Summary: Miss B complains about how the Council dealt with her application for a Disabled Facilities Grant. The Council did take her family’s views into account and progressed the application properly. It was late in making some payments to the builders. However, it has now made all the payments due and has apologised to Miss B for the late payments.

The complaint

1. Miss B complains on behalf of her son, Mr K. She complains about how the Council dealt with Mr K’s adaptations to their home. In particular, Miss B says the Council:
• Took too long to progress Mr K’s application for adaptations;
• Did not take his views or those of his family and carers into account when it decided how the property might be adapted to meet his needs;
• Did not do enough to meet his needs in the meantime; and
• Did not make the agreed payments on time so that the builder threatened her with court action for non-payment.
2. Miss B also complains the Council did not give her enough help and support, or take her views into account when she had to manage the adaptation work herself.
3. Mr K and Miss B say that as a result of the Council’s shortcomings, Mr K was unable to properly bathe or use the toilet for over two years, and this impacted on the care Miss B had to provide for him. Both suffered distress and frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
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 considered the information provided by Miss B. I considered the information provided by the Council including its file documents. I also considered the law and guidance set out below. Both parties have had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this statement. I took into account the comments of both parties.

Back to top

What I found

The law

7. Disabled Facilities Grants are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Councils have a statutory duty to provide grant aid to disabled people for certain adaptations. Before approving a grant, a council must be satisfied the work is necessary and suitable to meet the disabled person’s needs and also reasonable and practicable.
8. 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. Once the work is complete the council must pay the grant in full before 12 months from the date of the grant application.

Government Guidance

9. The Government issued the guidance ‘Home Adaptations for Disabled People: A detailed guide to related legislation, guidance and good practice’. This says any assessment should take in the views of the disabled person. The views of parents and carers are also important, especially if they live in the same house.

What happened

10. Mr K has cerebral palsy. He is a full-time powered wheelchair user and relies on his mother, Miss B for all of his personal care needs. Mr K receives direct payments to meet his care needs. He and his mother lived with his grandmother in her fully adapted home, but when she passed away they had to move.
11. Miss B told the Council they had been forced to move in a rush and she could not afford to buy a more suitable property. They moved to a detached bungalow in November 2017.
12. On 28 November, Miss B asked the Council’s OT to visit the new bungalow to assess what adaptations would be needed. The Council prioritised the case for a visit. The visit took place on 6 February 2018. The OT found the family were using a temporary ramp to access the property, which would not meet Mr K’s needs. Miss B said she intended to remove the wall between the toilet and the bathroom to make more room. Mr K said he wanted to install a bath but there would not be enough room. The case notes say the OT advised Miss B not to carry out any works herself as it could not be paid for retrospectively.
13. The OT referred the case to the Council’s Major Adaptations Team who visited on 19 March 2018. The case notes from this visit say the Council found:
• the access to the property was too narrow for the wheelchair. There was a step and Mr K used ramps taken from the previous property, but these are too steep and not suitable.
• The family had demolished an internal wall between the toilet and bathroom to make a bigger area for washing.
• They had installed a ceiling track hoist from the bedroom to the bathroom and also used a manual hoist. Miss B explained that she had always used this hoist. The OT advised against using this alone but notes that Mr K and Miss B declined carers to assist with personal care.
• Miss B refused a referral to care management but reported she was suffering with a bad back and shoulder, and also refused a height adjustable hospital bed.
• Miss B and Mr K wanted to convert the garage to living accommodation suitable for Mr K.
14. The Council completed the DFG application form with Miss B and on 4 April 2018 two of its surveyors visited to complete a feasibility study. Here Miss B did not agree with the surveyors’ proposals and she says they did not talk to her about her proposal to convert the garage or her plans that would allow Mr K to access the bathroom, bedroom, and the front and back of the house. The Council agreed that its panel would consider Miss B’s proposal to convert or demolish and rebuild the garage, and the surveyors’ recommendation to remodel the internal space and make adaptations.
15. The Council’s records say it again also offered to make a referral to adult care services, to see if Mr K could get better or additional help while they were managing in the property. It says Mr K declined the referral. His care plan had been revised since moving to the house and he was receiving direct payments from the Council to allow him to arrange and pay for his own care. Miss B says the Council did not offer to refer them to adult care services.
16. On 10 April 2018, the Council’s panel met and discussed the recommendations and Miss B’s proposal to convert or rebuild the garage. The panel decided that the OT’s recommendations could be achieved and were a reasonable and practicable way to meet Mr K’s needs.
17. In a letter to Mr K, the Council confirmed the panel had agreed that the following was needed:
• Remodel and widen the front access to create a ramped access.
• Create a platform ramp to the rear for access to the garden.
• Create a wheelchair accessible kitchen area within the current structure
• Rebuild the partition wall with a wheelchair accessible door.
• Install ceiling track hoists to bedroom and bathroom
• Widen some doorways to allow access.
18. Miss B decided that she would pursue her own adaptations because she did not agree with the Council’s plans and she would manage these. The Council advised that it would still have to approve her plans in order to pay the DFG and she should not go ahead without approval. Miss B’s advocate told the Council that its plans did not allow clearance for Mr K’s wheelchair.
19. In May, the Council visited Miss B’s home again for a further feasibility study. They found that its original plan to adapt the inside of the property was not viable and it would need a substantial extension and other adaptations instead. The Council estimated the work would cost £83,000. Miss B again said this was the only property she could afford and she still wanted to adapt the existing garage. The Council could not agree that this would meet building regulations and so it could not fund this. It explained to Miss B why this was not possible. The Council said that despite its conclusion that an external extension would be the only way to meet Mr K’s needs, it would consider all plans and proposals that Miss B submits.
20. Miss B submitted some plans to the Council but these needed clarification to make sure they met the OT’s recommendations. By this stage, the family was working with an advocate and the Council set out for her the details needed for it to approve the plans. Miss B resubmitted the plans.
21. The Council’s notes show that Miss B and Mr K did not agree with the Council’s specification for some aspects of the refurbishment including the details for the shower and toilet. The Council wrote to Miss B to explain in detail why the plans as they stood did not meet the OT’s recommendations. After some discussion about the driveway, shower and toilet, the Council gave Miss B the full specifications to help her get the quotes for the work. In September, Miss B competed the DFG application and also applied for a discretionary loan taking the total funding to £45,000. In October, the Council further clarified the specification so that Miss B could get detailed quotes.
22. In the meantime, the Council agreed to fund a ramp to the side door of the property. This work was arranged and the Council’s files show that it kept in touch with the company supplying and fitting the ramp to make sure this was done as quickly as possible. The installations started at the end of November 2018. The Council met with Miss B and learned she was not satisfied with the ramp design as it would project onto the driveway. Miss B also said the company had brought the wrong legs for the ramp and the materials used were not correct. The Council consulted its OT again to see if Miss B’s preferred design for the ramp would be safe.
23. At this meeting, Miss B said she had quotes for the main adaptation and refurbishment work and this would exceed the £45,000 already agreed in funding. Miss B asked the Council to help her apply for charitable funding for the rest of the costs.
24. At the beginning of December, the ramp installation company advised that Miss B’s design for the ramp would not be safe and that the material and legs were correct. The Council met with Miss B and explained this and the company completed the installation of the ramp. This was arranged for the beginning of January.
25. The Council met with Miss B and Mr K on 19 December. They again said they did not agree with the OT’s recommendation for the adaptations or the ramp. Miss B confirmed the current support package was meeting Mr K’s needs and she would contact it if she needed additional help.
26. In January, the ramp installation was completed and the Council visited that day and made sure that Mr K could use it safely. The Council looked at charitable applications to fund the adaptations. A contractor had been identified. Miss B said she could not afford the required adaptation over and above the DFG and top-up loan. In March, the Council agreed to fund the whole cost of the work.
27. Miss B’s family advocate told the Council that the preferred contractor could not start work until mid-July. The Council advised Miss B that the grant is usually paid in instalments, one payment part-way through and the balance when all has been completed, but that it would confirm this.
28. The work was completed in February 2020. The Council made interim payments in August and September. But Miss B says the payments due in October, November and December were around two months late.

Was there fault by the Council causing an injustice to Miss B and Mr K?

29. The works took some time to complete. There was some delay by the Council at the start of the process. It took the Council just over two months from the referral to visit Miss B and assess what adaptations might be needed. However, there was no significant delay by the Council once it had allocated the case to an officer and visited the home.
30. It was unfortunate that the Council had to revise its recommendations as to how the property could be adapted and I do appreciate that Miss B was under pressure to move from their fully adapted home. However, the home needed extensive work and so it was understandable and to some degree to be expected that this took some time to organise. The small early delays by the Council did not contribute significantly to the overall time the work took and were not fault by it.
31. By April 2018, just over five months after Miss B had first contacted the Council for help, the family decided to go with their own scheme and own project manager rather than use the Council’s services. It was open to Miss B to do this, if she considered it necessary, but it did mean the adaptations took longer than normal to complete from that point. It is understandable that Miss B found it difficult to manage the adaptations herself, especially as she also has significant care responsibilities and was giving that care in an unsuitable property. However, the Council did keep in touch with Miss B and her project manager and met its obligations to approve her plans in line with the OT recommendations.
32. The Council did consider Miss B and Mr K’s views. Their preferred option was for a refurbishment or rebuilding of the garage. The Council’s files show that it did consider this but it would not meet building regulations. The Council could not have funded works that would not comply with the regulations and so it has explained that it had good reason to reject this plan. The Council also made it clear at various stages that it would still consider any plans Miss B and Mr K submitted and fund eligible works if the plans would meet the OT recommendations. The Council’s file shows that it considered Miss B’s plans submitted, but these were not feasible. It also properly considered Miss B’s preferred options for the ramp to access of the property, but again had to prioritise Mr K’s safety.
33. I can see that it would have been difficult for Miss B to provide care for Mr K for this prolonged period while in an unsuitable property. The Council did consider this and its notes say that it twice offered a referral to its Care Management (Adult Care Services) to make sure that they were getting all the help they needed but Miss B and Mr K refused this.
34. Miss B says the Council did not offer to refer them for additional help. But the Council’s records are clear that Mr K’s direct payments were reviewed and that Miss B and Mr K agreed his needs were being met. They also agreed that they would contact the Council if they needed more help.
35. The adaptations took a long time to complete and in the meantime, Miss B used a manual hoist on her own. However, the files show the Council’s OTs did consider how Miss B used the manual hoist and whether this was suitable and did discuss this with Miss B, but she refused help from additional carers with this. I cannot see that the Council could have done more to makes sure Mr K’s care needs were being met.
36. The Council has acknowledged that it did not make the payments on time. It had agreed to make a grant to top up the DFG in these exceptional circumstances. It has explained that it was not used to making payments outside of the usual DFG procedure and so did not always make these on time. However, the payments were made by February 2020 and the Council was in touch with the surveyor about this. The Council was at fault because it should have made the payments on time. This is likely to have caused Miss B some difficulties and distress. However, the builders did not take court action, the Council was in touch with the surveyor about payments, and the Council has since resolved the problems it had with its system that meant the payments were late. It has apologised to Miss B for the inconvenience caused by it paying late.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council causing injustice. The Council has already remedied the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman