Summary: Mr F complains about the way the Council has dealt with his mother’s application for a disabled facilities grant. The Ombudsman has found no fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr F complains on behalf of his mother, Mrs J, about the way the Council has dealt with her application for a disabled facilities grant. In particular, that:
1. The Council's proposal to install a level access shower on the first floor and a stairlift is unsuitable, and
2. The occupational therapy assessment did not adequately consider:
1. Mrs J's ability to use the stairs or her mental wellbeing
2. The alternative option of extending and renovating the ground floor bathroom
2. Mr F says this has caused his mother and her family anxiety and distress.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information Mr F sent, the Council’s response to my enquiries and the good practice guidance: Home adaptations for disabled people: a detailed guide to related legislation, guidance and good practice.
6. I sent Mr F and the Council my draft decision and considered the comments I received.

Back to top

What I found

Disabled facilities grants

7. Disabled Facilities Grants are provided under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Councils must provide means tested grants to disabled people for adaptations which are needed to access to the property and garden. 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.
8. When a person wants adaptations, they can make a referral to the Council. In Redbridge, the Council will ask an Occupational Therapist (OT) to visit the applicant's home to assess their needs and consider whether they can safely access rooms and facilities. The OT recommends suitable adaptations to the Council’s home improvement team who will visit the applicant at home to determine whether the adaptations are reasonable and practicable.
9. For an OT to recommend an adaptation they must find it is "necessary and appropriate" to meet the applicant's current and future needs and also be practical for the layout of the property. If an OT finds adaptations sought by the applicant are not possible they can suggest alternatives.
10. If the disabled person would prefer to meet their needs with adaptations other than those proposed by the OT, the Council may offer a “client preferred option”. In this case, provided the alternative adaptations meet the identified needs, the Council will provide the grant for the OT recommended adaptations and the client will fund any difference in costs.
11. The Council has a Disabled Adaptations Panel which considers all major disabled adaptations. It aims to ensure that all adaptations are dealt with in a fair and equitable manner having regard to all relevant legislation, guidance and policies. The Panel will also consider client preferred options.
12. When the adaptations have been agreed the disabled person will be sent an application pack setting out the adaptations the grant will fund.

What happened

13. Mrs J is elderly with health and mobility problems. She lives with her husband in a two-storey house. Mrs J sleeps in her bedroom upstairs but spends most of her time on the ground floor and uses a downstairs bathroom. The family contacted the Council after Mrs J fell. They were concerned the downstairs bathroom was causing a risk to Mrs J and wanted to apply for grant funding to renovate it.

OT assessment

14. In October 2018 an OT assessed Mrs J’s mobility in the presence of Mr F’s sister, Ms G. The assessment found Mrs J had difficulties accessing the ground floor bathroom. Its flooring was slippery, it was too narrow to accommodate any equipment, and there were several steps to negotiate. It was also damp and mouldy.
15. Mrs J used the bath upstairs once a week, using a stool, but found this tiring. The OT observed Mrs J safely using the stairs, though this caused her fatigue and pain.
16. Ms G told the OT that there were concerns about Mrs J’s continence, which was a sensitive and private topic. Occasionally she had become incontinent by the time she accessed the ground floor bathroom.
17. Mrs J was due to attend hospital in January 2019. The OT agreed to review Mrs J’s needs after this before making a final recommendation about what adaptations were needed. This would be a joint visit with the home improvement officer.

February 2019 onwards

18. The OT attempted to visit Mrs J again in February 2019 but was unable to attend. The home improvement officer therefore visited alone and agreed adaptations should be based on the OT’s recommendations.
19. The OT returned on 6 March 2019 to review the assessment. The downstairs shower was not working. The OT considered the downstairs bathroom would not meet Mrs J’s needs in the long term. She recommended the installation of a stairlift and to change the first floor bathroom into a shower room with a level access shower. She also recommended Mrs J talk to her GP about a continence assessment.
20. Mrs J and her family did not agree with this recommendation and appealed. They believe extension and renovation of the ground floor bathroom is the correct course of action.
21. The Council did not change its mind so Ms G made a formal complaint. The Council’s response explained the reasons for its decision. It accepted Mrs J could currently negotiate the steps to the ground floor bathroom. But, because of the size and layout of the ground floor bathroom, the OT’s view was it would not meet her long-term needs if her mobility worsened. The OT had however found the upstairs bathroom was a generous size, adequate and suitable for adaptation. The Council said Mrs J’s continence issues could not be resolved by making adaptations to the ground floor bathroom.
22. The Council said the OT’s assessment had considered optimising Mrs J’s independence, minimising potential risks, and utilising existing space and facilities. Her recommendations met Mrs J’s needs and the Council did not uphold Ms G’s complaint. It said Mrs J could apply for a client preferred option.

Mr F’s complaint to the Ombudsman

23. The family remained dissatisfied and Mr F complained to the Ombudsman. He said the Council has not properly considered and addressed the points raised in the complaint. This is because he says:

• Mrs J primarily uses the ground floor bathroom.
• It would take Mrs J longer to reach the first floor bathroom and return to the ground floor using the stairlift than it would take her to reach and return from the ground floor bathroom. She is anxious about getting to the toilet upstairs in time using the stairlift.
• Mrs J spends most of her of time on the ground floor of her home. Mr F says having to go up and down the stairs several times during the day using the stairlift will cause his mother to become more tired and unwell.
• The Council’s view that the steps to the ground floor bathroom make it unsafe for Mrs J to access is wrong because they can be navigated very safely. He says the is no real basis or justifiable explanation for the Council’s view.
• Mrs J does not want a stairlift installed. Mr F told us the idea of using it is causing her much anxiety and concern. So forcing her to accept a stair lift solution would put her at risk of depression. She does not want this.

24. Mr F questioned whether the Council had based its decision on financial considerations or what is suitable for the applicant. He said the OT failed to take on board the family’s comments, Mrs J’s wishes and request for a review of the ground floor bathroom proposal. Mr F says the OT came with a preconceived idea of what needed to be done and would not consider alternative options.
25. The family has decided to get quotes for adapting the ground floor bathroom, their preferred option, and they have asked the Council to tell them how much grant it would give them.

My findings

26. The Ombudsman cannot decide which adaptations Mrs J requires or approve applications for a DFG. That is the Council’s role. My role is to consider whether there has been any administrative faut in the Council’s decision-making process.
27. I have looked at the OT’s assessments. She considered all relevant matters, including observing Mrs J using the stairs and how she uses the house. The evidence therefore shows the Council followed the correct process in deciding on the DFG.
28. Mr F questioned whether the Council had based its decision on financial considerations or what is suitable for the applicant. I have seen no evidence that the Council made its decision solely on financial grounds, although it may consider cheaper options if these meet the applicant’s needs.
29. Mr F says the OT came with a preconceived idea of what needed to be done and would not consider alternative options. I have seen no evidence of that. The OT was not required to consider the practicality of alternative schemes, she was entitled to recommend adaptations she considered would meet Mrs J’s needs.
30. The Council took into account what Mrs J and Ms G said about her continence and was aware of the family’s wishes to renovate the ground floor bathroom. But it also took account of the size of the existing rooms, the layout of the house and Mrs J’s future needs. It decided conversion of the first floor bathroom and a stair lift would be suitable to meet Mrs J’s needs and also reasonable and practicable.
31. That is a decision the Council is entitled to make. While Mrs J and her family disagree with the Council’s decision, there is no evidence of procedural fault. That means the Ombudsman cannot question the decision.

Back to top

Final decision

32. There was no fault by the Council. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman