Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of her disabled facilities grant (DFG) application between 2009 and 2019. She says the Council mishandled her application and provided incorrect information. We find fault with the Council for some delays in the DFG process. There is also fault with the Council’s complaint handling. We have recommended the Council apologise and make a financial payment.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of her disabled facilities grant (DFG) application between 2009 and 2019. She says the Council mishandled her application and provided incorrect information, which caused delays in the grant being approved. In particular, she complains:

• The Council did not tell her that her proposed plans were unsuitable until June 2016. This is despite the fact she had provided information about her proposed plans prior to this date.
• The Council did not appoint a party wall surveyor at the beginning of the process. She says this caused a delay when one was needed later.

2. Mrs X is represented by her son, Mr Y.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
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. I spoke with Mr Y and considered the information he provided.
7. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information it provided.
8. I sent Mr Y and the Council a draft decision and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Disabled adaptations

9. Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. There is also detailed guidance on good practice.
10. Councils have a statutory duty to provide grant aid to disabled people for certain adaptations.
11. The Council will need to check the proposed works are:

• Necessary and appropriate to meet the disabled person’s needs.
• Reasonable and practicable depending on the age and condition of the property.

12. Councils will often consult an occupational therapist (OT) from the social services department to carry out an assessment. The grant is means tested.
13. The Act says housing authorities should approve or refuse a grant application as soon as reasonably practicable, and no later than six months after the date of the application.

The Council’s policy

14. The Council does not have a specific DFG policy. Instead, the procedures for accessing a grant are available on the Council’s website.
15. The Council also confirmed it follows the best practice guidance.

Party wall etc Act 1996

16. The Party Wall etc Act 1996 provides a framework for preventing and resolving disputes in relation to party walls, boundary walls, and excavations near neighbouring buildings.
17. A building owner proposing to start work covered by the Act must give adjoining owners notice of their intention in the way set down in the Act. Adjoining owners can agree or disagree with what is proposed. Where they disagree, the Act provides a mechanism for resolving disputes.
18. Guidance notes a professional adviser is not needed to give the notice. It sets out that a person who receives a notice about intended work may:

• give his consent in writing, or
• refuse to consent to the works proposed (the dispute resolution procedure then applies), or
• do nothing.

19. The guidance sets out the dispute resolution process. It notes that were agreement cannot be reached with the adjoining owners, the next best thing is to agree with them on appointing an ‘agreed surveyor’ to draw up an award.

What happened

2009

20. Mrs X applied for a DFG in 2009. An OT assessed her and recommended a stair lift. It was later established a stair lift was not suitable, so the OT recommended a through floor lift instead.
21. Mrs X did not want the through lift because of the impracticability of the size of the lift. She instead wanted a ground floor extension. The Council advised her that she could pursue this as a preferred option, but she would have to pay for the difference in cost as the grant would only cover the cost of the recommended through floor lift.
22. A Council officer visited Mrs X’s property near the end of September. In the records of this visit, the officer recorded Mrs X’s preferred option was for an extension to the rear of the property which would consist of a bedroom, shower, and toilet. Following the visit, the Council provided Mrs X with plans for the two options. In the plans for the ground floor extension, there was no mention of a bedroom.
23. Mrs X did not have the funds to pursue her preferred option, so the Council closed the application as Mrs X did not want the through lift option. The Council did not write to Mrs X to tell her it had closed her application.

2014

24. Mrs X asked the Council to assess her again for a DFG in 2014. In September, an OT completed an assessment and recommended a stair lift. Mrs X declined this recommendation as she felt a stair lift would not meet her needs. Mrs X said she provided the same reasons provided in 2009 for why a stair lift would not meet her needs. Mrs X told the Council her preference was for a ground floor extension. The records showed Mrs X told the OT she would appeal the decision to recommend a stair lift. Mrs X DFG application was not progressed and remained open.
25. Mr Y said the OT gave them a lot of confusing and inaccurate information at the assessment. Mr Y said he felt the OT had misled them at the time of the assessment.

2015

26. In September 2015, Mrs X appealed the decision made by the OT in September 2014. Mr Y said they waited to appeal as they wanted to wait until after the architectural plans had been drawn and approved by the Council’s planning department. Mr Y said they provided a GP letter with their appeal.
27. In November, the Council completed a needs assessment which noted the Council had identified that the stairs were unsuitable for a stair lift. The Council responded to Mrs X’s appeal and confirmed it would only fund a through floor lift.
28. The Council explained if Mrs X wanted to pursue her preferred option of a ground floor extension, she would have to fund the difference herself. The Council asked Mrs X to let it know whether she wanted to pursue the through floor lift option. The Council also said if Mrs X’s needs had changed, she could have another OT assessment.
29. Near the end of November, Mrs X made a formal complaint to the Council about the DFG process. Mrs X complained about the confusing information provided by the Council and the length of time it was taking to complete the DFG process.

2016

30. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint in January 2016. The Council said it would arrange for a financial means test.
31. The Council started its financial assessment at the end of January. During the assessment, the Council found out Mrs X’s property was owned by her daughter, Ms Q. As Mrs X was not the property owner, the Council needed Ms Q to complete the relevant paperwork.
32. In March, Ms Q contacted the Council and confirmed she had completed the paperwork granting the Council permission to complete the works. Ms Q confirmed Mrs X wanted to pursue the preferred option of an extension.
33. The Council wrote to Mrs X at the beginning of April to ask her if she was in receipt of pension credit guarantee, and to provide evidence if she was. The Council told her once it received the evidence, it would progress her DFG application.
34. Mr Y contacted the Council mid-April and told it Mrs X did not receive pension credit. The Council told Mr Y because of that, a full financial assessment would be needed. Mrs X provided the Council with the required financial information.
35. In May, Ms Q contacted the Council for an update. The Council told her the information provided by Mrs X could not be used as it contained information about her late husband. The Council asked Mrs X to provide new information.
36. The Council completed the financial assessment in June. The application was sent to be reviewed by an officer who was concerned the proposed plans did not include a bedroom. The Council officer explained to Mrs X the Council could not pay the grant because the proposed plans did not meet Mrs X’s needs. Mr Y was unhappy to be told this at this stage as he had expected work to begin.
37. In September, Mrs X made a complaint to the Ombudsman. We asked the Council to respond to the complaint as it had not yet completed the Council’s complaints procedure.
38. The Council responded to the complaint at the end of October. The Council said Mrs X had not responded to its June letter. The Council asked Mrs X to provide the information requested so that it could progress the DFG application.
39. In December, Mr Y wrote to the Council to complain about the DFG process and the fact the Council had never mentioned the need for a downstairs bedroom before. Mr Y also provided more detail as to Mrs X’s reasons for declining a through floor lift.

2017

40. In March 2017, Ms Q contacted the Ombudsman as the Council had not responded to her December 2016 complaint. The Council agreed to provide a response.
41. In May, the council provided a complaint response. The Council told Mrs X to move the case forward, a new OT assessment was needed because Mr Y had said her health had got worse.
42. At the end of June, an OT completed a new assessment. In July, the Council decided a stair lift and through floor lift were unsuitable options. The assessment now recommended a ground floor extension, to include a bedroom, toilet, and shower.

2018

43. In April 2018, the Council wrote to Mrs X to confirm the grant available. The Council asked Mrs X to contact it once she had made arrangements with her contractor.
44. At the end of May, the Council asked Mrs X to pay her contribution. Ms Q paid the Council in June and the Council asked for the works to start.
45. Near the end of June, Mr Y asked the Council to appoint a party wall surveyor. Mr Y explained his neighbour had not signed the party wall notice and had raised concerns about the extension.
46. In August, Ms Q contacted the Council to ask why a party wall surveyor had not been appointed in June when asked. The Council responded and explained a party wall surveyor could not have been appointed in June as the neighbour had not dissented to the party wall consent. The Council said the neighbour had only recently informed the Council she had appointed a party wall surveyor. The Council confirmed it would appoint a party wall surveyor for Mrs X.
47. In November, Mr Y contacted the Council to let it know the works had not yet started due to delays with the party wall award. In December, Mr Y told the Council the party wall award had been made.

Analysis

DFG process

48. In 2009, the Council told Mrs X a grant was available to her to fund a through floor lift. However, Mrs X did not want to pursue this option as her preferred option was a ground floor extension. The Council explained she could pursue this option if she paid for the difference in price between the two options. As Mrs X could not afford this, she did not go ahead with the DFG application. As a result, the Council withdrew the application.
49. I do not find fault with the Council for withdrawing Mrs X’s application. This is because she had made it clear she did not want to pursue the through floor lift option and could not afford her preferred option. However, it is clear the Council did not write to Mrs X to confirm it had withdrawn the application. This would have been helpful as it would have prevented a lot of the confusion caused later.
50. In 2014, the Council sent out an OT to assess Mrs X after she requested help. I do not find fault with the Council for this. This is because the last assessment Mrs X had was in 2009. It was likely Mrs X’s needs could have changed and therefore the Council needed an up to date assessment to accurately identify her needs. Further, as Mrs X’s application from 2009 had been withdrawn, she needed to have an OT assessment in order to start the DFG application again.
51. The OT recommended a stair floor lift. Again, Mrs X declined this option because she felt a stair lift would not meet her needs.
52. Mr Y said the OT’s recommendation in 2014 was wrong because they provided reasons as to why a stair lift was unsuitable. Mr Y said despite their reasons, the OT proceeded to recommend a stair lift anyway and this was fault. I do not agree.
53. This is because the OT is entitled to reach a decision based on professional judgment. The evidence shows the OT considered all relevant information. Mr Y explained the OT was aware of the family’s reasons for why they felt a stair lift was not suitable. Therefore, the OT reached their decision to recommend a stair lift after considering all relevant information. It is not for the Ombudsman to criticise a decision where it has been made properly. Therefore, I do not find fault with the OT’s decision to recommend a stairlift.
54. The records suggest Mrs X told the OT she would appeal the recommendation. However, she did not appeal the decision until September 2015, a year after the OT assessment. Mr Y said they waited to appeal because they wanted to wait until after the architectural plans had been drawn and approved by the Council’s planning department. In my view, this decision impacted on the Council’s ability to progress the DFG application as it did not know what Mrs X wanted to do.
55. However, the Council did not contact Mrs X to chase her decision and allowed the application to remain open. The guidance states councils should approve or refuse a grant application no later than six months after the date of the application. The Council did not do this, and this is fault.
56. I find the fault would have caused Mrs X an injustice because it created confusion as to the status of her DFG application. This was also frustrating for her.
57. Mr Y also said the OT had provided confusing and inaccurate information at the time of the assessment. I am unable to make any findings on this matter as there is conflicting evidence of what was discussed during the assessment.
58. When the Council responded to Mrs X’s appeal, it explained its recommendation had not changed. The Council said it would only be able to provide funding for a through floor lift.
59. The evidence shows there was a change of recommendation. This is because the 2014 OT assessment recommended a stair lift and in 2015, the Council was now recommending a through floor lift. The reason for the change in recommendation was because the Council completed another assessment in 2015. In this assessment, it was noted Mrs X’s stairs were unsuitable for a stair lift and therefore the assessor recommended a through floor lift.
60. Mr Y says this shows the Council had recognised fault. However, I do not agree. This is because the OT cannot reasonably have been expected to have known whether Mrs X’s stairs were suitable for a stair lift. The OT made their recommendation based on the evidence available at the time and therefore, I cannot find fault with their decision.
61. The Council asked Mrs X to contact it to let it know how she wanted to proceed; either with the through floor lift, or with her preferred option of an extension. Mrs X did not let the Council know how to proceed and instead raised a complaint.
62. While it would have been helpful if Mrs X had told the Council how she wanted to proceed, I can understand why she made a complaint at this stage. It appears Mrs X was under the impression her 2009 application was still ongoing. This is likely because the Council never wrote to Mrs X to tell her it had withdrew her application in 2009.
63. Further, the fact the Council never made a decision following the 2014 assessment would also have given Mrs X the impression the Council was delaying the process. Therefore, it is understandable why Mrs X would be frustrated as she felt the process had been ongoing for six years, even though this was not the case.
64. The Council confirmed in January 2016 it would complete a financial assessment. The financial assessment was not completed until June 2016. However, the records show this delay was because the Council was waiting for Ms Q to return paperwork and for Mrs X to provide further information. Therefore, there is no fault.
65. Between June 2016 and June 2017, the evidence shows there was no progress made with the DFG application. This is because Mrs X did not respond to the Council after it told her the plans submitted were unsuitable. Again, because the Council was unaware how Mrs X wanted to progress, it allowed the application to remain open instead of either chasing Mrs X for a decision or closing the application.
66. The Council completed another assessment in July 2017. This time, the Council recommended a ground floor extension, to include a bedroom, toilet, and shower, as it decided a through floor lift was unsuitable. The Council did not confirm the grant available until April 2018, about nine months after the assessment.
67. The guidance states decisions should be made within six months of the application. I have considered the Council’s July 2017 assessment to be the date of the application. Therefore, there is a delay of approximately three months from the date of the application to the decision. There is no evidence to suggest the Council kept Mrs X updated as to any reason for this delay. This is fault.
68. The fault identified would have caused Mrs X an injustice because of the distress and frustration caused by not knowing what was happening with her DFG application.

Unsuitable plans

69. The Council told Mrs X in June 2016 her plans for the extension were not suitable because they did not include a bedroom. This meant the Council could not pay the grant to contribute towards the cost of the works as the extension would not meet Mrs X assessed needs. Mr Y said the Council has previously approved these plans and asked the Council why it did not tell them sooner of the need for a bedroom.
70. There is no evidence to suggest the department which deals with DFG applications had approved Mrs X’s plans for the extension before June 2016. I can see Mr Y provided the plans to the Council’s planning department, but this is a different department to the one which deals with DFGs.
71. Therefore, I cannot find fault with the Council for not telling Mr Y the plans were unsuitable sooner because the relevant department did not review the plans until June 2016.

Party wall

72. Mrs X complains about the Council’s delay in appointing a party wall surveyor. The evidence shows Mr Y asked the Council to appoint a party wall surveyor in June 2018 because the neighbour had not signed the party wall notice and had raised concerns about the extension.
73. The Council said it did not appoint a surveyor in June 2018 because the neighbour had not dissented to the party wall consent. The neighbour told the Council in August 2018 she intended to dispute the notice and had appointed a party wall surveyor.
74. The guidance states it is not necessary for a party wall surveyor to give the notice and that a party wall surveyor is normally only needed when there is a dispute. When the Council was aware the neighbour had a dispute, it appointed a party wall surveyor. This was appropriate. Therefore, I do not find fault with the Council for not appointing a party wall surveyor in June 2018 because one was not needed.

Complaint handling

There was delay with the Council’s response to Mrs X’s November 2015 complaint as the Council took two months to respond. There was also delay with the Council’s response to Mr Y’s December 2016 complaint as the Council did not provide a response until May 2017.

75. This is fault. The fault identified would have caused Mrs X an injustice because of the frustration caused by not having a timely response to her complaints.

Agreed action

76. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, the Council has agreed to complete the following.

• Apologise to Mrs X for the injustice caused by the faults identified.
• Pay Mrs X £300 to recognise the distress and frustration caused by the faults identified.

77. The Council should complete the above remedy within four weeks of the final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

78. I find fault with the Council for some delays in the DFG process. I also find fault with the Council for its complaint handling. The Council has agreed to my recommendations. Therefore, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman