Leicestershire County Council (18 012 778)

Category : Adult care services > Disabled facilities grants

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 28 May 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of disabled facilities grant applications for her, her husband and two children. The Ombudsman finds there was fault with the Council’s approach to the process, leading to unnecessary delay and distress. However, it was entitled to decide it needed more evidence to conclude her son’s assessment. The Council has accepted the Ombudsman’s recommendation to remedy the injustice caused to Mrs X by making a financial payment and writing to confirm where matters currently stand.

The complaint

  1. Mrs X complains the Council followed an unclear process when assessing her family members’ eligibility for a disabled facilities grant. She finds it unacceptable they have not received a final answer despite first applying in February 2017.
  2. Mrs X says the Council has been inconsistent in its approach to assessing different family members and she believes it has treated her son differently as he has hidden disabilities. She says communication between the Children and Adult social services teams has been poor throughout. As a result, the family has not received the level access shower it needs and she has had to complain, causing stress and taking up her time.

Back to top

What I have investigated

  1. The law says the Ombudsman should only investigate complaints about matters which happened in the 12 months before someone complains to us. We can however look back further if there is good reason to do so.
  2. In this case, Mrs X has been complaining about the Council’s actions since February 2018. She had allowed a reasonable period of time after the Council’s own independent investigation concluded in September 2018 to see if things improved before complaining to us in November 2018.
  3. I have decided I will investigate events from September 2017. That is when an occupational therapist first assessed Mrs X’s daughter. Although part of the complaint is there was a delay in arranging that assessment by several months, the Council’s independent investigation already explained why this happened. I do not see there is any benefit in revisiting those conclusions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
  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

  1. Although Mrs X has made this complaint, she does so on behalf of her husband and two children. Mr X has given his consent for Mrs X to see information about his assessment.
  2. I spoke with Mrs X and read the information she sent the Ombudsman. I wrote to the Council to make enquiries and reviewed the material it sent in response.
  3. I have seen the Council’s complaint responses to Mrs X and these are helpful in understanding what happened. I have given particular weight to the findings of the Stage 2 investigation report completed as part of the children’s statutory complaints process. I did this because the investigator was independent of the Council and the investigation is overseen by another independent person.
  4. I shared a copy of my draft decision with Mrs X and the Council and I invited them to comment on it.
  5. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Mrs X lives with her husband Mr X, her daughter Y and her son Z. Each of the family members lives with a disability of some sort and professionals have described them as having complex needs as a result. Mrs X says Z in particular has hidden disabilities – that is, disabilities that are not immediately obvious to a casual observer.
  2. In February 2017, Mrs X applied to the Council for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). A DFG is a payment made by the local authority to allow an eligible disabled person to make changes to their home. This might by installing necessary equipment, improving access or even building an extension. It will be whatever is necessary and appropriate to meet their needs. A DFG for an adult is means-tested but no such restriction applies to a child.
  3. The Council is responsible for the assessment of needs carried out by an occupational therapist. Different departments do the assessments depending on if the client is an adult or a child. If that assessment shows the client needs major adaptations, the Council refers the matter to an organisation called ‘Lightbulb’. ‘Lightbulb’ is a collaboration between the local housing authorities and has responsibility for administering DFGs.
  4. The Council says none of the family members has currently progressed as far as a referral to ‘Lightbulb’.
  5. Y’s assessment took place in September 2017. The assessment document says Mrs X referred Y because they wanted a level-access shower to meet their own needs but felt they could not remove the existing family bath as Y could not use the shower. The occupational therapist decided the Council could meet Y’s needs by installing a grab rail, while also noting Mr X and Mrs X should have their own needs assessed.
  6. The request for Mr X’s assessment was not made by the Council until early November 2017. Mrs X then had to call to chase the assessment twice in December, but it did not take place until February 2018. The occupational therapist who carried out that assessment decided she needed more information. Mrs X had thought the occupational therapist was going to see both of them, but she said the request was only for Mr X. Mrs X called to complain and an assessment was then booked for her. A consent letter, signed by Mr X, agreeing for the Council to contact his GP was arranged in April 2018. The GP replied quickly and the occupational therapist agreed his case should be transferred to ‘Lightbulb’ for the next stage.
  7. Although the available records show Mrs X’s assessment was not booked until mid-February 2018, it did not take place for over three months. Mrs X was complaining about the Council and it took a team manager’s involvement to arrange her assessment. The occupational therapist who saw Mrs X proposed changes to the bathing equipment and, in particular, recommended a shower fitting in an existing space in the bedroom. Mrs X rejected this as she felt an extension should be built instead to enable a separate shower in the bathroom.
  8. By this time the Council’s assessment process for Z had begun in early May 2018. While this was still ongoing, the Council finished Mrs X’s assessment and offered her two choices. It said it could remove her existing bath and replace it with a level access shower, to meet the needs of her and Mr X. Alternatively, she could wait for the children’s assessments to finish. Given the limited options, records show Mrs X chose to wait. The Council has since said it did not know about the outcome of Y’s assessment, which said she needed the bath.
  9. Mrs X continued with her complaint and an independent report completed for the Council at Stage 2 of the statutory children’s complaints process identified fault. It recommended the Council should apologise and review some processes.
  10. Mrs X says, despite this, the Council still failed to reach a conclusion on Z’s assessment. The first visit to him was in early May 2018 and following that Mrs X provided the Council with copies of some private assessment documents about Z’s condition. She felt these gave enough information for the occupational therapist to make her decision. However, in June 2018, the Council decided it still needed to see Z in his school environment and wanted extra information from the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS).
  11. In early July 2018, a new social worker took over Z’s case. She called CAMHS and asked for a report in writing. However, by August 2018, no report had arrived. The Council wrote to Mrs X to explain Z’s assessment was still not complete. It later wrote asking Mrs X to consent to it contacting Z’s school and visiting him there. However, Mrs X declined this.
  12. There then followed a period of correspondence between Mrs X and the Council, culminating in October 2018, with Mrs X sending in numerous pieces of evidence about Z’s condition and disabilities. The Council acknowledged receipt of these but decided Z still needed further assessment. It proposed carrying out a Child in Need assessment. However, Mrs X wrote to the Council refusing to consent to this and explaining why.
  13. The Council finally decided it could not finish Z’s assessment without the extra information and so there is now an impasse of sorts. It says once Z’s assessment is complete, and if either child needs major adaptations, it will offer a joint occupational therapist visit to “ensure a whole family approach is taken.”
  14. Mrs X believes the Council is wrong to expect much more information to inform Z’s assessment than it did with Y. She believes this is because of the nature of his disabilities. She also says the Council is stalling making a decision because it knows once it recognises Z needs major adaptations, it will have to pay the whole cost rather than requiring a contribution from her and Mr X.

Back to top

Analysis

  1. My investigation of this complaint has considered the points raised by Mrs X. It is important to be clear though the Ombudsman cannot direct the Council to finish an assessment it has decided is incomplete or to award a DFG. Where officers have used their professional judgement to make a decision when they have all the necessary information, we will not find fault. That applies even if Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision.
  2. I will consider each part of Mrs X’s complaint in turn, before considering any injustice caused.

Unclear process

  1. There is some evidence the Council has tried to explain its intentions since September 2017. For example, on 29 December 2017, there was a telephone call between Mrs X and the Council. The case note about it says the Council explained to Mrs X the role of the occupational therapists was to assess need, not to award DFGs.
  2. However, looking at the whole process in action in this case, I would describe it as fragmented. The evidence I have seen shows clearly most of the progress made only came about because of Mrs X chasing the Council to act. It appears to have been clear from an early stage there should have been consideration of assessing the whole family’s needs. There was certainly a lack of coordination between the adults and children’s occupational therapy teams. Instead, each family member in turn had an assessment over several months. Options were offered to Mrs X by the adults team without sight of the outcome of Y’s assessment by the children’s team.
  3. I do not believe this issue was because of the family not being forthcoming in explaining what they wanted or expected. Instead, the Council did not make the process easy enough to navigate, nor is there evidence it took proper ownership of the issue.
  4. Although the process itself is not unclear by design, it was by operation in this case. That is fault. However, once the Council’s complaint investigation report was issued at Stage 2, it was much clearer with Mrs X about what it needed to progress Z’s assessment. Consequently, I do not find fault with that period.

Time taken

  1. It took from when Y was seen in September 2017 until May 2018 for Z’s assessment to start. There were several reasons for this. The occupational therapist who visited and assessed Y correctly identified there were other family members with needs. However, she did not refer them on until Mrs X enquired about progress in November 2017. Then, the referral was only in Mr X’s name. This meant the occupational therapist who arrived only assessed Mr X and so Mrs X needed her own referral.
  2. There were further delays on the Council’s part. The occupational therapist did not seek consent to contact Mr X’s GP for several weeks after his assessment took place. Z’s assessment has also suffered from some delay outside of his family’s control. For example, the Council contacted CAMHS but did not receive a requested report for several months. Although this was not entirely the Council’s fault, the evidence suggests it did not follow this up regularly enough.
  3. Overall, I find the Council is at fault for the time taken to progress assessments in this case.

Was Z treated differently?

  1. The evidence shows Z was certainly treated differently than Y. The Council was able to finish Y’s assessment fairly quickly, while it asked for significantly more information for Z.
  2. However, we have to view each decision on its own merits. There is no defined list of information needed in certain circumstances and it would be impractical to put one in place. The evidence I have seen shows the Council had concerns about its ability to correctly identify Z’s needs. It considered the reports Mrs X presented but has decided there are certain things its occupational therapists must witness. Part of this is in Z’s school environment. I recognise Mrs X believes the reports provide more than enough information for the Council to make its decision, but that is a professional judgement in which the Ombudsman should not intervene.
  3. The Council suggested ways in which it could obtain the information it needed, so long as Mrs X consented. So far, she has refused to give that consent. I am satisfied the Council made her aware of the effect of this and so the its actions are not fault.

Communication between teams

  1. I have already touched on the lack of coordination between the adults and children’s social services teams responsible for assessing Mrs X’s family’s needs.
  2. There was a missed opportunity in this case for the Council to organise one joint assessment for the remaining family members once it had assessed Y. The failure to consider that approach in late 2017 was fault. It directly contributed to the time this case has taken.
  3. The Council says, since the Stage 2 report was published identifying this issue, the managers of the two teams meet every six weeks to discuss cases that require joint working. It says it has recently had a case involving another family where it offered a joint assessment relatively early on.

Injustice

  1. Having found fault in some aspects of the Council’s handling of this case, I have to consider whether Mrs X and her family suffered a significant personal injustice as a result. However, because I cannot say whether a DFG should be awarded to Z in this case, nor for how much, I cannot say the family has definitely missed out on something it would otherwise have received.
  2. That said, I find the fault identified caused injustice to Mrs X in this case in the form of avoidable distress and in her time and trouble in having to pursue her complaint. The Council made repetitive errors, some admittedly bigger than others, which meant Mrs X had to continually chase answers about what was happening. Often it was only her involvement that prompted action which should otherwise have happened automatically.
  3. I conclude this will have caused Mrs X stress, inconvenience and frustration and the Council should offer a remedy for it.

Back to top

Agreed action

  1. I note the Council has already apologised to Mrs X, in line with the recommendations made in its Stage 2 report. As I have not found fault with the period after that point, a further apology is not necessary.
  2. By 28 June 2019, the Council has agreed to:
    • pay Mrs X £500. This is in recognition of the distress caused to her by its approach and her time and trouble in having to make her complaint. This payment is towards the top of our scale for remedying this type of injustice.
    • write to Mrs X to explain clearly where the DFG claim for each family member currently lies and what must happen to progress any outstanding assessments to their conclusion.
  3. The Council should write to the Ombudsman to confirm when these actions are complete.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. There was fault in the Council’s handling of this case, causing delay and a lack of clarity about the process to be followed. This caused an injustice to Mrs X in the form of distress and time and trouble, and the Council should remedy this.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

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