Summary: Mrs X complains the occupational therapist failed to carry out an assessment which stalled her application for a disabled facilities grant. The information provided shows the Council was prepared to carry out an assessment but Mrs X declined. While the County Council should have passed on information about Mrs X declining an assessment to the Borough Council, it was her refusal of an assessment that caused her injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council’s occupational therapist failed to carry out an assessment in July 2017 as requested by Broxbourne Borough Council in relation to a disabled facilities grant (DFG).
2. The Council’s failure to assess her needs has delayed the decision on the DFG and caused frustration to Mrs X.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I am only investigating the Council’s actions from May 2017 when Mrs X submitted a new DFG application. I explain at paragraph 26 below the matters I have not investigated.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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

6. 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 before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mrs X is disabled and wants a DFG so she can have an extension with 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.
8. 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 bedroom and bathroom with a bath.
9. Mrs X completed a new application form and submitted it to the Borough Council in May 2017. Mrs X prepared her own plans and included a bath.
10. The Borough Council contact 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 if the area was large enough.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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

20. Mrs X has a very clear idea of what adaptations she requires. The evidence provided shows Mrs X has been in dispute with the Borough 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.
21. Mrs X made an application in May 2017 for a DFG. 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. The OT’s responded saying it had not carried out an assessment for four years and so was unable to comment on the suitability.
22. 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.
23. The County Council visited Mrs X on 20 July. It says this visit was in response to Mrs X’s self referral and her complaint. During the visit the OT observed Mrs X to be independently mobile around the property. It says an offer to complete a functional assessment was declined by Mrs X. The Council says it advised Mrs X a through floor lift and level access shower would meet her needs. It says as Mrs X did not agree with its view on the appropriate adaptations, it took no further action.
24. I am satisfied the County Council knew Mrs X had applied for a DFG and an up to date OT assessment was needed. The information provided shows the County Council was prepared to carry out a functional assessment during the visit but Mrs X declined. I cannot therefore criticise the County Council for failing to complete an assessment. I note the County Council’s reasons for not contacting the Borough Council. However, it knew the Borough Council wanted its view and I consider it could have contacted it after the visit with an update. However, any failure of the County Council to contact the Borough Council has not caused Mrs X a significant enough injustice to warrant further investigation. Mrs X’s failure to agree to a functional OT assessment is the main reason her DFG application has stalled.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I will now complete my investigation as there is no evidence Mrs X suffered a significant injustice as a result of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

26. Mrs X has been making DFG applications since 2006. I am satisfied it was possible for her to have complained sooner if she had issues with previous actions. I have therefore only considered actions since May 2017 when she made her last DFG application as she complained about this within 12 months.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman