Medway Council (18 020 007)

Category : Adult care services > Disabled facilities grants

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 29 Nov 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Ms B says the Council failed to help her to remove a lift from her property that was provided by a Disabled Facilities Grant to her mother. The Council had no statutory duty to assist, and there is no evidence Ms B told the Council of her disability or the impact the lift was having on her following her mother’s death. The Council properly considered whether to help, gave correct advice to Ms B, and signposted her to the company that installed the lift.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, who I will call Ms B says, the Council will not help her to remove a lift at her property which was provided to her mother under a Disabled Facilities Grant. The lift is no longer needed following the death of Ms B’s mother. The lift was a constant reminder to Ms B of her mother’s death, and she says was causing her extreme mental anguish. The lift was broken and blocking the door to the garden. The Council would not help Ms B so she borrowed money from her sister and had the lift removed. Ms B has autism and feels the Council should have helped her due to her disability. Ms B says if she was not a homeowner the Council would have helped her, so she feels discriminated against. Ms B also says it is a postcode lottery because the neighbouring council would help to remove a lift.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  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:
    • Information provided by Ms B, including during a telephone conversation.
    • Information provided by the Council in response to my enquiries.
    • The Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996.
    • Responses to a draft of this statement.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Ms B owns her home; her mother lived with her. Ms B was her mother’s carer. In 2009 the Council gave Ms B’s mother a Disabled Facilities Grant to enable adaptations to the house so she could remain living there. Part of the adaptations was a through floor lift from the kitchen to the bedroom.
  2. The lift belonged to Ms B’s mother; the Council only helped to fund the purchase of it. The Council did help with the continued maintenance of the lift.
  3. Ms B’s mother died in 2019, this ended the Council’s maintenance contract. Ms B says the lift broke down the following week and was blocking the door to her garden. Ms B says the lift was a constant reminder that her mother was gone, she found it very upsetting. Ms B and her mother had rarely been apart, so Ms B was finding it difficult to cope and says she was close to a nervous breakdown. Lots of things had gone wrong with the house which she had to fund from her limited budget; she is on benefits. Ms B says she could not afford to remove the lift so contacted the Council for help.
  4. The Council says Ms B asked it to remove the lift but made no mention of the difficulties referred to above. The Council’s records show Ms B told it the lift reminded her of her mother, but not that it caused mental anguish or that Ms B needed support because of a disability. The Council therefore explained the Council would not pay for the removal of the lift and directed Ms B to the company who installed the lift to see if it offered a payment plan for removal.
  5. Ms B says a neighbouring council would have funded the removal. That might be the case but does not mean it is fault of this Council not to do the same. The Council must consider how best to use its budget to meet the needs of its citizen’s; it must apportion its budget to meet its statutory requirements and help those most in need.
  6. Ms B says the situation would be different if she was not a homeowner so feels discriminated against. When you own a property, you are responsible for maintaining it; the Council has no responsibility. Although the Council helped to fund the lift, it did not own it or have any responsibility for it.
  7. If a council owned the property it may consider letting it to someone else who needs a through floor lift. Alternatively, it may remove the lift, possibly to provide it to someone else. In these circumstances the Council would be funding the removal to meet its statutory housing duty and/or its statutory adult social care duty. While I understand Ms B’s circumstances, the Council has no statutory duty to remove the lift where the benefit of removal would be to a private homeowner.
  8. If Ms B had told the Council she needed its assistance because of a disability, it could have considered whether to help her under the requirements of the Care Act 2014. Now the Council is aware of Ms B’s disability it has offered her a Care Act assessment; she has turned down the offer. The Council also could have considered whether to help Ms B under the general power of competence in the Localism Act 2011, but as explained in paragraph ten the Council would have to weigh up the competing demands of helping Ms B in the grieving process against helping those who need care support. If it funded the removal of the lift, it reduces its pot of money to help others where it has a statutory duty to help.
  9. Ms B’s sister has helped her by loaning her the money; Ms B has had the lift removed. Although Ms B is in debt to her sister and finds this stressful, I do not find that is because of fault by the Council. It correctly told Ms B it did not have any responsibility for the lift and directed her to other sources. There is no evidence Ms B told the Council about her disability, or that it was aware of it, so there was no requirement for it to consider supporting her because of that. Even if the Council had considered those factors, it may still have decided it had to spend its funds elsewhere, and Ms B’s situation would be the same.
  10. I had some concerns with the Council’s complaints procedure, as its adult social care complaints procedure does not have two stages, yet after it responds to the complaint it says it can refer to the Social Care Complaints Manager which would seem to be a second stage. The Council does not refer to the Ombudsman in its first written complaint response, which is supposed to be the final stage of its formal procedure. The Council acknowledges its process could be clearer; it says it will refer to the Ombudsman in its first written response and will update its website.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have completed my investigation on the basis there is no fault by the Council.

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