Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s decision not to prioritise an application for a Disabled Facilities Grant. The Council took account of all relevant circumstances, including the complainant’s husband’s condition, and gave clear reasons for its decision. There is also no evidence the Council failed to respond to enquiries about its policies, or failed in its duties under the Care Act. However, the Council was at fault for a delay in providing a piece of assistive equipment to the complainant, for which it has agreed a remedy.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as ‘Mrs M’.
2. Mrs M complains about the Council’s handling of her request for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). Mrs M says she applied for assistance with the installation of a bath, due to her medical needs, but the Council failed to prioritise this despite what she considers to be urgency of her condition. She also says the Council did not properly take account of her husband’s medical condition, when making an initial assessment of whether she could safely shower instead of using a bath.
3. Mrs M also complains the Council has generally not offered adequate assistance to her and her husband under the Care Act; and has not responded to enquiries its small works grant policy, or its policy on ‘monitoring sick and disabled people’, despite her request.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
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 reviewed Mrs M’s correspondence with the Council, and the assessments of Mrs M the Council completed.
7. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

8. Mrs M and her husband both suffer from disabilities. In late 2018, Mrs M approached Christchurch Council (which was merged into Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council in April 2019) for assistance, as her disabilities meant she could not use her bath.
9. An Occupational Therapist (OT) assessed Mrs M and recommended the installation of a level-access shower, along with some other adaptations to make her property more accessible. A DFG was later agreed for this work, and it was completed in October 2019. Mrs M reported she was happy with the work, and the Council closed the case.
10. On 15 January 2020, Mrs M contacted the Council to report problems with drainage from the shower. The Council advised her to contact the shower’s manufacturer, as it would be responsible for addressing any faults given the age of the shower.
11. On 29 January, Mrs M contacted the Council again. Due to changes in her physical condition, she said the shower was no longer suitable for her, and she now need a bath instead. The Council advised she would need to make a new application.
12. On 4 February, the Council sent Mrs M a letter explaining there would be a wait of six to eight weeks for an OT assessment. Later that day, Mrs M wrote to a senior manager at the Council to complain about the delay.
13. Mrs M explained the shower was no longer suitable, as she needed to be able to soak in water to alleviate her medical conditions, following doctor’s advice. She also explained she was at risk of falls, and having to stand in the shower was therefore dangerous. She said she was currently sitting on the toilet to strip-wash, with her husband’s assistance. Mrs M explained her husband also struggled to use the shower because of his own conditions.
14. Mrs M said the pipework for the bath was still in place, and said she could purchase a second-hand lifting chair herself if necessary. She asked the Council to expedite her case.
15. The Council replied to Mrs M on 5 February. It acknowledged Mrs M’s dissatisfaction with having to wait, but explained the Council was dealing with a high volume of referrals and so had to prioritise them. It said the DFG process was intended to address long-term issues, rather than short-term problems, which frequently required managing in the meantime.
16. However, the Council said it would arrange an OT visit to decide whether Mrs M’s case should be given a higher priority. It also said the OT might be able to recommend interim measures or equipment which would help alleviate the problems Mrs M was experiencing.
17. Mrs M replied to confirm her availability and her agreement to the proposed visit. However, she questioned the appropriateness of having to restart the DFG process, as she felt there should be a ‘follow-up’ process for applicants who have had work completed.
18. The OT visited with a social worker on 7 February. Mrs M demonstrated the difficulty she had using the shower and explained why it was no longer suitable for her. She also explained her husband’s health conditions meant he could not safely assist her.
19. Mrs M went on to explain she had used all her savings contributing to the previous DFG, and paying for other adaptations to her home, and could not therefore pay for the work herself.
20. The OT explained to Mrs M that, although she accepted why Mrs M felt her situation was urgent, she could not prioritise the assessment because Mrs M had not been assessed as having a high falls risk, and could manage her situation at home, albeit with difficulty. The OT also explained that, if a major adaptation were agreed, the process of installing it would take approximately three months, because of the need to carry out financial assessments and tender for the work.
21. On 10 February, the Council noted Mrs M needed further assessment, and although her case had a priority it was not urgent; and that there were currently 71 OT assessments on its waiting list. However, it agreed it could speed up Mrs M’s case by arranging a bathing assessment for her in the meantime, which would determine whether she could safely transfer in and out of a bath. It wrote to Mrs M confirming an appointment for a bathing assessment on 4 March.
22. On 18 February, Mrs M complained to the Ombudsman. We explained the matter was premature, as she had not yet made a formal complaint to the Council, and we referred it back to the Council. The Council then wrote to Mrs M on 21 February to confirm it would raise the matter as a formal complaint.
23. Mrs M replied to confirm her complaint was that the Council had failed to safeguard her; had not taken her husband's medical conditions into account; and had failed to “respond to enquiries” about its policies on small works grants and the “monitoring of sick and/or disabled residents in its catchment”, as required by the Care Act. Mrs M said she expected her complaint to be remedied by a small works grant, or the prioritisation of her case so she did not have to wait three months for new DFG work to be completed.
24. The Council responded to Mrs M’s complaint on 28 February.
25. The Council said it had referred Mrs M’s case to its safeguarding manager, but he had confirmed there was no suggestion Mrs M was suffering abuse or neglect, which would make it a safeguarding matter. The Council acknowledged Mrs M’s concerns about the safety of her situation, but explained it must be fair to all residents and prioritise on the basis of risk.
26. The Council reiterated its belief Mrs M was able to cope, with difficulty, in the short term. It also said it was necessary to complete a bathing assessment to ensure this was a safe option for Mrs M, because she had reported feeling unsafe using a bath as part of the previous DFG application.
27. The Council apologised if Mrs M felt it had ignored her husband’s health conditions, and gave her contact details to request a care needs assessment for him if she felt this was necessary. It acknowledged Mrs M’s point about a small works grant, but explained it was still necessary to assess what the appropriate work was before deciding how to fund it.
28. The Council asked Mrs M to explain which parts of the Care Act she believed required the Council to monitor her and her husband, and said it would consider this further. It also said, if Mrs M and/or her husband were found to have eligible needs under the Care Act, it would take appropriate steps to support and monitor them.
29. On 29 February, Mrs M postponed the bathing assessment because of ill-health. The Council offered the next available appointment of 15 April, although it said it would contact Mrs M if there were a cancellation in the meantime.
30. An OT called Mrs M on 5 March. She explained the Council was concerned about Mrs M’s safety in undertaking transfers in and out of the bath. She said it was possible the Council could provide equipment which would make this easier for Mrs M and reduce her reliance on her husband, thereby helping to reduce the risks to him in turn.
31. Mrs M confirmed a family member had now purchased a bath and a bath seat for her, as she could not wait for the Council to process her application. The Council explained she would not be able to apply for a DFG retrospectively if she completed the works herself, and noted Mrs M had confirmed she understood this.
32. Mrs M reiterated her points of complaint with the Council, and said she had received advice that she had a “good case” because she considered the Council had failed to safeguard her. The Council asked Mrs M if she considered she would benefit from a domiciliary care package to assist her with personal care, but Mrs M said her conditions fluctuated in severity from day to day and so this might not be necessary. The Council then suggested an OT visit Mrs M to assess whether it could provide any equipment to help her, and Mrs M agreed to a visit on 6 March.
33. An OT called Mrs M on 6 March to confirm the visit. She postponed the visit to 9 March, but agreed to try using a perching stool to wash at the OT’s suggestion. The OT ordered a stool for Mrs M after the call.
34. Another Council officer also called Mrs M on 6 March, to discuss a care needs assessment. The officer advised there would a five to six week wait, but the Council could reassess her priority if her circumstances changed.
35. The OT called Mrs M again on 9 March. She confirmed the perching stool had been delivered, and was helpful in assisting her in the bathroom and also for preparing food. The OT asked Mrs M how she was moving the stool between the rooms, and she explained her husband was doing it. The OT reminded Mrs M to be cautious about doing this, given her husband’s condition.
36. Mrs M also said her bath and seat had been delivered, and that a family member would be visiting a few days later to install it. She confirmed she was happy to cancel the OT visit and assessment, as she could manage with the perching stool in the meantime. The OT suggested Mrs M leave her case open for now, in case of a change in her circumstances, to which she agreed.
37. After a further phone call on 25 March, Mrs M confirmed the bath had now been installed and was working. The Council agreed to close the referral.
38. The Ombudsman accepted Mrs M’s complaint for investigation on 27 March.

Back to top

Legislative background

39. Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs) are provided under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (“the 1996 Act”). Councils have a statutory duty to provide grant aid to disabled people to carry out necessary adaptations to their home. The maximum amount of mandatory grant is £30,000. Councils must make a decision on a DFG application within six months of receiving it.
40. Before it approves a grant, a council must be satisfied the work is necessary and suitable to meet the disabled person’s needs and that it is also reasonable and practicable. This usually involves an Occupational Therapist assessing the disabled person’s needs, and a survey of the property to make sure the works are feasible.
41. The grant is means-tested and based on a financial assessment of the disabled person’s income and assets. If the applicant meets the criteria for a mandatory grant, the Council must pay it, less any contribution it has calculated the applicant should pay.
42. If the applicant’s calculated contribution is more than the cost of the proposed works, they will not be eligible for a grant. However, the Council can issue a ‘nil approval’, which will allow the work to go ahead. The contribution paid by the applicant can then be taken into account for any future DFG application.
43. Councils can also provide discretionary help in the provision of adaptations.  This could be grants or loans and be in addition to a DFG or as an alternative.

Back to top

Analysis

44. Mrs M has raised several points of complaint. For the sake of clarity, I will address each in turn.

Requirement to make a new DFG application / wait for it to be processed

45. Mrs M had work completed under a DFG in October 2019. The work involved the removal of her bath and its replacement with a level-access shower, along with some other adaptations to her property. She confirmed she was satisfied with this work and the Council closed the case.
46. Unfortunately, Mrs M’s health needs changed soon afterwards, and by the end of January she was no longer able to safely use the shower. The Council confirmed she would need to make a new application; that there was 6-8 week wait for an OT assessment; and that, once confirmed, it would take approximately three months to agree a DFG and carry out the work.
47. Mrs M considers the Council should have been able to quickly return and complete a new adaptation, as part of a ‘follow-up’ process to her previous DFG. However, Mrs M’s previous DFG was completed, to her satisfaction, and closed. The work she was now seeking was not part of the previous application; in fact, she was effectively seeking the reversal of the work. It is unfortunate Mrs M’s needs changed so quickly, but I cannot say the Council should have prioritised her on this basis. The fact the bath pipework was still in place does not alter this fact.
48. It is also unfortunate demand on the Council’s resources meant Mrs M would have to wait 6-8 weeks for an assessment, and up to three months for a grant and work to be completed. However, this does not strike me as exceptional or unreasonable. I note, in particular, Mrs M's previous application took some 10 months to complete, and so the projected timescale for a new application was in fact considerably shorter than this.
49. I understand Mrs M considers her condition, and that of her husband, meant her case should rightly have been prioritised. She also suggested to the Council it was unlikely any other prospective applicant’s situation was as urgent as hers. I cannot see how Mrs M could have been in a position to judge this.
50. Either way, the urgency of Mrs M’s case was a matter of professional judgement for the Council. I note, after Mrs M expressed dissatisfaction, the Council very quickly arranged a visit from an OT to consider whether it should prioritise the case. This is good practice. I appreciate this visit did not result in a decision to prioritise, but it is not for the Ombudsman to overturn the professional judgement of the officers involved. I cannot uphold Mrs M’s complaint simply because she did not share the officers’ opinions.
51. I note also the Council then arranged a bathing assessment for Mrs M, as one way of speeding up the application. The Council considered a bathing assessment was necessary, as Mrs M had said she could not safely use a bath during the original DFG application process. I accept, as the Council says, this was an important step, and again it was good practice the Council took steps to complete this in the meantime, to prevent a delay later on.
52. I do not find fault here.

The Council failed to safeguard Mrs M and her husband

53. The Council referred Mrs M’s complaint about safeguarding to its safeguarding team. But, as the Council then explained to Mrs M, the safeguarding process is to protect vulnerable people from abuse or neglect. Mrs M’s complaint was rather a disagreement about whether her case should be treated as urgent.
54. Again, I appreciate Mrs M believed her case was urgent. But I am satisfied the Council took the appropriate steps to decide whether to prioritise her case, and gave clear reasons for its decision it should not. It also made arrangements to prevent delays later on in the process. I do not consider the Council can reasonably be said not to have properly considered Mrs M’s situation.
55. However, I am concerned the Council could have suggested, and provided, a perching stool for Mrs M sooner than it did.
56. I note the Council’s email of 5 February said the OT, due to visit Mrs M, might be able to suggest interim measures or equipment to alleviate the situation in the meantime. By this, I assume the Council meant, for example, a perching stool.
57. But, from the OT’s detailed notes of the visit on 7 February, there does not seem to have been any further discussion of any interim measures the Council could provide.
58. Although only an interim measure, it is clear Mrs M found the stool very useful. There is nothing to indicate the Council could not have provided one after the visit on 7 February, and so I assume this was an oversight. I must find therefore find fault here.
59. This fault caused Mrs M an injustice, because it meant she had to wait approximately one month longer than she should have done to gain the benefit of a perching stool. I consider the Council should offer Mrs M a remedy for this.

The Council failed to consider Mrs M’s husband’s condition

60. In its response to my enquiries, the Council has highlighted it considered Mrs M’s husband’s needs as part of the original adaptation process. It also pointed out it would have considered his needs again, as part of the new application, but Mrs M withdrew it before reaching that stage.
61. I accept the Council’s point here; but, to my understanding, Mrs M is criticising the Council’s decision not to prioritise her new application, rather than a general failure to consider her husband’s needs. Part of the reason the Council did not prioritise the new application was because Mrs M did not live alone, but she considers this did not take account of her husband’s conditions, which limited the amount of assistance he could safely offer her.
62. Despite this, I am not persuaded there is fault here. That Mrs M did not live alone was not the only reason the Council decided not to prioritise her application. And, although I accept Mrs M’s husband could not necessarily provide safe physical support to her, he would at least be in a position to summon assistance if she were to fall using the shower. The fact she did not live alone was therefore a relevant consideration, even accepting the limited assistance he could provide.
63. Again, it was a matter of professional judgement whether Mrs M’s application should have been prioritised, and I am satisfied the Council properly explored the relevant factors when making its decision.
64. I do not find fault here.

The Council failed to respond to enquiries on its policies

65. Mrs M complains the Council failed to respond to enquiries on its policies on small works grants, and on the monitoring of sick and disabled people in its area. She alleged the Council was keeping these policies “out of the public domain”. In correspondence with the Ombudsman, she added that the Council had failed to monitor her and her husband, as required by the Care Act.
66. I have reviewed the Council’s notes and records of its correspondence with Mrs M up to the point where she made her complaint. I cannot see anything which could be described as enquiries about the Council’s small works or ‘monitoring’ policies.
67. The Council has provided me with a copy of its DFG and grants policy, and explained, while it does not routinely share its policies with members of the public, it would do so on request.
68. I do note the Council does not appear to have enclosed a copy of this policy with its complaint response to Mrs M. This might have been advisable, although Mrs M did not specifically request this in her complaint – rather, she was criticising the Council’s alleged failure to respond to enquiries about the policy. In either case, I do not consider this is a significant point, and I have now disclosed a copy of the Council’s policy to Mrs M myself.
69. The Council has explained it has no policy about ‘monitoring disabled or sick people’. This is not fault, as there is no part of the Care Act which requires local authorities to undertake blanket routine monitoring of disabled or sick people.
70. The Council does have a duty under the Care Act to review, annually, the care and support plans it has created for those with eligible needs. It may be this is what Mrs M is referring to. However, at the time of her complaint, neither she nor her husband was subject to a care and support plan, and so this duty was not applicable to her.
71. I do not find fault here.

The Council did not offer assistance under the Care Act

72. There are no additional duties on the Council, flowing from the Care Act, which appear to be applicable here. For the reasons given, I am satisfied the Council has met its responsibilities towards Mrs M and her husband, with the exception of my criticism of the delay in providing a perching stool.
73. I do not find fault here.

Summary

74. It was for the Council to decide whether Mrs M’s new DFG application should be prioritised. I can see no evidence of fault in how it made its decision; it visited Mrs M, took into account all relevant factors, gave a clear explanation for its decision, and took proactive steps to avoid delays in the process.
75. There is also no evidence the Council failed to safeguard Mrs M or her husband, or that it did not properly consider her husband’s condition.
76. It is not clear what Mrs M means by the Council failing to respond to enquiries on its policies, but I am satisfied there is no evidence to support this. It would have been better if the Council had disclosed its DFG policy to Mrs M with its complaint response, but I do not consider this a significant point.
77. The Council has no general duty to monitor sick or disabled people. At the time of her complaint, Mrs M did not have a care and support plan, and so the Council’s duty to review her care was not applicable.
78. I note the Council did suggest to Mrs M she might benefit from a care package, although at that time Mrs M was not persuaded this was necessary. I understand, however, since making this complaint, Mrs M has been on the Council’s waiting list for a care needs assessment, and also that she has made a further complaint to the Council about this. This does not fall into the scope of this investigation, and so I cannot comment further on it.
79. However, the Council could have provided Mrs M with a perching stool earlier than it did. It appears this was an oversight. This is fault, and it caused Mrs M an injustice, which the Council should remedy.
80. The Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies says that, where fault means an adaptation has been delayed or not provided, we should generally recommend the authority offer £150-350 per month, to reflect the distress and upset this has caused.
81. In Mrs M’s case, I consider a remedy at the lower end of this tariff to be appropriate. This is because the perching stool, although helpful to Mrs M, was not a major adaptation.

Agreed action

82. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to offer Mrs M £150, to reflect the month’s delay in providing her with a perching stool.

Back to top

Final decision

83. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman