Summary: The Council failed to properly consider whether Mr X’s mother needed access to the kitchen when it carried out work to his property under a disabled facilities grant. The Council later carried out work to the property without consulting Mr X which meant it was not possible to create suitable access. The Council should pay Mr X £500 to acknowledge the impact this had on him and his family.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly carry out adaptations to his home to allow his mother to come and live with him. Mr X says the doorway to his kitchen is too narrow for his mother to access so she cannot dine with the family. Mr X says he understood this would form part of the work being carried out.
2. Mr X says the family are upset that his mother is unable to dine with them in the kitchen. He says there is space for her to do so.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
4. 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

5. I have spoken to Mr X about his complaint and considered the information he provided to the Ombudsman. I have also considered information the Council provided in response to my enquiries.
6. Mr 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

Disabled facilities grants

7. Disabled facilities grants can be awarded to an owner-occupier, tenant, or occupier of a houseboat or caravan who needs to provide facilities for a disabled person. This includes applications from council tenants.
8. A disabled person is someone who:
• has a substantial impairment of their sight, hearing or speech
• has a mental impairment or disorder
• has a substantial physical disability caused by illness, injury or from birth
• is registered disabled under the National Assistance Act 1948
• can be helped under the National Assistance Act 1948
9. The maximum amount of a grant is £30,000. Other discretionary help can be awarded if the council thinks it is necessary. The amount a council will pay for a mandatory grant is subject to a means test
10. 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

What happened

11. Mr X’s mother lived with him in his property. The property had been adapted for her needs but after a change in her health further adaptations were needed to allow her to live on the ground floor of the property with access to bathing and toilet facilities.
12. The Council agreed to a Disabled facility grant to create a bedroom with an en-suite toilet and shower room the ground floor of the property. This involved converting the existing kitchen to a bedroom and building a new kitchen extension to the rear of the property. Mr X is unhappy about the standard of the work but that is not the subject of this complaint. Mr X and the Council are dealing with this separately.
13. On 22 January 2019 the Council e-mailed Mr X after he raised concerns about his mother being able to access the kitchen. The Council said it would consider work to the stairs to allow access to the kitchen and also to extend the kitchen by 1.2 metres to provide a turning circle for his mother’s wheelchair.
14. On 8 March 2019 the Council’s occupational therapist visited the property after
    Mr X complained that his mother was unable to access the kitchen. Mr X said this was where the family ate their meals and his mother would usually sit and watch whilst meals were prepared.
15. The occupational therapist noted that the kitchen had been made smaller as a result of the adaptations to allow space for the en-suite bathroom. They found that there was insufficient space to allow Mr X’s mother to access the kitchen and it would not be easy to widen it due to the way the kitchen extension had been built.
16. The occupational therapist’s notes say the family were advised “that access into the kitchen would not be felt to be necessary and appropriate as with reorganisation of furniture in the lounge would allow better access to the table for them to dine. Table is in the lounge at the moment and they are using it for this purpose”.
17. Mr X says the lounge is not suitable for dining as it limits the space available. He also says that his mother is unable to be with the family in the kitchen whilst they are preparing food.
18. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in May 2019. The Council said:
• It had not consulted Mr X when it had changed plans for a supporting beam.
  Mr X was away from the property when the decision was made. As a result changes made during construction the door to the kitchen could not be widened.
• Mr X had a reasonable expectation that his mother would be able to access the kitchen. The Council said access to the kitchen wasn’t considered “a key requirement” of the adaptation but this had not been “clearly communicated” to Mr X.
• It had agreed to consider increasing the size of the kitchen extension but there was no evidence this had been given “final approval”.
• An occupational therapist had been involved throughout the work but “more detailed involvement at the planning stage of the extension would have been beneficial”.
19. The Council said it would review the adaptations to Mr X’s property and explore the cost of several options. The Council also said it would make improvements to its services to prevent the same mistakes occurring in future.
20. The Council says it has funded the following as a “show of good will” to ensure the family suffered no financial loss:
• New carpet to the lounge.
• Reimbursement costs when the family had to relocate.
• Redecoration of the lounge.
• Increased specification on finishes.
• New oven and hob.
21. Mr X’s mother has passed away since he made the complaint.

My findings

22. The Council has accepted it was at fault for the way it assessed the work required under the Disabled facilities grant. The Council has accepted that an occupational therapist should have been involved at the planning stage. The Council accepts that Mr X had an expectation that his mother would be able to access the kitchen following the works.
23. The Council has also accepted it was at fault when it failed to consult with Mr X when it changed plans for the construction of the kitchen extension. The change meant it wasn’t possible to widen the doorway to the kitchen.
24. The Council has also accepted that it failed to give final approval for further extension to Mr X’s kitchen. The Council’s e-mail to Mr X said it would consider this work but no final decision was reached.
25. As a result of the fault Mr X was given an expectation that his mother would be able to access the kitchen and be with the family when they were preparing and eating meals. This was then compounded when the Council carried out work which meant widening the access wasn’t then possible.
26. As a result of this Mr X’s mother would have been cut off from the family when meals were being prepared. The Council has since said that Mr X’s mother did not need access to the kitchen and the family were able to eat together in the lounge. However, this assessment took place after work had been substantially completed. Mr X cannot know whether his mother would have been able to access the kitchen if the Council had properly considered this when it agreed to the work and had also considered this whilst work was ongoing.
27. Mr X’s mother has now passed away and so work to the doorway to allow access is no longer necessary. The Council has funded additional work to Mr X’s property which would not normally be provided as part of Disabled facilities grant works. This goes someway to remedying the injustice caused to Mr X. However, it is unclear whether the Council has explained that it was carrying out this additional work as a way of acknowledging the impact the fault had on him and his family.
28. Therefore, the Council should also pay Mr X £500 to acknowledge the uncertainty caused as a result of the fault identified as well as his time spent pursuing the complaints. This relates specifically to the issue of allowing his mother to access the kitchen. The Council has already apologised to Mr X for the fault identified above.

Agreed action

29. Following my recommendation the Council has agreed to pay Mr X £500 to acknowledge the uncertainty caused to him as a result of the fault identified.
30. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
31. I have not made any further recommendations regarding service improvements as I am satisfied with the proposed actions set out in the Council’s response to
    Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I have completed my investigation. This is because I have found fault causing injustice and the action I have recommended is a suitable way to remedy this.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman