Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his request for a disabled facilities grant for his son, Z. He said this caused him and Z unnecessary distress. There was no fault when the Council withdrew initial plans for adaptations and provided Mr X with alternative options. The Council was at fault in allowing the process to drift significantly. This caused Mr X unnecessary frustration and time and trouble. It also caused Z an injustice because he struggles at times to access the first floor. The Council should apologise and pay Mr X £300 to remedy the injustice identified.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council:
• unreasonably withdrew a plan to extend his property under the Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) scheme;
• offered him unsuitable options for adapting his property; and
• delayed during the DFG process.
2. Mr X says this has caused him distress and has had a negative effect on his child and other family members.

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 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)
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 to Mr X and considered his view of his complaint.
7. I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided. This included details of the DFG options, the original option to extend his property, feasibility reports from the Occupational Therapy service and correspondence between the Council and Mr X.
8. I wrote to Mr X and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Disabled Facility Grants

9. Local housing authorities have a duty under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 to award a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) to help meet the cost of adapting a property to meet the specific needs of a disabled person.
10. Owner-occupiers, council tenants and private tenants, among others, can apply to the council for a DFG to make their home more accessible.
11. DFGs must be used to meet the cost of adapting a property to meet specific needs, for example providing ramps, installing a lift, or adapting/providing accessible washing facilities.
12. If necessary, professionals may recommend an extension to the property to meet the needs of the person due to their disability.
13. Councils should consult social services to decide whether proposed works are “necessary and appropriate”.
14. Housing authorities should seek agreement from the person for an adaptation, and properly consider the needs of the person, their carer(s), and their family to avoid difficulties and disruption to their support networks.
15. 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.
16. Home adaptations for disabled people: a detailed guide to related legislation, guidance and good practice describes three stages:
17. 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.
18. Stage 2 – from the OT recommendation of a scheme to approval.
19. Stage 3 – from approval to completion of the works.
20. The guide says that for urgent cases the target to complete the process is 55 days from start to finish and 150 days for non-urgent cases.
21. Blackburn with Darwen Council has a DFG Policy. This says it will complete works from application to the final decision within 6 months. The policy goes on to say:

“Works funded by means of a DFG will be the simplest and most cost-effective adaptations that will meet the applicant’s assessed needs… All areas of the existing dwelling which comply with building regulations… will be considered for adaptations in the first instance… wherever the Council judges it to be a practicable and realistic option, the re-ordering and/or change of use of existing rooms will be the preferred solution. The solution will also take precedence if it will result in a reduction in the requirement for, or cost of, equipment”.

22. The Policy also says “The Council will maintain a list of all requests and cases will be processed by priority and in date order of request”.

What happened

23. Mr X has a child, Z, who is around 13 years of age. He has physical disabilities which affect his mobility.
24. In January 2017, Mr X submitted a request for a DFG assessment to the Council because his property required adaptations to accommodate Z’s needs, in particular because it was not currently wheelchair accessible. An initial Occupational Therapist (OT) assessment was also submitted around this time to the Council. This said Z could currently walk without assistance and used a standing frame when at school and at home. The OT report said Z had a history of non-compliance with the physiotherapy he needed to maintain his mobility and if this continued it was likely he would need access to a wheelchair in future. The report, therefore, recommended adaptations to make the property wheelchair accessible.
25. In February 2017, the Council’s DFG Team considered the OT assessment and agreed to proceed to the next stage, to determine the feasibility of the works required. The Team asked for further OT reports.
26. The Council did not progress the assessment until November 2017, when a different OT submitted a review. This stated Z’s mobility remained the same but he struggled to access the toilet, which was upstairs, in time. The OT made a number of recommendations including a ground floor extension to the rear of Mr X’s kitchen to provide Z with ground-floor accommodation and bathroom. This was because it was not possible to predict if Z would be unable in the future to access the stairs. Mr X agreed to these plans.
27. The Team considered the new review and agreed to consider the feasibility of the works being recommended by the OT.
28. The assessment was discussed by the Team again in February 2018. The costs of the extension were around £50,000. The Team considered the extension might not, therefore, be either reasonable or proportionate. The Team decided to talk to family to discuss what financial contributions they could make. However, Mr X was unwilling at first to provide the financial information the Team requested. This caused some delays.
29. Some time later, Mr X agreed to provide the financial information the Council had requested. This showed the family was unable to contribute financially. In March 2018, the Council approved the project in principle and submitted a request to the Council’s hardship fund for a contribution towards the costs. This was approved in April 2018.
30. The Council told Mr X it could not give him a timescale for when the work would start. It said as it was a large building project, a lot of preliminary building work was required prior to it starting and the Council had other DFG projects that needed completing first.
31. Mr X chased the Council in August 2018, but it could not give him a start date for the works.
32. In November 2018, the Council carried out a home visit. Mr X had a party wall and the Council needed the agreement of his neighbour for the works. The neighbour declined to sign the agreement. This meant the extension could not be built using the party wall for support.
33. The Council therefore decided to build a new wall. At the beginning of February 2019, it carried out some preliminary excavations and discovered the construction of the extension was not possible due to the foundations of Mr X’s and his neighbour’s properties. The Council wrote to Mr X to explain this and said it had referred his case back to the OT to explore other options.
34. The OT carried out a home visit on 27 February 2019. The Council wrote to Mr X to explain it had identified two possible options for a level access shower room on the ground or first floor. The letter said that because Mr X was unhappy with these possible options he had not allowed the OT to take any measurements. The letter went on to say that the options Mr X had put forward at the home visit to adapt the cellar or to extend the property to the rear of the kitchen were not feasible for reasons to do with building regulations.
35. Mr X agreed to a second home visit by an OT and a building surveyor which took place on 29 April 2019. Following this, the OT drew up a feasibility report which explored seven different options, including the ones Mr X had put forward. Four of the options were considered by the OT to be viable. The costs for each viable option were:
• Option 1 = £26,400;
• Option 2 = £52,800;
• Option 3 = £56,100; and
• Option 4 = £18,700.
36. Options 2 and 3 involved extensions to the property. Options 1 and 4 involved keeping the footprint of the property the same and installing a through floor lift.
37. The Council’s DFG Panel considered Mr X’s DFG application on 5 June 2019 and the Council wrote to Mr X on 14 June 2019 to say the Panel had approved either Option 1 or Option 4. The Council said in making its decision the Panel had taken into account the DFG Policy which stated “Works funded by means of a DFG will be the simplest and most cost-effective adaptations that will meet the applicant’s assessed needs”. It asked Mr X to comment on which option he preferred.
38. Mr X was unhappy with the two options put forward by the Panel and appealed the decision on 26 June 2019. He said Z required a toilet on the ground floor because he spent a lot of time downstairs. Mr X said the original OT had recommended a ground floor extension and he considered this was the best plan for Z.
39. The DFG Panel considered Mr X’s appeal at its meeting on 3 July 2019. It said that Options 1 and 4 met the requirements of Z and were in line with the Council’s DFG policy because they were the most cost effective. The Council said the OT had advised that Options 1 and 4 would meet Z’s needs and on that basis the Panel refused Mr X’s appeal.
40. Mr X requested a stage 2 appeal on 31 July 2019. He said Z needed a downstairs bathroom in line with the original OT report. He said his house was crowded and Z would benefit from the Council building him a downstairs bedroom with en-suite facilities. Mr X said the Council had previously approved the costs of the first OT plans which were around £50,000.
41. Mr X’s stage 2 appeal was considered by a Council senior officer with no connection to the DFG Panel. The officer did not uphold Mr X’s review on the basis that the OT considered Options 1 and 4 feasible and these were the most cost effective of the four possible options. The officer acknowledged Options 1 and 4 would potentially impact on an already overcrowded property but stated the options including an extension would not alleviate this issue either because a ground floor room would still need to be used as a bedroom.
42. Mr X gave his permission for the Council to proceed with Option 1. However, he then withdrew his consent and complained to the Ombudsman. The matter is on hold, whilst the Ombudsman considers his complaint.

My findings

Options offered to Mr X

43. It is not for the Ombudsman to say what adaptations are required to Mr X’s property to meet the needs of Z. Our role is to determine whether the Council followed the correct procedures during the DFG application process.
44. The Council requested advice from an OT who visited Mr X’s property. Initially, the OT recommended a rear extension which the Council agreed to. When this proved unfeasible, the Council referred back to the OT service and a building surveyor for further consideration of the adaptations requird. Following two more home visits, a second feasibility report was drawn up by the OT. This considered a number of options, including Mr X’s preferences for the adaptations and made recommendations.
45. The Council’s decision to move forward with either Option 1 or 4 was in line with the advice of the OT. The Council acted in line with its DFG policy when it took the costs of each option into account. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.
46. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision. The evidence demonstrates it took Mr X’s opinions into account as well as the recommendations of the OT and came to an evidence-based decision at both appeals. Its letters explaining the outcomes to Mr X were clear and provided an explanation for both decisions. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.
47. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s current decision. However, the Ombudsman cannot question the merits of a decision if there is no fault in the way the Council made it.

Time taken to deal with Mr X’s DFG application

48. The Council took around 10 months to receive the OT report which it required before it could consider the adaptations needed. I have seen no evidence that during this time the Council took adequate steps to chase the OT or to obtain the information it needed from other sources, such as a private OT. This caused drift in the process and is fault.
49. Once the Council received the OT report in November 2017, it began the process of drawing up plans and obtaining the financial information it required from the family. There were delays at this stage whilst the Council waited for the information it needed from Mr X. Therefore, I do not consider the Council was responsible for any delays in this part of the process.
50. The monies for the work were agreed by a Council panel in April 2018. The Council failed to take any further actions until November 2018, around 7 months later. This was a considerable delay and is fault.
51. Between November 2018 and June 2019, a number of unforeseen issues arose. Mr X’s neighbour would not sign the party wall agreement and the Council then discovered the planned works were not technically feasible. Therefore, the process of determining suitable adaptations had to begin again. Mr X was unhappy that the extension could not be built and was initially unprepared to allow the Council access to his property so the OT could consider new options. Although this stage took around 5 months, I do not hold the Council responsible for the delays.
52. Further delays then occurred when Mr X would not agree to the two options and appealed. However, the Council considered the appeals in a timely manner. There was no additional delay.
53. In total, it took around 28 months from the date Mr X first submitted his request for a DFG assessment to the end of the appeal process. Of this, I hold the Council responsible for around 17 months of the delay, from January to November 2017 and from April to November 2018.
54. If the Council had not delayed, Mr X could have complained significantly earlier to the Ombudsman for a resolution to his complaint, thus allowing the matter to progress in a timelier manner. As a result, Mr X has been caused unnecessary frustration and inconvenience.
55. The faults have also caused an injustice to Z. The delays meant he had to continue accessing the toilet upstairs which he could not always do in time. This caused him an unnecessary loss of dignity. However, because the adaptations were for the future if Z was unable to continue to mobilise without a wheelchair, I do not consider that he has been caused any additional injustice by the delays.

Back to top

Agreed actions

56. Within one month of the date of the final decision the Council has agreed to:
• apologise to Mr X for the delays in dealing with his DFG application;
• pay Mr X £150 to acknowledge the unnecessary frustration and time and trouble caused by the Council’s delays; and
• pay Mr X £150 on behalf of Z to acknowledge the effect the delays have had on him.

Back to top

Final decision

57. There was fault leading to injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations. Therefore, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman