Summary: Mr X complains about delay in dealing with a disabled facilities grant application. He says the process took much longer than it should and the Council refused to include a bath in the plans; this caused much frustration and pain. The Ombudsman finds the Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains that when he wanted to apply for an adaptation to his home to help his father, Mr Y, the Council:
• Refused to issue a disabled facilities grant (DFG) application form before an occupational therapy (OT) assessment was completed.
• Proposed a scheme that removed the bath although this was needed for the young children in the house.
2. Mr X says this contributed to the process taking much longer than it should. It has caused much frustration and pain. Mr Y was without the adaptations he needed, and his needs were not met in the most suitable way for longer than necessary.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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)
5. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended) In this case, Mr Y has consented to Mr X complaining on his behalf.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from the Complainant and from the Council.
7. I sent both parties a copy of my draft decision for comment and took account of the comments I received in response.

Back to top

What I found

8. Disabled Facilities Grants are provided 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. Examples of the work a DFG can fund include:
• installing ramps
• installing a stair lift
• adapting the kitchen or bathroom
9. 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 amount a council of grant will pay is subject to a means test.
10. An application consists of:
• A written request for the adaptation detailing the premises to be adapted.
• Estimates of the costs from at least two contractors unless the housing authority decides differently.
• Details of any claim for the grant to cover preliminary or ancillary services.
11. Before approving a grant a council must be satisfied the work is necessary and suitable to meet the disabled person’s needs and also reasonable and practicable. Councils should consult social services authorities to decide whether proposed works are “necessary and appropriate”. It is not mandatory for the OT assessment to be provided by the social care service; private contractors are also acceptable. Councils will usually expect an OT assessment as part of the application. They may also require other information to determine whether works are appropriate.
12. 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.
13. The Ombudsman’s focus report “Making a house a home: Local authorities and disabled adaptations” describes three stages:
• Stage 1 – from the initial enquiry to the OT referral. This part of the process should take five working days for urgent cases and 20 working days for non urgent cases.
• Stage 2 – from the OT recommendation of a scheme to approval.
• Stage 3 – from approval to completion of the works.
14. For urgent cases the target to complete the process is 55 days from start to finish and for non-urgent 150 days.
15. In February 2015 the government withdrew its guidance, “Delivering Housing Adaptations for Disabled People: A Good Practice Guide” and replaced it with “Home adaptations for disabled people: a detailed guide to related legislation, guidance and good practice” published by the Homes Adaptations Consortium in 2013.
16. 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.

What happened

17. On 28 January 2018, a community nurse referred Mr Y to the county council for an assessment. She noted Mr X’s request for a ground floor extension. The county council referred Mr Y for an OT assessment on 20 February when it had completed its social care assessment.
18. In October when Mr Y had still not heard about an OT assessment, Mr X asked St Alban’s City Council (the Council) for a DFG application form. He wanted to get the process started. However, the Council said he needed an OT assessment first.
19. The Council says it did not refuse to give Mr X an application form but asked him some basic questions to find out if he could be eligible. The Council offers different types of grant and needed to understand what would be suitable. It says Mr X refused to answer the questions. It said that it usually expected an OT referral to begin the process because that would determine if major adaptations were required.
20. Mr Y had gone overseas for a holiday. Mr X says this was partly because he could not cope with being at home unable to use the stairs and get to the bathroom.
21. Mr X did not agree with the Council’s position and sent many emails complaining about this. He said when he complained in 2015 about his mother’s situation, the Council apologised and agreed to change its process to provide an application to anyone who asked. The Council continued to say Mr X needed the OT assessment, estimates and other supporting documents before the application form would be considered and the six months would start.
22. On 11 October, the Council met with Mr X. He provided evidence of Mr Y’s benefit entitlement. The Council agreed it would send an application form. Mr X advised that Mr Y would be out of the country until January 2019. Mr X agreed to let the Council know when Mr Y was back in the country and it would then arrange an OT assessment. The Council says it emailed and posted the form and Mr X says it did not.
23. In January 2019, Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.
24. On 1 March, the OT assessed Mr Y with a surveyor from the Council. The OT identified that Mr Y needed safe and suitable access to a bedroom bathroom and WC. Equipment to help him access the bath was no longer suitable. The surveyor identified some planning constraints to an extension. They discussed options with Mr and Mrs X and the surveyor agreed to look at options for meeting Mr Y’s needs within the existing footprint of the house.
25. The Council said Mr Y’s needs could be met with a stairlift and adaptation to the bathroom, removing the bath and creating a level access shower. Mr X wanted a ground floor extension with level access shower and toilet for Mr Y. He said he could not accept the removal of the bath because he has young children. The Council said they were only willing to consider that he needed the bath if one of the children had a medical need for it. The Council said it considers the wider family where it is cost effective and practical to do so. It said unless there were medical reasons for a bath it would look to convert a bathroom rather than build an extension.
26. As Mr X did not want the works the Council had identified as eligible for the DFG, it offered him a self funding option so that he could have the adaptation he wanted, and it would contribute towards the cost. It wrote to him on 7 March with the details of this scheme. Mr X agreed to this. The Council advised him that it could put him in touch with an external consultant if he wished.
27. Mr X submitted his own drawings to the planning department and copied in the adaptations team. On 15 April, the Council wrote to him to say he needed to consult the adaptations team and the OT about the specification of the proposed scheme before starting work. He said he had submitted his own drawings as he had not received the drawings for the works from the surveyor as agreed at the meeting in March.
28. On 7 May 2019, Mr X agreed to the offer of additional funding from the County Council so that he could keep the bath and create a new downstairs living area for Mr Y. He asked that the Council comment on the drawings submitted and said the shower could be made bigger if necessary. He also asked the Council and the county council to help him find approved builders to give quotes so they could submit the full application.
29. On 10 May, the county council responded. It said it had checked with the Council who could refer Mr X to a consultant who could support with project management and the fees would be included in the grant if approved. It asked for Mr X’s consent for the Council to refer him to the consultant. Mr X agreed the same day.
30. On 20 June, Mr X wrote to the Council and said they had made some changes to the plans to meet the specifications for the grant. He said they were working with the consultant to finalise the application including quotes and a schedule of work but the consultant would be on leave soon. He asked if the Council would agree to them starting the work in advance of this as the Council had recommended the consultant and he would complete the requirements as soon as possible.
31. In July, Mr X wrote to the Council advising he was finding it difficult to get quotes and asked if the two he had already submitted would be enough. The Council confirmed he would need to provide three in total.
32. On 29 July, the Council approved the grant.

Was there fault which caused injustice?

33. There was some confusion here as an application for a DFG consists of more than an application form. The Council is not wrong to check whether people are likely to be eligible before issuing a form. The Council requires an OT assessment to decide whether an adaptation is necessary and appropriate. An application is therefore not complete without an OT assessment. While the Council could use an independent OT, it is understandable that it uses one from the council responsible for adult social care. The six months timescale for approving the application starts only once the application is complete. I found no fault in the expectation that an OT assessment will be completed before an application is considered complete.
34. Although there was a significant delay in obtaining an OT assessment, the Council was not responsible for this. It took from March 2019 to July 2019 to approve the application once completed; this is well within the six months timescale. I found no fault in the Council’s approach to Mr X’s request for an application or the way it dealt with the application.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I have completed my investigation and do not uphold Mr X’s complaints that the Council:
• Refused to issue a disabled facilities grant (DFG) application form before an occupational therapy (OT) assessment was completed.
• Proposed a scheme that removed the bath although this was needed for the young children in the house.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman