report from December 2014.
• A health service multidisciplinary report from May 2016. This noted Z’s difficulties in social situations and with friendships.
• Z’s neurologist report of August 2016 which gave recommendations about Z transitioning back to school.
• The Council’s Children with disabilities team’s assessment. This noted Z’s difficulties with his siblings, difficulties accessing social activities outside home, poor sleep routine, behaviour management. It noted that home schooling led to Z not being with his peers, which may add to social anxiety.
10. Ms A also discussed the matter with a senior OT. He advised that he did not consider an extension was appropriate. Ms A also met with the specialist children’s OT Ms B to discuss the case and they agreed to visit Mr X to confirm the outcome of the assessment.
11. At the home visit in December 2016 Ms A and Ms B advised Mr X the Council considered it should provide services rather than building an extension to address Z’s difficulties. The Council’s OT said that Mr X could utilise the property better if the children used rooms for other purposes. The Council said it had could refer Mr X and Z to its Disabled Children’s Outreach Service (DCOS) for help with managing Z’s behaviour. It said its Children with Disabilities team could also assist with inclusion services. The Council agreed that Mr X’s current property was overcrowded. The OT’s notes of the meeting show she said she offered support and advice regarding rehousing, but Mr X did not want to consider this.
12. The Council noted Mr X disagreed with its recommendation not to progress further with the assessment for adaptations. He said that even if Z was able to access activities outside the home, he would still be at home with his family and needed a separate space, which could be sound proofed, and climate controlled to address Z’s sensitivity to noise and temperature. He said Z was currently not sleeping in his bedroom due to noises. The OT advised it was difficult to remove noise from a room or a house, and even if it were possible it may encourage sensitivity.
13. In March 2017 the Council responded to Mr X’s solicitor’s letter which challenged the Council’s assessment that an extension was not suitable. It said the Council had offered support with rehousing but Mr X had declined. It also said it had taken account of Z’s diagnoses and how his disability affected his everyday life. It said it had referred Z to DCOS and Mr X had accepted this.
14. Mr X complained to the Council in April 2017 that in rejecting his request for an extension the Council failed to take account of all his family’s needs and had a blanket policy not to provide additional space or an extension. He said the Council
• Did not follow government guidance.
• Did not seek specialist or appropriate advice from Z’s consultants.
• Did not carry out carer’s assessment
• Did not consider the impact of Z’s siblings on each other or their needs.
• Did not consider Z’s safety, and mental and physical well-being
• Did not consider Z’s additional needs.
• Had made up its mind from the beginning, as Ms A said an extension was “not something we usually consider.”
• Was wrong to say the family was not rational and refused move. Moving was only a suggestion
• Did not advise how a move would work and what the chances were of a move.
• Gave no consideration to its discretionary power to fund a DFG.
15. The Council replied it considered an extension would not resolve the overcrowding or the difficulties Mr X had in caring for and educating his children at home. It said its OT had visited and carried out a detailed assessment involving Z and his parents in the assessment. It said the OT had consulted professionals to assist her, and sought advice from her supervisor and manager. The Council assured Mr X that it had no blanket policy regarding adaptations. It considered Z had his own bedroom which he could use for quiet time and could use other areas in the property. The OT considered the family’s current and future need for more space could not be resolved in the current property and she suggested the family apply for rehousing. This would provide space for Z and all the family’s needs.
16. The Council noted Mr X said he had made an informed choice not to move taking account of the impact on Z. However, having noted the sleeping arrangements, the Council considered that the overcrowding issue would continue to impact on the family as the children got older. The Council agreed that the impact of moving on Z was a genuine concern, but the overcrowding issue would need to be resolved. It said there were strategies that could assist Z in adjusting and there were many children in the borough with ASD that it rehoused. The Council also referred to the difficulties Mr X had described in managing Z’s condition, conflict with the siblings and home schooling his children. The Council advised Mr X to work with the professionals to get his children back into school. It said that if Mr X applied for rehousing it would carry out a specialist housing assessment.
17. Mr X complained further in August 2017. He said that Ms A was biased against the request from the start. He had seen notes on the file which showed Ms A spoke to Ms B before the visit and she explained she had concerns about an extension isolating Z. Ms B also said she had concerns about the children being out of school and that they were not being properly educated. He said the OT did involve the family and asked questions. But he also said she did not take account of the family’s needs and wishes. In his view moving home and getting the children back into school would not resolve the difficulties. He explained any new property would need to be suitable and in the same area. He anticipated there would be a very long wait.
18. Mr X chased a response in November 2017. The Council said it would respond as soon as possible. In November the Council also received a request from the GP of Mr X’s youngest daughter to assess her as she had behavioural difficulties too but was awaiting diagnosis. The Council offered to assess Mr X’s daughter and Z as well as Mr X, who has mobility difficulties. It also offered to carry out a carer’s assessment of Mrs X. However, Mr X declined because he said he was waiting for a response to his complaint.
19. In mid November 2017, the Council apologised for its delay in replying to Mr X’s complaint. It acknowledged Mr X had given the Council a lot of information. However, it said it considered the best way to address his concerns was for its service manager to visit him at home and go through the points he had raised. The Council could then agree any steps which needed to be taken and follow this with a written response.
20. Mr X replied that the Council had taken three months to offer a meeting and had not investigated properly in line with the statutory process. He felt the Council was not committed to looking fairly at his complaint. He was no further forward.
21. The Council apologised and responded that it had hoped to reply earlier but needed clarification regarding the issues. It offered to meet Mr X. The Council also offered to carry out a new assessment. However, Mr X did not agree to this.
22. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman that the Council had not properly considered his request for an extension. The Ombudsman referred the complaint back to the Council as it had not completed its complaint procedure.
23. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in January 2018, after Mr X sent a further letter regarding his complaint. The Council upheld Mr X’s complaint that it delayed responding to his complaint of August 2017. The Council did not uphold his complaint that the Council had failed to assess Z properly in 2016.
24. It noted Mr X disagreed with the assessment and thought the decision was based on costs or a blanket policy. However, it said it had carried out an appropriate assessment in 2016 with contributions from relevant professionals. The Council noted Mr X’s view that the assessment was irrational and did not take account of all the family or show it understood autism. The Council did not uphold this complaint because it said while it could consider extensions to create space for children due to behavioural difficulties, it needed to explore behavioural management strategies, and consider whether the adaptation would meet a long term identified need.
25. The Council noted Mr X’s view the property was not suitable and additional space of an extension would enable the family to relax. It agreed the property was not suitable for the family. There was overcrowding which would become worse as the children grew older and it considered the solution was moving to a more suitable property. It explained its housing OTs including an Autism Lead would carry out a special needs assessment and would consider the family’s needs and medical priority. The Council noted Mr X objected to rehousing because he was concerned that Z would not adjust to a new property. But it said it rehoused many children with autism. It considered X would manage the move to a new property after a period of adjustment. It agreed it could provide discretionary funding when there was an identified need that cannot be met, providing the adaption was reasonable and practicable. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint that it had no autism lead. The Council said it worked closely with the health service children’s OT team who had a specialist OT with expertise working with children with ASD diagnosis. The Council also had an autistic lead officer on its housing team and officers undertook training regarding the subject and strived to improve the Council’s service. The Council offered a meeting with the service manager again and also proposed an assessment of the family.
26. Mr X complained further at stage three of the Council procedure. He gave a number of reasons why the Council had not properly assessed his family and taken account of Z’s complex needs. In his view an extension was necessary and appropriate. He said the Council had not considered the family’s views particularly Z’s. The child should be involved according to guidance. He did not agree the assessment was person centred and did not accept the Council had consulted others. He felt the OT was biased form the start, believing Z should go back to school, suggesting that he was not being home schooled properly. He said his son had needs now and asked why the Council considered it must take account of future needs. He said the Council did not provide advice regarding rehousing options or tell him it had an autism lead.
27. The Council responded in April 2018. It said it considered its assessments in 2016 were fair, person centred and professional. It said it had considered Z’s feelings, his parent’s views and his interaction with his siblings. Its OT had assessed Z with the health service specialist OT who works with children who have an ASD diagnosis. She also liaised with other professionals and considered medical reports. As a result, the Council referred Z to DCOS and discussed constructive solutions. The Council noted Mr X said the OTs were overly concerned with him home schooling his children. The Council respected Mr X’s choice. However, its assessment identified Mr X was having difficulties home schooling, as Z had an ASD diagnosis and his daughter had a medical condition. It had made referrals and discussed strategies to provide opportunities to socialise. The Council considered there was no evidence that the assessment was biased or prejudged.
28. The Council noted Mr X’s complaint the Council had not confirmed the requested extension was necessary and appropriate or whether it considered a discretionary grant. Mr X’s view was the Council had fettered its discretion. The Council explained that Council tenants could have adaptations funded through its adaptation revenue budget rather than a DFG, which applied to private tenants and owner occupiers. The Council said the process was the same. The mandatory maximum grant for each scheme was £30,000. The Council could also offer discretionary grants. The Council said it would fund adaptation works over £30,000 if there was a clinical reason for it and the housing department agreed the adaptation was reasonable and practicable. It said it had provided discretionary funding in the past. However, the Council had not assessed that it was necessary or appropriate to recommend an extension at that time as other solutions had not been explored. In addition, the overcrowding in the property meant that rehousing should be explored.
29. The Council noted Mr X did not accept the Council had offered him support but he said it had caused frustration. He did not accept the Council view that he refused to engage with DCOS. The Council acknowledges that it could be difficult to be observed in one’s own home. But in its view, it would benefit Z and the family if the family accepted help. The Council did not agree with Mr X’s view that he could not implement behavioural strategies unless he had an extension.
30. The Council apologised that it dd not follow up the suggestion of a carer’s assessment in 2016. But it had offered a carers assessment in 2017 and Mr X had declined the offer. It offered again to carry this out.
31. The Council said it suggested rehousing because the family was overcrowded and moving may address some of the issues. It noted Mr X’s concerns about the impact on Z, and confirmed that it was Mr X’s decision whether to seek rehousing. The Council could not say how long it would take to move as it was dependent on a number of factors. It said it would support people to remain in their home. But sometimes it was not feasible. When considering adaptations, the Council tries to ensure these meet the “long term need”. DFG guidance states the family should have the intention to stay in the adapted property for at least five years. The Council explained its duty to ensure public money was used as effectively and that adaptations were as beneficial for as long as possible. The Council said it had no blanket policies and the decision to extend a property was made on a case by case basis. The Council partially upheld Mr X’s complaint about the housing advice it gave, as it said it should have provided more information so he could make an informed decision.
32. The Council offered a meeting with the service manager again so they could have a constructive dialogue to resolve the issues Mr X raised. It would enable discussion about the offer assessing of the family. Mr X’s daughter had not been diagnosed in 2016 and the Council said she needed to be assessed.

Analysis

33. I find the Council properly considered Mr X’s request for an extension. I have not seen fault in its consideration and therefore the Ombudsman cannot question the merits of its decision. The Council visited and talked to the family. It saw the interactions of the family at home. It considered Z’s and Mr X’s views and those of the family. A specialist ASD OT visited and was involved with the assessment. The Council’s OT considered professional reports and advice. I consider the Council took into account relevant information and came to a view adhering to guidance and legislation. Overcrowding and meeting a long term need are relevant factors. The Council must consider whether the need can be met by other means, which it did.
34. Mr X has complained that there was bias by the Council and the OTs predetermined the outcome. He says the OT’s comments about home schooling and social isolation showed bias and were not relevant or were accorded too much weight. The evidence I have seen show the OTs said before the visit that they were concerned regarding Z’s social isolation, as he was home schooled and an extension may not support his sensory and social development. I consider these were relevant concerns and do not show the decision was predetermined. The OTs assessed the family at home following this and considered other reports.
35. The Council has responded regarding the OTs comment an extension “was not normally something the Council would do”. The Council says that where the clinical reasoning supports a recommendation for an extension the OT will support an application. However, the Council agrees extensions are rare as the costs in London can exceed £30,000 and planning permission may not be approved. The OT, Ms A, is not employed by the Council so has not commented. But the Council says the basis of her recommendation in the assessment was not that the Council rarely agreed extensions, but that Z could use “rooms already available in the home so Z could have his own space when needed. Z and family are overcrowded …OT has advised family to apply for rehousing to a more suitable property.” I do not find there is fault in this or that the Council was applying a blanket policy.
36. The Council has accepted it could have explained in more detail regarding how rehousing would work and could have given more information about this so Mr X could make an informed decision. This was fault. However, I do not consider that this fault caused injustice to Mr X, given that he advised the Council that the family did not want to move at an early stage.
37. There was delay by Council in responding to Mr X’s complaint between August and November 2017, when it did not respond fully but offered a meeting. The Council should have offered this much earlier. This was fault. However, the offer to meet and consider the points Mr X raised in detail was an acceptable way to clarify the issues he had raised and move the matter forward. I do not consider this caused injustice to Mr X.
38. Mr X has declined the new assessment the Council offered. But I consider the offer, given the family’s change in circumstances, was appropriate and necessary.

Back to top

Final decision

39. I have not found fault causing injustice by the Council, so I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman