Summary: The complainant says the Council took from 2015 to consider, commission and manage grant aided adaptations to her home. The complainant says this is too long and as a result she has lived with excessive pain when using her kitchen and bathroom. The Council says it offered a financial remedy for faults and is progressing with the renewed application received in 2017. It says some delay has been due to adjustments to proposals to reflect the complainant’s wishes and because of her prolonged absences from home. The Ombudsman finds the Council acted with fault and recommends a remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant whom I shall refer to as Miss X complains that the Council:
• Cancelled her kitchen adaptations in 2015 without giving any reasons and;
• Delayed completing kitchen works following her successful re-application for a Disabled Facilities Grant to fund the works.
2. The Council recognised the fault and offered Miss X £250 in recognition of the delay in adapting her kitchen and bathroom. Miss X says this is not enough and she wants the Council to apologise, complete the work and pay her for the hardship and distress caused.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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

5. In considering this complaint I have:
• Spoken with Miss X and read the information presented with her complaint;
• Put enquiries to the Council and reviewed its responses;
• Researched the relevant law, guidance and policy;
• Shared with the Miss X and the Council a draft decision and revised my decision having considered the comments received.

Back to top

What I found

6. Councils provide Disabled Facilities Grants under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Councils have a statutory duty to provide grant aid to disabled people for certain adaptations. Before approving a grant, a council must be satisfied the work is necessary and suitable to meet the disabled person’s needs and is also reasonable and practicable.
7. Social care authorities must promote ‘wellbeing’ when carrying out any of their care and support functions. Wellbeing includes the suitability of living accommodation. The Care Act 2014 recognises that suitable accommodation is one way of meeting care and support needs. Prevention is critical to the Care Act, and home adaptations are an example of secondary prevention.
8. The maximum amount of a grant payable by a council is £30,000. A council can award other discretionary help if it thinks it is necessary. The grant amount a council will pay is subject to a means test. The test does not apply to applications from landlords or for applications from parents for grants for disabled children. Regardless of who makes the application the means test applies to the disabled person (the relevant person). If the relevant person has a partner the Council will assess their finances jointly.
9. A council should give the applicant a decision on a grant application as soon as reasonably practicable. This must be within six months of the grant application. If a council refuses a grant it must explain why. Once the work is complete the council must pay the grant in full before 12 months from the date of the grant application.
10. In February 2015 the government withdrew its guidance, “Delivering Housing Adaptations for Disabled People: A Good Practice Guide”. It replaced the guidance with “Home adaptations for disabled people: a detailed guide to related legislation, guidance and good practice” published by the Homes Adaptations Consortium in 2013. The Ombudsman expects adaptations to be completed within twelve months in line with guidance.
11. This non statutory guidance stresses the importance of close links between housing and social care authorities to ensure local people receive the most suitable help. The guidance says even where the same authority delivers these services it is important to ensure joint protocols and agreements exist to ensure an effective service. The guidance says:

‘Local priority systems should not be used to manage demand and create waiting times beyond the statutory timescales.’

12. The guidance says occupational therapy assistants supervised by a qualified occupational therapist may offer additional resources for carrying out assessments.

What happened

13. Miss X has complex medical conditions leading to degenerative joint problems affecting her spine, knees, shoulders and other joints. This led Miss X to retire early on health grounds in 2015.
14. In March 2015 the Council assessed Miss X as needing adaptations to her home. The occupational therapist identified a need for adaptations in the bathroom, kitchen and for a modular ramp. In August 2015 the Council invited quotations from a local builder to carry out the work and sent an application pack to Miss X. The Council says a note from the builder in November 2015 said Miss X did not want to continue with the adaptations and so it closed the file. Contrary to the Council’s usual procedure officers did not follow this up with a letter or seek confirmation from Miss X before doing so. The Council says Miss X did not return the application pack and so it did not receive a formal application which would have signalled Miss X wished to continue with the work.
15. In May 2017 the Council received a new referral for adaptations to Miss X’s home. Miss X told the Council she had not intended to cancel the kitchen adaptations. The Council says Miss X said she had not wanted to continue with the bathroom work. In June 2017 the Council told Miss X an occupational therapist would assess her application, but she may have to wait for four months. Miss X therefore expected a visit by August 2017.
16. The occupational therapist offered a visit in September 2017, but Miss X asked for a postponement until October. An occupational therapy assistant visited and told Miss X she no longer qualified for adaptations because her temporary need to use a wheelchair had ended. Miss X says her qualification in 2015 had not resulted from being wheelchair dependent. Indeed, Miss X says she did not use the wheelchair in the home. Miss X says the adaptations arose from her medical condition which she believed the occupational therapy assistant did not understand. Miss X says from what the occupational therapy assistant said she believed it clear she did not know about her condition and its impact on her. The occupational therapy assistant said she needed to discuss the application with her manager and would call Miss X. In November 2017 Miss X followed up this promise of a call with an email to a senior officer. Miss X followed this up again in January 2018 because she says she had not received a response or update on her application. The Council says it offered the services of an experienced occupational therapy assistant to speed up the process by checking Miss X’s needs and provision remained the same as assessed in 2015. It recognises it may not have adequately communicated this aim to Miss X.
17. The Council followed its visit undertaken in October 2017 with a joint visit in February 2018. In March 2018 following a meeting with the Council, it agreed the kitchen should include ‘hi-lo’ work services and new arrangement of the sink, hob and oven to make access easier. Miss X says at the meeting officers accepted the Council should not have assigned her application to an occupational therapy assistant.
18. In April 2018 the Council assigned the application to a surveyor who visited with the kitchen company in May 2018. Miss X says at her meeting with a Council officer on 28 May 2018 to complete her formal application she received, for the first time, a realistic timescale within which she could expect completion of the work. Miss X says in 2015 the Council told her it would take six months between enquiry to completion of the work. In commenting on my draft decision the Council says in its letter to Miss X on 13 August 2015 it told her the Council has six months from the date it receives a completed application to approve or refuse it and that delays may occur if the Council’s budget is already heavily committed or becomes over-committed. The Council says as it did not receive a formal application from Miss X in 2015 it did not proceed.
19. In July 2018 the Council told Miss X she would need to liaise with the contractor over details such as splashback tiling. A full schedule of works was sent in August 2018. Changes agreed in September 2018 could not be confirmed until Miss X returned home from a prolonged visit to Ireland due to family illness. During November 2018 Miss X and the Council exchanged emails to confirm details of the proposed works. The Council sent a final version of the proposals to Miss X in December 2018. In January 2019 the contractor visited Miss X to go through the work schedule with her. The Council responded to queries raised by Miss X in February 2019.
20. In March 2019 the Council received quotes for the work. The work has yet to be completed.
21. Miss X says she qualified as needing the adaptations in 2015 on the advice of an Occupational Therapist who assessed the impact of her medical conditions. The Council agreed to fast track her application when she presented it again in May 2017. Miss X says it took a year from that promise before a visit by a surveyor took place. Miss X says the Council gave her no written information about the procedure. The Council did not say, what time targets it used or from what point in the procedure it counts times when judging if it has met its time targets. Miss X says the investigation into her complaint failed to give accurate answers. Miss X said the Council blamed her for delay. Meanwhile Miss X says she had to live with the physical pain it causes her to use her kitchen as currently set out. Miss X says this has led her to make huge efforts, spend time and suffer inconvenience to follow up the application and complaint. Miss X continues managing with a kitchen not adapted for her needs.
22. Miss X says currently the Council is only willing to fund half the kitchen adaptations previously assessed due to lack of funds which has added to her stress and anxiety. In commenting on my draft decision, the Council says it can only fund adaptations to make the kitchen usable or accessible for Miss X. The proposed grant funded works form a part of a larger scheme of improvements.
23. In its response to my enquiries the Council says the time taken for approving and starting work on site is not in its view: “…unusually long due to the number of factors to be considered with this kind of project…” The Council says Miss X has asked for some works which are not eligible for funding by the Council be included in the works. The Council will act as clerk of works for Miss X under its usual agreement once it has confirmation of the schedules of work and the contract awarded to a contractor.

Analysis – has there been fault leading to injustice?

24. My role is to consider how a Council manages the grant procedure and any works funded by the grant. It is not to decide if those works should be approved or to comment on the details of what is needed.
25. The Guidance says councils should meet time targets and provide those enquiring about grant aided work clear information about the procedure. The Ombudsman considers good practice includes providing written information about the procedure, a guide to what an applicant may expect, plus the time targets set for completion.
26. I find the Council at fault for not presenting Miss X with information on the procedure and the time she might expect it to take the Council to complete the assessment, application and grant aided work.
27. The Council accepts that in November 2015 it did not properly tell Miss X it had cancelled the application process. It believes it correctly cancelled the application on the information provided by Miss X’s contractor and Miss X’s failure to return the formal application. It offered £250 as a remedy which Miss X says is not proportionate to the harm. Since 2015 the Council has not in her view expedited planning for the grant funded work and so she has lived without a kitchen suitable for her needs since then.
28. Had the Council checked with Miss X in November 2015 she could have told the Council what, if any, works she wanted to cancel or continue. Miss X did not return the application form in 2016 but contacted the Council again in 2017. It was then the Council said it would fast track the application.
29. Miss X could have followed up the lack of works in 2016. Miss X has given personal reasons why she did not follow up the lack of any progress in 2016. However, it is clear given the circumstances in which Miss X found herself even had she followed up the application some delay in completion could be expected.
30. With the progress made in November 2015, and the Council having promised to expedite her application Miss X expected the Council to act more quickly. It took from May 2017 to May 2018 to complete an application form. Even now the technical part of the application has yet to be signed off. The Ombudsman would usually expect completion of works within a year of a request, a time target the Council appeared close to achieving in 2015. We are now at two years and counting from Miss X’s repeated request (2017). The parties dispute who is to blame for the failure to agree on resolutions to technical issues. Even so, the application has taken too long.
31. Using an occupational therapy assistant should be subject to proper supervision by a fully qualified occupational therapist. Miss X felt the assistant did not understand the complexities of her conditions and the impact on her daily life. The Council did not follow up on the assistant’s promise to consult with a qualified manager and the Council recognises using the assistant did not help. This added to the delay experienced in planning the work needed.
32. In recommending a remedy we try to place the person making the complaint in the position they would have been but for any fault. In deciding what remedy is proportionate I must consider what impact the delay had on Miss X.
33. Miss X has waited several years for adaptations to her kitchen that meet her needs offering her easier access and use. The adaptations aim to reduce the pain she currently experiences in using her un-adapted kitchen. Miss X says even getting a drink of water using the kitchen as currently configured causes severe thoracic pain. Miss X says she cannot prepare food so has to rely on less healthy options such as ‘ready meals.’
34. The lack of adaptations in the bathroom makes bathing independently difficult and exhausting.
35. I find the delay has had a significant impact on Miss X’s everyday life. Miss X says she has chased progress on the adaptations every month since May 2017 putting her to much inconvenience and stress. While some inconvenience and disruption must be expected in a project of adaptation, I find the delay has led Miss X to experience avoidable added inconvenience and distress which is not over yet.
36. The purpose of grant aided work is to meet the person’s needs and to do so in a timely way. Applicants must expect some delay and inconvenience arising from the surveying, planning, tendering for a job and carrying out the works. The time taken here has been too long resulting in Miss X living far longer without her adaptations than she should.
37. The Ombudsman has published guidance to explain how we calculate remedies for people who have suffered injustice arising from fault by a council.
38. Where there is a delay to someone receiving adaptations that would improve their daily life, the Ombudsman recommends a payment of £150 to £350 per month depending on the impact on their daily lives. We take account of factors such as the extent of the adaptations needed, the adequacy of their current arrangements and the vulnerability of the applicant. I must also consider any contribution to the delay caused by Miss X’s health, absences from home and any request for changes or challenges to the proposed plans. That has led me to the recommendations set out below using a monthly figure of £250 per month.
39. I find, but for the fault identified in this investigation the Council could have completed the assessment and consideration of the application earlier than it has.

Recommended and agreed action

40. To remedy the faults and injustice identified in this investigation I recommend, and the Council agrees to within four weeks of my final decision:
• Apologies to Miss X;
• Pays Miss X £3,250 in recognition of the impact on her daily life of the avoidable delay;
• Pays Miss X £500 in recognition of the time and avoidable inconvenience in making a complaint about the delay and the use of an occupational therapy assistant;
• Sets a time target to complete all grant aided work within three months of the parties agreeing a start date for the work.

Back to top

Final decision

41. In completing my investigation, I find the Council at fault in the management of the application for grant aided adaptations resulting in an injustice to Miss X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman