Summary: Ms X complains that the Council unreasonably refused her application for a Disabled Facilities Grant and unreasonably rejected her two appeals. She says this has had an impact on her health and her children and grandchildren’s health. The Ombudsman does not find the Council at fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Ms X, complains that the Council unreasonably refused her application for a Disabled Facilities Grant and unreasonably rejected her two appeals about this matter. Ms X specifically complains that the Council:
1. did not appropriately consider her appeals;
2. did not properly consider all the evidence, including new information she provided about her son’s and grandson’s medical conditions;
3. unreasonably concluded her daughter could use the dining room as a bedroom;
4. has not properly considered the fact that her home is overcrowded and her grandchildren cannot share a bedroom; and,
5. has not taken account of the fact that the disabled parking bay outside her house is used by other people and that exiting the car on the road is dangerous for her and her children/grandchildren.
2. Ms X says this has had an impact on her health and her children and grandchildren’s health. She says her daughter cannot sleep downstairs because of her anxiety and panic attacks, and it is dangerous for them all to exit the car on the road.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information and documents provided by Ms X and the Council. I spoke to Ms X about her complaint. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments and further information received before I reached a final decision.
5. I considered the relevant legislation and policies, set out below.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Disabled Facilities Grants

6. Local authorities have a statutory duty to provide help for major adaptations to the homes of people with disabilities. This is usually done through a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). Owner-occupiers, local authority tenants and private tenants, among others, can apply to the local authority for a DFG to make their home more accessible.
7. DFGs must be used to meet the cost of adapting a property to meet specific needs, for example providing ramps, installing a stair lift, or adapting/providing accessible washing facilities.
8. If necessary, professionals may recommend an extension to the property to meet the needs of the person due to their disability. However, housing authorities may decide it is not ‘reasonable and practicable’ to provide major adaptations to a property. This could be because it is not cost effective or the layout of the property makes it impractical.
9. The law says housing authorities shall consult with social services authorities to decide whether proposed works are ‘necessary and appropriate’.

Council’s policy

10. The Council has a policy on Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs) and appeals on DFG decisions.
11. To be eligible for a DFG, the policy says the applicant must have a disability or substantial impairment and require works to improve the disabling environment and enable the disabled person’s movement around the property and/or provide access to essential facilities or amenities within it.
12. The policy says the Council:

“must be satisfied that the proposed adaptation is necessary and appropriate to meet the needs of the applicant, and that it is reasonable and practicable to carry out the work … and the adaptation should enable the individual to gain further independence.”

13. The policy says the major adaptation process should only be started if there is an identified need which cannot be met by a minor adaptation or equipment, and the eligible criteria are fully met. It says a DFG will only support essential adaptations: essential by way of the applicant’s disability. Additional items which may be desirable are outside the remit of a DFG.
14. The policy says adaptations will not be considered to overcome social problems or overcrowding.
15. The policy says the applicant’s future housing plans should be checked. If it is the intention for the applicant to move house, then it would be very unlikely for the Council to approve a DFG.
16. About additional bedrooms, the policy says the need is to provide a bedroom or bedsit for a household member who meets the DFG criteria whose needs cannot be met within the existing environment using certain solutions.
17. The policy says where there are two reception rooms, but is one is used as a bedroom, the remaining reception room cannot reasonably be expected to be used as a dining/living room.
18. The policy sets out a two-stage procedure for appeals about DFG decisions. The first appeal will consider all the evidence and make a decision. The Council will then inform the applicant of the decision in writing.
19. If the applicant remains unhappy with the decision, they can go to a second appeal. A second appeal will be heard by a separate group of individuals of suitable status (for example, managers). The second appeal gives a final conclusion on the matter.

What happened

20. Ms X lives with her son and daughter (both children), and two young grandchildren.
21. In 2017, Ms X asked the Council for a hardstanding (ground surfaced with a hard material to park vehicles on) and help with access to bathing. The Occupational Therapist (OT) recommended that Ms X make her dining room into a bedroom for her daughter. This would mean that Ms X had her own bedroom, her granddaughter had her own bedroom, and her son and grandson could share a bedroom.
22. Ms X and the OT discussed a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). Because Ms X was actively looking for other Council housing, the Council took no further action.
23. Later in 2017, Ms X self-referred again for a hardstanding and a wet room, but asked to keep her existing bathroom (which had a bath) for the children.
24. In 2018, the Council assessed Ms X was not eligible for a DFG because she was not prepared to sign a tenancy agreement saying she would remain in the property for five years (see paragraph 15). The Council told Ms X she could reapply if her medical or personal circumstances changed.
25. In January 2019, Ms X again asked for a DFG for adaptations to her property.
26. In March, the Council inspected Ms X’s property. In April, the Council decided to review the whole of Ms X’s case based on the circumstances of all occupiers, not just Ms X.
27. In May, the Council inspected Ms X’s home to consider the viability of a two-storey extension and to look at the parking/hardstanding issue. In June, the Council held a multi-agency meeting. It considered the DFG feasibility survey, assessments of Ms X and her children and grandchildren, and the request for adaptations.
28. In July, the Council sent Ms X a letter explaining why it considered that she was not eligible for a DFG. It said it was reasonable for Ms X’s daughter to use the dining room as a bedroom. Ms X’s son could then have his own room, and the two grandchildren could share a room.
29. The Council agreed that a hardstanding would be beneficial, but as beneficial as it would be for any family. The Council did not consider a hardstanding essential. It said Ms X has a disabled parking bay in front of her house, and nearby parking spaces if the disabled bay is occupied.
30. Ms X appealed this decision.
31. In September, the appeal panel reviewed the decision. It came to the same conclusion: that Ms X was not eligible for a DFG.
32. The Council explained in writing its reasons for the decision. It gave the same reasons as its earlier decision, adding that the Council had offered to help Ms X consider, manage, and undertake bedroom moves.
33. Ms X did not accept this decision.
34. In January 2020, the Council held a second appeal panel. It said Ms X did not meet the eligibility criteria for a DFG for adaptations for additional bedrooms. It said Ms X had four rooms which were usable as bedrooms, but Ms X chooses not to use them in this way.
35. Regarding the hardstanding, the Council again said Ms X did not meet the eligibility criteria. The Council said it had considered Ms X’s mobility and the fact that she has a disabled parking bay outside her house. It said it could reassess this in future if Ms X’s mobility deteriorated.
36. Regarding the level access shower, the Council said Ms X had possibly met the eligibility criteria. It said it would need to further assess Ms X’s bathing needs. It said if Ms X wanted to move forward with this, she had to contact the Occupational Therapy service.
37. The Council said it did not consider Ms X’s home to be statutorily overcrowded. It said the property could meet the family’s needs.
38. Ms X then complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

The Council’s consideration of Ms X’s appeals

39. Ms X complains that the Council did not appropriately consider her appeals (part a of the complaint). She says the second appeal panel was not independent because it was heard by some of the same people that considered her first appeal.
40. The first appeal was heard by a panel of occupational therapists, housing officers and children’s services officers. The panel considered all the evidence Ms X provided. This is in line with the Council’s policy.
41. The second appeal was considered by senior managers who were not present at the first appeal. Also present at the second appeal were three officers who attended the first appeal. The Council says these three officers were only present to answer the panel’s questions and present further evidence from Ms X.
42. The Council told Ms X that members of the first panel would be at the second panel and explained the reason for this and their roles within the second appeal.
43. The Council’s policy says second appeals will be heard by a separate group of individuals of suitable status (for example, managers) (see paragraph 19).
44. I do not find the Council at fault for having those three officers at both appeals. It was appropriate for those officers to be at the first appeal. They were part of the decision-making, in line with the policy. I find that those officers were only present at the second appeal to answer the panel’s questions and provide information. This is appropriate because those officers were not involved in the decision-making at the second appeal.
45. The managers hearing the second appeal had not heard the first appeal. This is in line with the policy. For this reason, I do not find the Council at fault.
46. Ms X says a Council officer told her in an email that the first appeal was not conducted properly.
47. Ms X has not provided a copy of this email. The Council denies sending this email.
48. Without seeing the email, I cannot find fault. In any event, I do not find fault with the way the Council considered Ms X’s appeals.

The Council’s consideration of Ms X’s evidence

49. Ms X complains that the Council did not properly consider all the evidence, including new information she provided about her son’s and grandson’s medical conditions (part b of the complaint).
50. I find that the Council’s first appeal considered all the evidence Ms X provided.
    I find that the Council’s second appeal considered all the evidence Ms X provided for her first appeal and the additional evidence she later provided for the second appeal.
51. I find the Council considered all the evidence it should have at both appeals. For this reason, I do not find the Council at fault.

Using the dining room as a bedroom

52. Ms X complains that the Council unreasonably concluded her daughter could use the dining room as a bedroom (part c of the complaint).
53. The Council considered all the information Ms X provided as well as professionals' opinions of her daughter’s health and wellbeing. It consulted with occupational therapists and children’s services. The Council considered the statutory definition of overcrowding. Ultimately, the Council concluded that it was reasonable for Ms X’s daughter to use the dining room as a bedroom.
54. The Council’s policy says where there are two reception rooms, but is one is used as a bedroom, the remaining reception room cannot reasonably be expected to be used as a dining/living room (see paragraph 17).
55. The policy makes it clear that the Council considers it reasonable for one reception room to be used as a bedroom as long as there is another reception room that can be used as a dining/living room. In Ms X’s case, she has two reception rooms: a dining room and a separate living room.
56. The Council’s decision that Ms X could use her dining room as a bedroom for her daughter is in line with its policy. For this reason, I do not find the Council at fault.

Overcrowding

57. Ms X complains that the Council has not properly considered the fact that her home is overcrowded, and her grandchildren cannot share a bedroom (part d of the complaint).
58. The Council considered the statutory definition of overcrowding. It considered the size and layout of the property (in line with legislation). It concluded that Ms X’s home is not statutorily overcrowded because there are four rooms that can be used as bedrooms. Ms X could have her own bedroom, her daughter could have her own bedroom (in the dining room), her son could have his own bedroom, and the two grandchildren could share a bedroom.
59. The Council has considered the medical evidence Ms X provided which she says means her grandchildren cannot share a bedroom. The Council found no evidence to support Ms X’s claim. Both appeal panels found that it is not unreasonable that the grandchildren share a bedroom. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make, and the decision is in line with legislation and the Council’s policy.
60. Furthermore, the policy says that adaptations will not be considered in order to overcome overcrowding (see paragraph 14). In any event, as I have said, the Council does not consider the property is overcrowded.
61. For these reasons, I do not find the Council at fault.
62. Ms X says she has to pay for storage to store some of the family’s belongings due to overcrowding. As I have said above, the Council does not find that Ms X’s home is overcrowded, and I do not find fault with the way the Council has determined this.

Disabled parking bay

63. Ms X complains that the Council has not taken account of the fact that the disabled parking bay outside her house is used by other people and that exiting the car on the road is dangerous for her and her children/grandchildren (part e of the complaint).
64. When the Council first refused Ms X’s application for a DFG, it said if the disabled parking bay is occupied, there are normally other parking spaces nearby. It agreed that it would not be easy to manage four children across the road, but said Ms X could park temporarily across the access to her home while she accompanied the children to and from the house.
65. The Council also said that Ms X’s children were able to travel to school and other places alone, so it did not appear that they needed safer access to the car.
66. The Council’s second appeal decision letter says it considered evidence of Ms X’s mobility, along with availability of the disabled parking bay outside her house. It noted that the reason for Ms X’s request concerned the children’s safety rather than facilitating access to the property in terms of disability. It said that the children are now older and able to access the vehicle without being lifted.
67. I find that the Council has taken account of the fact that other people may use the disabled parking bay and that exiting the car could be dangerous. It has provided Ms X with alternatives and solutions.
68. Further, I find that the Council fully and properly considered the disabled parking bay, the road conditions, the health status of the children and grandchildren, Ms X’s disability, and comments from professionals.
69. For this reason, I do not find the Council at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

70. I have completed my investigation and I do not uphold Ms X’s complaint. This is because there is no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman