Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council did not arrange or fund adaptations to their kitchen that meet their needs. The Council is at fault for failing to fit soft-cornered kitchen doors after initially deciding Mr and Mrs X needed them. However, this did not cause Mr and Mrs X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complain the Council has not arranged or funded adaptations to their home that meet their needs. They say the adaptations to their kitchen funded through a Disabled Facilities Grant do not fully carry out recommendations made by the Occupational Therapist.
2. Mr and Mrs X say this means their kitchen is not suitable to use and they have had to pay for further adaptations themselves.

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. 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)
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. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as housing associations. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34(1), as amended).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered:
• all the information Mr and Mrs X provided and discussed the complaint with Mr X;
• the Council’s comments about the complaint and the supporting documents it provided; and
• relevant law and guidance.
7. Mr and 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 and guidance

8. DFGs are for people with a qualifying disability who need adaptations to their home to help them stay living there. DFGs can pay for improved access to kitchen facilities. Housing authorities, like the Council, must award the grant if the applicant meets the qualifying conditions.
9. When someone applies to a housing authority for a DFG it will check the proposed works are:
• necessary and appropriate to meet the disabled person’s needs. Usually it uses a report from an occupational therapist to guide its decision; and
• reasonable and practicable, depending on the age and condition of the property.
10. The housing authority can refuse a grant for work that does not meet these tests.
11. “Home Adaptations for Disabled People: a detailed guide for related legislation, guidance and good practice” 2013 sets out the responsibilities of councils to check newly completed adaptations.
12. Before making payment of the grant the guidance says councils should visit the property to consider:
• the appropriateness of the adaptation and whether it meets the agreed needs of the disabled person and any other recommendations identified;
• the way in which the work was carried out; and
• whether all the required work is fully completed to the standard specified.

What happened

13. Mr and Mrs X have physical disabilities. They live in a home managed by a housing association (HA).
14. In 2017, a county council Occupational Therapist (OT) assessed Mr and Mrs X’s kitchen to see if it needed improvement. The OT recommended some wall units were lowered and all cupboard doors were replaced with ones with bevelled edges. Mr and Mrs X did not make a DFG application for those recommendations.
15. In April 2018, Mr and Mrs X hired a private Occupational Therapist (OT) to re-assess their property. The OT decided the kitchen needed replacing as the existing kitchen was “a danger to all that use it”. She made recommendations with the aim of providing “a kitchen facility to enable the clients to access such a facility and complete kitchen activities with and without carer assistance”’.
16. The OT’s recommendations included slip-resistant flooring, some new wall units, a low height worktop and an oven unit with pull out drawer.
17. The Council met with the OT and Mr and Mrs X at their home in January 2019 to discuss the scope of adaptation work covered by the DFG. The Council sent Mr X a summary of the meeting, including the agreed list of works. The list did not specify the type of cupboard door.
18. Mr X was unhappy the Council was not going to replace the base units, supply a new oven, non-slip items or non-slip flooring. The Council says it did not include the base units because they were in a state of disrepair. Repair issues are the responsibility of the HA. It says other elements were not necessary to allow Mr and Mrs X to use the kitchen safely.
19. In February 2019, the Council sent Mr X a schedule of works listing the work it was going to carry out. This included the works sent to Mr X following the January 2019 meeting, plus doors without sharp edges and with ‘D’ shaped handles.
20. The Council sent Mr X a grant offer in March 2019 and included a new schedule of works. It no longer specified the doors should have soft edges and ‘D’ shaped handles. Mr X accepted the grant offer later in March.
21. The Council appointed a contractor to carry out the DFG and repair work, which began in April 2019.
22. Once the works began, Mr X visited the contractor and selected the door fronts he wanted. Mr X says he believed he was only choosing the colour. He thought the Council was still going to fit the doors without sharp edges as it had said so earlier.
23. In June 2019, the Council inspected the work with the OT. It decided the DFG work complied with the approved design and the OT’s aim for Mr and Mrs X to be able to use the kitchen without help. It was satisfied the doors did not have sharp edges. Mr X did not agree. He signed the completion certificate but asked the Council to add a statement that he was not satisfied with the cupboard doors.

Findings

24. Mr X told us the Council did not arrange for work in line with the OT’s recommendations. He said the work did not meet the couple’s disability requirements. In particular, Mr X is unhappy the Council did not include some elements in the DFG, which meant he had to pay for them himself. He is also unhappy the Council did not install new base units or soft-edged doors.
25. The Ombudsman cannot question a Council's decision where there is no fault in how it came to the decision. The Council visited Mr and Mrs X at their property with the OT and assessed what items they needed. It decided some of the items Mr and Mrs X wanted, like non-slip flooring, were not necessary. The Council considered the relevant evidence so there was no fault in how it came to its decision.
26. The Council assessed Mr and Mrs X’s home and decided the base units were unsafe because they were in a state of disrepair and not because they did not meet Mr and Mrs X’s needs. It is not fault for the Council to have decided the works were repairs and not eligible for inclusion in the DFG.
27. Mr and Mrs X are unhappy the Council fitted cupboards which they feel have sharp edges. The Council's initial schedule of works in February 2019 included replacement of the doors with soft-edged versions and ‘D’ handles. The Council has acknowledged the doors type and handles were left off the final schedule of works by mistake. This meant the Council did not fit the doors previously agreed, which was fault.
28. However, this did not cause Mr and Mrs X significant personal injustice. The 2018 OT report did not recommend the cupboard doors have soft edges and neither Mr and Mrs X nor the OT raised any concerns about the type of door fronts after the January 2019 meeting. The Council properly assessed whether the doors were safe during the inspection in June 2019 and found they met Mr and Mrs X’s needs.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault by the Council, but it did not cause Mr and Mrs X significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman