Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint that it unfairly calculated the complainants’ contribution towards the cost of disability adaptations in their home.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complain that the Council unfairly calculated their contribution towards the cost of disability adaptations in their home. Mr and Mrs X are also unhappy with comments and insults made by the officer whom they dealt with on the case. Mr and Mrs X want the Council to re-evaluate the amount of their contribution.

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’. 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)
3. 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

4. I considered the complaint and background information provided by Mr and Mrs X and the Council. I sent a draft decision statement to Mr and Mrs X and the Council. I considered the comments of all parties on it.

Back to top

What I found

Disabled facilities grant guidance

5. There is an underlying primary duty under social care legislation (The Care Act 2014 / The Children Act 1989) to meet the assessed eligible needs of a disabled adult / child.
6. This duty cannot be delegated to another body external to the Council.
7. Grants are only approved if the Council accepts the work is necessary and appropriate to meet the needs of the disabled person. The assessment of need is usually completed by an Occupational Therapist. The Council will also take into account the age and condition of the property.
8. The applicant should get the grant approved before starting any work. A council can approve a grant if the work has already started or it might only approve a grant for those elements of the work which started after it approved the grant.
9. The Council will not approve a grant if the work has already been completed.

Background

10. Mr and Mrs X lived in a dormer bungalow with a downstairs bathroom. Due to a deterioration in Mr X’s medical condition he had to sleep downstairs rather than in their main bedroom upstairs. Mr and Mrs X applied to the Council for a disabled facilities grant (DFG) on advice from Mr X’s medical professionals. They employed a private Occupational Therapist (OT) to avoid delays in assessing Mr X’s needs.
11. The private OT assessed Mr B as needing a bath upstairs. However, the Council’s disabled facilities grant team passed the private OT assessment to its own occupational therapy team for advice. The Council concluded another bath upstairs was not required but Mr X did need a shower adaptation. The Council acknowledged that Mr X benefits from using baths but concluded his needs could be met through the approved adaptations.
12. Mr and Mrs X say Mr X needed the bath so they borrowed money to pay for the addition of a bathroom upstairs.
13. Mr and Mrs X complain that the area required for the bathroom was small compared to the area for the rest of the approved grant work. So, they were surprised when they Council asked them to pay for 50% of certain costs including scaffolding, removal and carting away of waste and keeping the roof area watertight.
14. Mr and Mrs X dispute the Council’s finding that Mr X required adaptations to the shower upstairs rather than a bathroom as the private OT they employed found.
15. Mr and Mrs X are concerned that comments made by an officer were insulting and distressing.
16. In responding to their complaint, the Council explained the work for the upstairs bathroom required work to be done on an area that equated to the same footprint as the area that was receiving work through the DFG. That was why the costs were apportioned on a 50/50 basis to cover costs and the additional work to stabilise the structure of the house. The Council provided an itemised breakdown of the costs when Mr and Mrs X asked for it.
17. The Council explained it cannot delegate its duty to assess the needs of an applicant to someone outside of the Council and so it can only consider its own OT’s assessment.
18. The Council apologised to Mr and Mrs X because they felt insulted by the officer’s comments. It said it was not the intention of the officer and said it was committed to addressing areas that could have been handled better.

Finding

19. I do not find fault by the Council in the matters raised here by Mr and Mrs X. There is no statutory guide or benchmark that can be used to assess the Council’s calculations. I can only assess whether it was reasonable. Having considered the Council’s explanations and the details of the costs breakdown, I find the Council’s decision to charge Mr and Mrs X, on the basis that it did, was a reasonable one.
20. The Council’s decision to offer adaptations based on the recommendation of its occupational therapist was not subject to fault.
21. I note Mr and Mrs X’s sense of grievance because of their interaction with the case officer. I consider the apology offered by the Council was a fair remedy to reflect their upset feelings.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I closed this complaint because I did not find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman