Cumbria County Council (19 010 345)

Category : Adult care services > Disabled facilities grants

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 17 Sep 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mrs X complains about how the Council replaced her broken stairlift. Mrs X says issues in replacing the lift caused her significant distress and harmed her health. The Council is at fault, including for delays in fitting the stairlift and meeting Mrs X’s needs. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mrs X and remind staff of the procedure for Disabled Facilities Grants.

The complaint

  1. Mrs X complained the Council:
    1. delayed in providing a replacement stairlift;
    2. failed to consult with her over the brand of replacement stairlift;
    3. removed her from their records without informing her;
    4. sent a representative from the Council to visit her when they had a cold, placing Mrs X at risk due to her existing health issues;
    5. cancelled an appointment to visit her at short notice; and
    6. brought a male representative from the stairlift company to a home visit unexpectedly, meaning she had to disclose her health issues to him.
  2. Mrs X says this has caused her unnecessary and significant distress and has negatively affected her health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended).
  4. Mrs X complains in part about how the Council worked with a stairlift company to replace her stairlift. I cannot investigate the actions of the stairlift company before the Council instructed it to fit a new stairlift because it was not acting on behalf of the Council before that.
  5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the council knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the council of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5))
  6. Mrs X has not complained to the Council about complaint headings (d) to (f). However, as they are closely linked to the matters Mrs X did complain to the Council about, I am satisfied it is reasonable to investigate them.
  7. 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 have considered:
    • all the information Mrs X provided and discussed the complaint with her;
    • the Council’s comments about the complaint and the supporting documents it provided; and
    • relevant law and guidance and the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
  2. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law, guidance and policy

  1. Mrs X lives in an area with two tiers of local government. Allerdale Borough Council is responsible for administering housing, including Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG). Cumbria County Council (the Council) is responsible for adult social care. DFGs often require collaboration between the two tiers of government.

Care Act 2014

  1. The Care Act 2014 requires a council to carry out a social care assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support.
  2. After the assessment, the council should decide whether the person it has assessed has eligible needs, using the national eligibility criteria as set out in the Care and Support Statutory Guidance.
  3. If the adult has eligible care needs the Council will prepare a care and support plan that sets out how their needs can be met.

Disabled Facilities Grants

  1. Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996.
  2. Councils have a statutory duty to provide grant aid to disabled people for certain adaptations. These include access to toileting facilities and bedrooms.
  3. Councils need to check the proposed works are necessary and appropriate to meet the disabled person’s needs. Councils will often ask an occupational therapist (OT) from the social services department to carry out an assessment to decide what adaptations are needed.
  4. 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.
  5. “Home adaptations for disabled people: a detailed guide to related legislation, guidance and good practice” says that after an adaptation is completed, the Council should visit. The Council should assess if the works meet the needs of the disabled person and are of a satisfactory standard.

What happened

  1. Mrs X has health conditions which affect her mobility and continence. Around 12 years ago, Mrs X received a DFG from the Council so a stairlift could be installed in her property. Mrs X’s bathroom and bedroom are on the first floor and she has no ground floor toilet.
  2. In May 2019, Mrs X’s stairlift broke down. She telephoned the Council the same day to report it. It advised her to contact the company who fitted her previous stairlift to report what happened (Company A). It did not explore how Mrs X could cope without a stairlift.
  3. Mrs X telephoned Company A the same day and a representative came out two days later. The representative said Mrs X would need a replacement stairlift and they would send the Council a report. Mrs X says the representative told her it would take four weeks to install a new stairlift.
  4. Mrs X waited four weeks and in early July contacted the Council to ask when the stairlift would be installed. She says the Council told her it had not received a report from Company A and advised her to contact her landlord to arrange a visit from an engineer.
  5. The Council also told Mrs X it would contact Company A to ask for more information. There is no evidence it did this and instead it waited a week for the report from the landlord’s engineer (Company B).
  6. The report from Company B confirmed the stairlift needed replacing. The Council contacted Mrs X and told her she needed an assessment from an occupational therapist (OT) before a replacement stairlift could be installed.
  7. In mid-July Company A sent the Council its quote for a new stairlift. Company B sent a quote to Mrs X’s landlord.
  8. The OT assessed Mrs X in mid-July. Mrs X said she was sometimes sleeping in a chair in her living room and used a bucket to go to the toilet downstairs. Mrs X declined to show how she used the stairs for the OT. The OT recommended a new stairlift urgently. She confirmed a stairlift from Company A would be 3-4 weeks from the order date. She arranged for the Council to deliver a commode to Mrs X the same afternoon as a temporary measure. The same day, the OT contacted Company A and placed an order verbally to ‘start the ball rolling’.
  9. In late July Mrs X applied to the borough council for a DFG. She said she wanted a refurbished stairlift from Company C as they could fit it earlier than Company A. Three days after Mrs X’s application, the borough council approved her DFG.
  10. Mrs X then asked the Council to remove the commode as it was unsuitable for her use. She said she could not empty it and using it caused muscle spasms. The Council did not explore other toileting support with Mrs X.
  11. The OT visited Mrs X in late July to discuss her dissatisfaction with the DFG process. The Council says that at that meeting, the OT told Mrs X she could either wait for the Company A stairlift, or it could seek a new quote from Company C. The Council has not provided evidence to explain why it felt Mrs X’s previous quote from Company C was unsuitable. It says Mrs X stated she would accept Company A’s stairlift if it would be faster.
  12. In its complaint response the Council says following the meeting, it contacted Company C and found Company A could fit the stairlift faster. The Council has not provided evidence to support this statement.
  13. In early August, the OT chased Company A for an installation date as she believed she had placed the order in mid-July. In response, Company A said it accepted the verbal order in mid-July due to the urgency of Mrs X’s situation but could not progress the order without paperwork. It only received the paperwork three days earlier. The OT accepted she had not followed the correct process for placing the order.
  14. Company A fitted the replacement stairlift in early September 2019. Mrs X contacted the borough council to say the stairlift was unsuitable because it was too slow, too noisy and too wide. She said the issues meant she could not reach the toilet in time.
  15. To address Mrs X’s concerns, the Council visited Mrs X in late September with the borough council and Company A.
  16. The Council says the specification for the new stairlift shows it is faster than Mrs X’s previous one. However, due to Mrs X’s concerns, it agreed that an engineer from Company A should make some changes to increase its speed. It also agreed an OT would visit to assess whether the stairlift was too wide to allow mobile people to pass it on the stairs. The Council said if the changes to the speed of the stairlift did not resolve Mrs X’s concerns, it would arrange for an OT to assess whether Mrs X needed a downstairs toilet. The Council says it considered the level of noise produced by the stairlift and did not find it unreasonable.
  17. An OT visited Mrs X the following day and did not have any concerns about the width of the stairlift.
  18. Mrs X wrote to the Council late October. She said the changes had been made to the stairlift, but it was still too slow. In response, the Council arranged for an OT to visit to do an assessment for a downstairs toilet.
  19. In mid-October 2019, the Council responded to a complaint Mrs X made in mid-July. It said:
    • it should not have directed Mrs X to contact Company A directly when she told it about the stairlift breaking down in May. The Council recognised this led to a delay of 5 weeks between Mrs X first contacting the Council and arranging an OT assessment;
    • it normally gives people a choice of stairlift brands. It said that because it had wrongly directed Mrs X to Company A it already had a quote for a replacement stairlift when the DFG was approved. The Council said it offered to seek a new quote at the meeting in late July. However, it accepted Mrs X had not been offered a true choice given how long she had already been without a stairlift;
    • it apologised for the delay and resulting lack of choice in brands; and
    • said it learnt lessons from Mrs X’s complaint. It said it produced a guidance document in the OT team which clarified the process for replacement stair lifts. It also said it discussed the complaint with the OT team to confirm the correct advice for people who contact the team about broken adaptations.
  20. In late October, an OT visited Mrs X to assess whether she was eligible for a DFG to fit a downstairs toilet. Mrs X was unhappy the Council required a second assessment.

Records

  1. Mrs X says the Council told her it did not have a record for her on its system when she first called about her broken stairlift in May 2019. The Council says it only keeps records for ten years. As Mrs X’s stairlift was fitted more than twelve years ago the records were deleted.

Home visits

  1. The OT who assessed Mrs X for the DFG in mid-July was accompanied by a member of staff from the social care department. Mrs X says the member of staff had a serious cold and posed a risk to her health. In its response to my enquiries, the Council said the member of staff did not recall having a serious cold and would not have worked if she was not well enough.
  2. In response to Mrs X’s concerns about the stairlift the Council, borough council and an engineer from Company A met with Mrs X in late September. Mrs X says she did not expect the engineer and was uncomfortable having to discuss her medical history with him.
  3. When Mrs X first raised her dissatisfaction with the stairlift, the borough council met with Mrs X in early September. At that meeting, the borough council agreed to arrange a meeting with Mrs X, the Council and an engineer from Company A. The Council does not hold minutes of the meeting. However, it has provided me with emails sent by staff at the borough council which state who will be attending the follow up meeting, including the engineer.
  4. In mid-September, the Council was due to meet Mrs X at her home to view the stairlift. The Council called Mrs X half an hour after the follow up meeting start time to start to tell her it had been cancelled. The Council’s records on the day of the meeting say the staff tried to contact Mrs X several times the day before, but it has not provided a record of this. Mrs X said she had no missed calls on her phone and had not gone out that day.

Back to top

Findings

Choice of stairlift, delay and meeting Mrs X’s needs

  1. The Council has accepted it should not have directed Mrs X to contact Company A directly. Its failure to follow the correct process was fault. This led to a delay of 4 weeks in installing the replacement stairlift. Its failure to obtain information from Company A in early July, and to provide Company A with relevant paperwork on ordering the stairlift further delayed the installation. Overall, I consider the faults caused a delay of almost seven weeks.
  2. Company A failed to send its engineer’s report to the Council. If it had done so, the Council may have been able to begin the DFG process earlier. However, at that stage Company A was not acting on behalf of the Council so I cannot criticise its actions. In any case, it did not add to the 4 week delay mentioned above.
  3. The Council’s initial fault also meant Mrs X did not have as much choice in which stairlift she had, since Company A had already provided a quote and Mrs X needed the stairlift urgently. Further, there is no evidence the Council properly considered her preference of a stairlift from Company C.
  4. There is no evidence the Council considered whether Mrs X had a need for care and support when she reported the stair lift was broken. This is fault. However, during the assessment in mid-July, the OT identified Mrs X needed support with toileting, arranged for a commode and checked she could use it safely. When Mrs X said she could not use the commode, there is no evidence the Council considered whether it could offer any other support. The failure to consider what support Mrs X might need in the absence of her stairlift was fault. This meant she did not have access to suitable toilet facilities for four weeks.
  5. When Mrs X reported concerns with the replacement stairlift, the Council took appropriate action to consider those concerns, including asking an OT to carry out an assessment of whether she needed a downstairs toilet. It was appropriate for it to arrange a second assessment because a second adaptation would involve a further DFG.

Records

  1. The General Data Protection Regulation says bodies that process personal information should not keep personal data for longer than they need it. Bodies should erase or anonymise data when it is no longer needed. The Council says its policy is that documents over 10 years old are deleted. Mrs X’s records were over 12 years old.
  2. The Council acted in accordance with the legislation and its own policy, therefore, it was not at fault.

Home visits

  1. Mrs X says the member of staff who visited from the adult social care department in mid-July was unwell and put her health at risk. On the balance of probability, I find the member of staff was well enough to work. There is no evidence Mrs X became unwell because of the visit. Mrs X could have also refused the member of staff entry if she had concerns. The Council was not at fault.
  2. Although I note Mrs X was unhappy the engineer from Company A was present for a discussion of her health needs, I am satisfied the Council told her an engineer would be present. The Council was not at fault.
  3. There is no evidence the Council attempted to tell Mrs X the mid-September meeting was cancelled until after its start time. I find the Council is at fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

  1. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council will carry out the following actions.
  2. Apologise to Mrs X for:
    • failing to follow the correct process when Mrs X reported her stairlift was broken, and for the delays and lack of choice that followed.
    • failing to identify whether Mrs X had support needs in the absence of a stairlift and address these; and
    • cancelling a home visit at short notice.
  3. Pay Mrs X £800 to recognise the distress and uncertainty caused by the fault identified.
  4. Offer Mrs X a needs assessment under the Care Act 2014 and carry one out if she agrees.
  5. Remind staff they must assess any adult with the appearance of care and support needs.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to personal injustice. I have recommended action to remedy that injustice and prevent reoccurrence of this fault.

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