Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision following his request for a disabled facilities grant to install a level-access shower in his home. The Council agreed to pay a grant, but refused Mr X’s request for the shower to be a cubicle or have a screen, rather than a shower curtain. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council would not agree to a disabled facilities grant for a cubicle shower, or one with a screen. It instead insisted the grant must be used for a shower with a curtain, which is the standard specification. Mr X believes a curtain will increase the chances of him slipping in the shower.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mr X and his MP provided when they complained to the Ombudsman.
5. I considered Mr X’s comments on a draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X applied for a disabled facilities grant from the Council to install a level-access shower in his home. The Council’s occupational therapist assessed Mr X and the Council agreed to the grant. Mr X asked the Council if it could provide a shower cubicle, or a shower with a screen. He did not want a shower curtain because he believed this would increase the risk of him slipping. He explained to me that his medical condition means he would struggle to clean a curtain and he would be at risk.
7. The Council considered Mr X’s request. It explained to Mr X that while the type of shower it would fund was not his preferred option, it was appropriate. It explained a screen would increase the risk to Mr X rather than reduce it, and a cubicle or screen would not meet Mr X’s needs identified by the occupational therapy assessment. The Council explained features of the shower that would reduce the risk of Mr X slipping, and said the occupational therapists could provide extra equipment such as a shower chair and grab rails which would increase Mr X’s safety. Mr X says the Council told him he could pay for a support service to visit and clean a shower curtain for him, but Mr X says he cannot afford this, and is unhappy the Council has tried to tell him what he should spend his money on.
8. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman. He told us he cannot wash currently because of his mobility issues. He has not accepted the Council’s offer because he does not agree that a shower curtain will be appropriate.
9. We cannot question whether the Council’s decision is right or wrong simply because Mr X disagrees with it. There is no indication of errors in the process the Council followed. The Council’s occupational therapists assessed Mr X, and the Council agreed to pay a disabled facilities grant to meet Mr X’s need for a level-access shower. Mr X believes the Council did not consider relevant medical information. However, the evidence I have seen suggests the Council understands and has considered Mr X’s concerns, and has explained why it did not agree to Mr X’s request. Councils are entitled to refuse grants for works they decide are inappropriate. The work the Council says it will pay for is not Mr X’s preference, but this does not mean the Council is at fault.
10. It is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s actions. Therefore, we will not investigate Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman