Summary: Mr B complains about how the Council handled his application for a Disabled Facilities Grant. He says that delays meant he had to rent a house to care for his mother as he could no longer do so at his house. The delay was largely caused by Mr B pursuing works above and beyond those recommended by the Occupational Therapist and because his caring responsibilities meant he was unable to manage the project himself. There was no fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains about how the Council handled his application for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) for his late mother. In particular, Mr B says the Council:
• Failed to properly communicate with him;
• Failed to advise him properly on what might have been an acceptable size of extension in planning terms; and
• Failed to take any action to reduce the distress, anxiety and impact on his mother and his family during the period of delay.
2. Mr B says that as a result of the Council’s failings, he had to rent the property next door so his mother could occupy the downstairs. He then had to stay in the upstairs part of the house to care for his mother at night. He says he was put to time and trouble trying to progress with works to his house and the impact of delays on his mother caused him distress.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. I have decided to investigate the Council’s actions from February 2017. This is because Mr B continued to work with the Council to try to resolve the problems and he at times, thought this might be possible without bringing the complaint to the Ombudsman. Also, Mr B has told me that he has a heart condition and was so exhausted by his caring responsibilities that he had to give up work. Lastly, the Council’s most recent actions are within the 12-month time period, and the Council’s earlier actions inform these.
5. Taking all of these factors into account, I have decided that there are good reasons why Mr B did not complain to us sooner and I have exercised discretion to investigate the Council’s actions from February 2017.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

6. 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)
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

8. I considered the information provided by Mr B and discussed the issues with him. I considered the information provided by the Council including its file documents and case notes. 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 have considered any comments received before issuing a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The law and guidance

9. The social services authority has a duty to meet the assessed needs of the disabled person. The social services authority is the County Council. This complaint is against the City Council.

Disabled Facilities Grant

10. The City Council is responsible for assessing and approving the DFG and for deciding planning matters.
11. A DFG pays for necessary adaptations to allow a disabled person to live in their home. The Council must approve these if the person has a qualifying condition. How much the Council can award, depends on the income and capital of the disabled person. The applicant can do more work than the Council feels is necessary to meet the needs, but the applicant is responsible for paying for the additional works, overseeing the works, getting quotes and permissions.
12. The Council can also award a discretionary amount called a Home Improvement Grant to help with adaptations or improvements.

Planning process for extensions

13. The prior approval process allows householders who have permitted development rights to build larger, rear single-storey extensions using the prior notification process. The scheme allows extensions of six metres for terraced and semi-detached dwellings. The householder must tell the local planning authority (LPA) what his plans are, and give the LPA the addresses of any adjoining neighbours. The LPA will then tell the neighbours.  Neighbours may object but only if it will harm their amenity, in which case the LPA must decide if the impact is acceptable. If the neighbours do not object, the development can go ahead and the LPA does not have to approve it. (The Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development, Advertisement and Compensation Amendments) (England) Regulations 2019)

What happened

14. Mr B lives with his family. At the time of the events complained about, Mr B’s late mother, Mrs Y also lived with them. She had dementia and was increasingly frail. In 2016, it was clear that Mrs Y needed more care. The County Council’s social services authority completed a needs assessment and Mr B received direct payments to arrange his mother’s care.
15. However, Mrs Y was confined to the upstairs of the house, so that she could access the bathroom and toilet. She had very restricted mobility. She could not leave the house and it was difficult for her to interact with the rest of the family. Mr B’s son had to sleep downstairs in the living room. Mr B took advice and decided that it would be best to build a downstairs wet room so that his mother could live downstairs in his house. This would also mean his son could have a proper bedroom.
16. An occupational therapist (OT) assessed what adaptations could be made to meet Mrs Y’s needs. This included a three-metre rear extension for a wet room and a dropped kerb to allow car access to the front of the house.
17. Mr B wanted a larger six-metre rear extension and also a front extension. He made two separate planning applications. The Council approved the front extension. Mr B gave prior notification of the rear extension. His neighbour objected and the Council decided that the impact of the extension was too great. It refused to grant planning permission for the rear extension.
18. The Council received a referral from the County Council for a DFG. Mr B engaged a planning agent who applied for a five-metre extension, only slightly smaller than his original proposal. In April, the Council granted this planning permission and the Council notified the agent of its decision. Mr B says he did not know the Council had granted this.
19. At the beginning of May 2017, the Council visited Mr B and confirmed it would provide a grant. In July, Mr B submitted the plans of the work he intended to do. The Council checked these with the OT who advised that Mr B’s plans would not meet his mother’s needs.
20. The Council asked Mr B to resubmit plans that followed the OT’s recommendations. In the meantime, the Council agreed to fund or replace Mr B’s leaking boiler. Mr B still wanted an extension of six metres. He could only do this if the neighbours did not object. The Council wrote to the neighbours to ask them to reconsider. The neighbours did not consent. The Council advised Mr B that the DFG would fund the adaptations and a three-metre extension. If Mr B wanted to do work over and above that, he would be responsible for funding the additional work and for managing the project.
21. In August, with no progress, the Council wrote to Mr B reminding him to submit three quotes for the boiler.
22. In October, the Council sent Mr B a specification of the eligible works. The Council said that Mr B’s proposal for the shower did not meet the OT’s recommendation and would not meet his mother’s needs, and so the Council could not fund this via the DFG.
23. The files show that in October and November the Council continue to remind Mr B that as he wanted a larger extension he would have to organise the work himself. The Council could only act as his agent at a fee deducted from the DFG, and Mr B did not want this.
24. In October, Mr B asked the Council to help with the dropped kerb. The Council reminded him then and in November that he was responsible for getting permission for this from the Highways Authority, although it agreed to help him with the contractors.
25. In March 2018, the files show that Mr B wanted to go ahead with the dropped kerb and wanted the Council to proceed as agents. Mr B needed to return the agency agreement to allow the Council to organise the work on his behalf, but he did not do this until October. The Council’s files show that it tried to progress the application with the Highways Authority even without the agency agreement in place because the project was taking too long. The Highways Authority approved the application and the Council obtained quotes for the work. It was completed in May 2019.
26. In the meantime, there had been no progress with the adaptations to the house. Mr B told me he was spending all his time caring for his mother and his health was poor, so that he had to stop work. The house next door became available, this was more suitable for his mother and so she moved there. His increasingly frail mother lived downstairs and used a commode. Mr B stayed upstairs overnight to care for his mother. Mrs Y received some housing benefit, but Mr B had to pay around £500pcm himself to meet the rent payments as well as the other bills. The stress and worry meant he could not make any progress with organising the adaptation work.
27. In March 2019, with no further progress on the adaptations, the Council suggested that he use an agent to progress the DFG work and the Council agreed to pay for this. The agent applied for a discretionary grant to top up the DFG funds and submitted plans to accord with the OT recommendations.
28. The files show that between April and June, the Council is assessing Mr B’s application for the additional grant. This takes some time because the Council had to check Mr B’s financial information. In June, Mr B further confirmed some of the financial information. It is not clear from the files whether this was enough to allow the Council to approve the additional grant
29. The Council’s files show that it liaised with the County Council’s Social Services department. They had been trying to contact Mr B to discuss the direct payments and to review his mother’s care package..
30. In July 2019, Mr B submitted another prior notification for a six-metre extension. The neighbour objected and as nothing had changed the Council again refused to grant permission.
31. In August, Mrs Y returned to her home country intending to live out her days there. Sadly, Mrs Y died in September 2019.

Was there fault by the Council causing injustice to Mr B and his mother, Mrs Y?

32. The DFG process in this case, was running for over two years, and the adaptations never came to fruition. This is much longer than adaptations would usually take under a DFG. In the meantime, Mr B was overwhelmed and exhausted by caring for his mother in accommodation that made this more difficult, while dealing with his own health issues.
33. However, there is no clear fault by the Council. It dealt with the planning issues in good time. It told Mr B’s agent that it had granted permission for the five-metre extension. It was reasonable for the Council to expect the agent to pass this onto Mr B, or Mr B could have checked the outcome of the application with the Council.
34. The DFG and permission for a five-metre extension were approved by April 2017 and the work could have gone ahead then. It is open to Mr B to decide that he wants work done over and above that required by the OT, and he may well have had good reason for this. However, in choosing to pursue a bigger extension and adaptations that were not recommended by the OT, Mr B contributed to the delay.
35. There was little progress in 2018, but at this time Mr B had taken over the management of the works because he wanted to do work over and above that required to meet his mother’s needs. There was no real progress but this was not due to fault by the Council.
36. I can see that taking on the management of the works was too much for Mr B and I do sympathise. The Council tried to help him. It liaised with the neighbours to ask them not to object to the larger extension; it continued to organise the vehicle crossover despite Mr B not signing the agency agreement; and when it became clear that the works would not progress, the Council paid for an agent to assist Mr B. Overall, the Council’s communication with Mr B was clear and it worked proactively to resolve the issues. The Council did not fail to communicate properly with Mr B.
37. I have looked at whether the Council delayed after March 2019, when the agent applied for a discretionary grant. The Council had to assess Mr B’s finances and this was not straightforward, requiring additional information from Mr B, and it seems he did not provide that until June 2019. It is not clear to me on the information I have, whether the Council could have done more to expedite this application after June 2019. I have not investigated this further however, because Mr B was still pursuing a six-metre extension and failed again to get planning approval for this. Whether the Council approved the discretionary grant would not have meant the work would go ahead as Mr B still did not have planning permission for his preferred scheme.
38. Mr B decided to take on the house next door. He did this without consulting the Council. It may be that Mr B felt this was the best course of action for his mother, but the Council had approved the DFG and a five-metre extension two years earlier. The delay in doing the work was due to Mr B pursuing additional work. And so, the need to move next door was not caused by any fault by the Council. There is no basis for me to recommend that the Council reimburse any money Mr B has spent on renting the neighbouring house.
39. The County Council’s social services department remained responsible for making sure that Mrs Y’s assessed care needs were met. The District Council liaised with the County Council’s social services. Its files show that it understood Mr B was not responding to the County Council’s requests to review his mother’s care package. There was no more the City Council could have done to meet Mrs Y’s needs pending the adaptations to Mr B’s home.

Back to top

Final decision

40. I have completed my investigation. There was no maladministration.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman