Privacy settings

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.

Bassetlaw District Council (18 012 873)

Category : Adult care services > Disabled facilities grants

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 23 Aug 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The Ombudsman upholds parts of the complaint from Ms X about the way the Council has handled an application for a Disabled Facilities Grant for her children. The Council was not at fault for suggesting alternatives to adapting the property, and was not at fault for placing limits on what the grant would pay for. However, it delayed in appointing an architect, raised Ms X’s expectations and has not communicated effectively. The Council will apologise to Ms X and pay her and her children in recognition of the distress and frustration this has caused. It will also remind staff to check any proposed works meet the needs of the applicant before issuing plans and will appoint a key contact for each application.

The complaint

  1. Ms X complains the Council has delayed in agreeing a Disabled Facilities Grant for adaptations to her home. She says the Council’s communication has been poor and it has shown a lack of understanding of her children’s needs and the impact on her as a carer. She says as a result her children remain living in accommodation which does not meet their complex needs.

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. I considered the complaint made by Ms X and the documents she provided.
  2. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and the documents it provided in response to my enquiries.
  3. I also considered the Ombudsman’s focus report, ‘Making a house a home: Local Authorities and disabled adaptations’ published in 2016.
  4. I gave Ms X and the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found


  1. Under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, councils can award Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG) to people whose disability means their home needs adaptation. If the person applying meets the qualifying criteria the council must award the grant.
  2. Councils only approve grants for work they decide is necessary. An occupational therapist usually assesses need. Where a district council is responsible for DFGs, the occupational therapist may work for a county council.
  3. The maximum amount of mandatory grant is £30,000. Grants for children are not means-tested. Councils can decide to give more help if they think it is necessary. Councils should make decisions about grants as soon as they can and must do so within six months of the date of receiving a valid grant application. Works should be completed and grants paid within 12 months of an application being approved.
  4. ‘Delivering Housing Adaptations for Disabled People: a detailed guide to related legislation, guidance and good practice’ recommends target timescales for each stage. There are three stages:
    • Stage 1 is from the enquiry at first point of contact to the Occupational Therapist (OT) referral. Their recommendations are provided to the adaptation service (landlord, housing association or grant provider).
    • Stage 2 is from the OT recommendation to approval of the scheme.
    • Stage 3 is from the approval of the scheme to the completion of the works.
  5. The timescales vary according to whether the work is ‘urgent’ or ‘non-urgent’. In urgent cases the target timescale from start to finish is 55 days. For non-urgent cases the process should ideally complete within 150 days.
  6. The guidance also says other charges incurred as part of the works are eligible for grant funding such as architects’ and surveyors’ fees and charges for planning permission or building regulations approval.
  7. A council must decide if the proposed works are necessary and appropriate to meet the needs of the disabled person. It must also be satisfied it is reasonable and practicable to carry out the works given the condition of the property to be adapted.
  8. District and county councils should work together to provide a well-coordinated DFG service. They should keep applicants informed about progress including any problems arising. The Ombudsman considers the duty to meet assessed eligible needs is only met when adaptations have been satisfactorily finished.
  9. The law on overcrowded households is in Part X of the Housing Act 1985. Statutory overcrowding is calculated by lack of rooms or lack of space. The law provides a calculation according to the floor space and the number of people.

Bassetlaw District Council’s policy

  1. The Council’s policy sets out what a DFG can be used for. It includes: access to the home; access to a family room, bathroom or room suitable for sleeping; access to a kitchen; improved heating, lighting and power; or to make a home safe.
  2. The Council refers any adaptations which are likely to exceed £10,000 to its Disabled Facilities Panel, which will consider which adaptations are essential to meet a person’s needs and consider any alternative solutions. Before referring a case to panel, the Council’s technical officer and the allocated occupational therapist must undertake a joint visit.
  3. The Council says where it is not ‘reasonable and practicable’ to adapt a property, it will ask applicants to think about moving to more suitable accommodation. The Council says it can offer financial help towards the cost of moving.
  4. The Council considers an application is valid once the applicant submits all necessary forms, two independent estimates, financial information and proof of title deeds.
  5. The Council can offer a discretionary grant of up to £10,000 to ‘top up’ the mandatory grant.

What happened

  1. Ms X has two young children, C and D, with a rare progressive condition. Both children need 24-hour monitoring and they are supported by several pieces of equipment which alert their carers to any change in their condition. They receive nutrition via a central line which puts them at high risk of infection. The children need prompt access to their local hospital if there is a sudden decline in their health.
  2. The children live with their mother and siblings in a home owned by Ms X and her former partner. C sleeps in the dining room, and D sleeps in the living room. Ms X sleeps on a sofa between them. Ms X’s two youngest children share the bedroom on the ground floor while the remaining siblings share the bedrooms on the first and second floor.
  3. The children needed more specialist equipment to enable Ms X and others to continue to safely care for them. The living arrangements meant C and D had no privacy or space to spend time with their family. In September 2016, Ms X contacted her local county council asking for adaptations to her home.
  4. The actions of the county council in the DFG process are subject to a separate investigation by the Ombudsman.
  5. Technical officers from Bassetlaw District Council first visited Ms X’s home in October 2017. The officers’ early conclusion was that they did not think the adaptations would be ‘reasonable and practicable’ but they agreed to speak to the Council’s planning department before ruling them out. Records suggest Ms X understood any adaptations would be difficult.
  6. One of the technical officers made enquiries with the planning department. He was told to follow the formal pre-application process in place with the Council’s housing management service, A1 Housing, which would take at least four weeks. The technical officer reiterated his concern that the proposals put forward by the occupational therapist were unlikely to receive planning permission and said the Council needed to explore alternatives as soon as possible.
  7. The Council’s Disabled Facilities Panel first discussed the adaptations on 29 November 2017. The panel discussed options for adapting the existing property. The panel decided to explore the possibility of a two-storey extension at the back of the property. Officers visited again the following week and plans were drawn up towards the end of December for changes to the ground, first and second floor. Concerns remained that the proposed changes would not secure planning consent.
  8. In January 2018, the Council began exploring alternatives to adapting the property. These included:
    • Agreement from a senior manager to buy a property which was better suited to being adapted, for Ms X to rent. However, the identified property was removed from sale.
    • Trying to identify two properties managed by A1 Housing which might be suitable for knocking through into one. None were available.
    • Looking at the possibility of a shared ownership property. The Council told Ms X she would need to put any equity from the sale of her own house into the new property but wouldn’t be able to achieve full ownership of the property due to the overall cost involved.
  9. The Council asked Ms X to get three independent valuations of her home. The Council said it would need to carry out a full financial assessment of Ms X before it could continue with any option.
  10. In mid-January, Ms X raised concerns with her children’s occupational therapist about the proposals for her to sell her house. She was concerned the options presented left her and the children without the security of home ownership.
  11. The Disabled Facilities Panels discussed the case again in February and March 2018. Outside of the panel meetings, there was a continued lack of clarity among officers about the implications of Ms X selling her own house and moving into a property better suited to adaptations.
  12. In April 2018, a multi-agency meeting took place at the request of the occupational therapist due to the urgent need to move the case forward. Four items were discussed at the meeting:
    • The Council said it couldn’t build on the current property.
    • The Council asked Ms X whether any of her older children might be able to live with their father to reduce overcrowding.
    • A1 Housing proposed the family move to an identified property in a different part of the district.
    • Ms X could sell her property and buy a new property better suited to the needs of the family.
  13. Following the meeting, Ms X complained to the Council. She was upset by the suggestion that some of her children should live elsewhere. She said the property A1 Housing offered her was in an area she had previously said she did not want to live due to concerns about crime and anti-social behaviour. She said that if she sold her own property it would not enable her to buy a larger property and so would put her in a worse position than before.
  14. The Council’s response to the complaint said it was satisfied the alternatives it had offered were fair and reasonable. It did not propose to offer anything more to meet the children’s needs. However, the following day, after a discussion between a senior manager and Ms X, the Council agreed to look at the plans again with the children’s occupational therapist to see what could be made to work on site.
  15. In mid-May the Council issued new plans to Ms X showing two options for adaptations to the ground and first floor. The covering message with the plans said the Council did not think they would meet Ms X’s needs. The Council did not share the plans with the children’s occupational therapist before issuing them. The Council said it was consulting with its planning department about what might be acceptable on the site.
  16. At the end of May, an officer suggested the Council should consider engaging an architect to complete the scheme due to the complexity of the project. There was some uncertainty about whether some of the DFG could be used for this. The Council asked an architect from another council service to draft plans to show the maximum capacity of the site that could be supported by planning controls.
  17. At the beginning of June, the Council sent a fourth proposal for the site incorporating the ground, first and second floor to Ms X. The Council cautioned Ms X that the proposed scheme may not be deliverable financially or structurally.
  18. On the same day, the Council agreed to consider the applications for each child individually, giving a total indicative budget of £80,000 towards the works. There were some outstanding issues about drainage, boundaries and funding.
  19. There then followed 14 weeks in which the Council was in dispute with the county council about who should pay for the architect and drainage survey. Eventually the Council conceded these should be paid for from the DFG.
  20. The occupational therapist formally submitted the referrals to the Council for DFGs for both children on 24 August 2018.
  21. At the beginning of October 2018, the Council told the occupational therapist the available DFG would only be enough to complete the works to the ground floor. It said if Ms X agreed to this, it would appoint an architect to draw up the plans. It also said Ms X needed to speak to her neighbour about outbuildings on the boundary between the two properties.
  22. The county council queried this decision. It asked the Council if it was satisfied the children’s needs could be met on the ground floor without addressing the overcrowding elsewhere in the property. It said it needed to understand how much the whole scheme would cost, so it could decide about contributing to it.
  23. The Council said the DFG was intended to meet the needs of C and D only. It said it needed written confirmation from Mrs X to say she was happy to proceed with looking at the adaptations to the ground floor only before it could generate costs.
  24. There is no evidence either council sought this written confirmation directly from Mrs X or informed her of the Council’s decision about works to the ground floor.
  25. A fortnight later, the occupational therapist emailed the Council asking it to generate costs for the work to the ground floor, as well as separately costing up the works to the first and second floor.
  26. The Council agreed to ask an architect to draw up plans for the ground floor so it could continue with the full grant application. It said it would ask for upper floor plans at the same time.
  27. Frustrated by the delay, Ms X escalated her complaint to Stage 2 of the Council’s complaints procedure.
  28. In its response, the Council said it would be updating its information for residents to tell them that large scale adaptations may take longer. The Council also appointed a senior manager as a point of contact for Ms X for the rest of the DFG process.
  29. In November, the Council decided to take responsibility for contacting Ms X’s neighbour. In December, it agreed to appoint a drainage engineer and an architect. The appointed engineer and architect visited Ms X in mid- January 2019.
  30. From this point forward, communication between Ms X and the Council became more regular, and the situation progressed at greater speed. The architect worked with the children’s occupational therapist to develop further plans which were acceptable to Ms X.
  31. In a letter to Ms X in March 2019, the Council said only the ground floor works met the test of ‘reasonable and practicable’ for the purpose of the DFG. It said the Council could only use the DFG for adaptations for the benefit of C and D. It said it could not comment on the remainder of the works which would be the responsibility of the county council. The Council said she could consider making further referrals for DFG for other children in the household with additional needs.
  32. Planning permission was granted in May 2019 for changes across the ground, first and second floor. Building regulation approval is ongoing. The case remains a standing item at Disabled Facilities Panel.


  1. This is undoubtedly a unique case which has presented a challenge to the Council given its scale and the family’s circumstances.
  2. There are no minutes of the multi-agency meeting held in April 2018. Therefore, it is difficult for me to make a finding on the way the Council presented the various alternatives to Ms X. It is clear from her correspondence that she was troubled by how the meeting went and this is supported by comments her children’s occupational therapist made at the time.
  3. However, the Council is not at fault for looking at all possible alternatives to adapting the property. It quickly identified the site was a complex one to develop and so it was sensible to consider what else could be done to meet the children’s needs elsewhere.
  4. I cannot find fault in the Council’s decision to only use the DFG for works to the ground floor. It has a statutory duty to meet the needs of the children with disabilities, but not to relieve overcrowding.
  5. In any case, based on the definition referred to in paragraph 16 of this decision, Ms X’s property is not statutorily overcrowded. Neither would it be if the Council only completed the proposed ground floor works.
  6. The Council has encouraged referrals for the other children in the household who may benefit from a DFG. This may have a bearing on the funding available to carry out further works. The Council has not yet received any further referrals so has been unable to take this into consideration.
  7. The Council does not consider an application to be valid until estimates of the cost have been provided. At the time of writing, quotes for the work are outstanding. Therefore, the application is not yet valid and as such the six-month timescale for approving an application has not yet started.
  8. However, the Council has exceeded the target timescales referred to in paragraph 11 and 12. The Council says it has always considered the case to be urgent. While it is not responsible for the delays at Stage 1, it must take responsibility for some of the delays at Stage 2. Despite the Council being aware of the need for an external architect with the necessary expertise, it delayed for 19 weeks from the date of the referral in appointing one. This was fault. As a result, C and D remained living in accommodation which does not meet their needs and is preventing them from receiving the specialist equipment they need.
  9. Once the plans were available, the Council moved quickly to secure planning permission and to seek building regulations approval. I cannot find fault in the Council for any delays which have occurred in this part of the process.
  10. The Council raised Ms X’s expectations from the outset by providing plans which showed changes across all three floors of the property. This was fault and led to frustration and distress for Ms X.
  11. The Council issued one set of plans without consulting with the children’s occupational therapist. This was fault. By the Council’s own admission, the plans issued in May 2018 did not meet Ms X’s needs. It is difficult to understand why the Council issued them. This set of plans only served to frustrate Ms X further as she felt it demonstrated a lack of understanding of her family’s needs.
  12. The Council failed to secure written confirmation from Ms X that she agreed with the plan to proceed with works to the ground floor only in October 2018. It did not inform her of its decision until March 2019, some five months later. Ms X lost the opportunity to make an informed decision about progressing with the work and had her expectations raised by the Council’s actions. This was fault.
  13. The Council relied on the children’s occupational therapist to give information to Ms X. It wasn’t until after Ms X escalated her complaint that the Council began to correspond with her more regularly. This was fault and contributed to Ms X’s sense the Council was not engaging with her.

Agreed action

  1. Within four weeks of this decision, to remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, the Council will:
    • Apologise to Ms X and pay her £500 in recognition of the distress and frustration caused by raised expectations, delay and poor communication.
    • Pay £1,900 to Ms X for the children in recognition of the prolonged period C and D have been living in unsuitable accommodation; and the effect on the other children of living with restricted living space due to the Council’s delays.
    • In calculating this, I have noted our guidance on remedies which says where a complainant has been deprived of modifications which would have improved his or her daily life, we will usually recommend a payment of up to £350 per month. I have proposed a sum based on £100 per week in recognition of the number of children affected.
  2. Within eight weeks of this decision the Council agreed to:
    • Remind staff that proposed adaptations should be shared with the allocated occupational therapist to confirm they will meet the applicant’s needs, before being shared with the applicant.
    • Ensure that for future DFG applications, it agrees with the county council who will act as key contact and confirms this in writing with the applicant.
    • Ensure where necessary it receives written agreement from applicants to proceed with a particular course of action rather than relying on the agreement of other professionals.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. For the reasons given in the Analysis section of this decision, I uphold Mrs X’s complaints about communication, raised expectations and delay.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page