Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of a disabled facilities grant and, in particular, that a local land charge was registered against his property. The Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the way the Council handled adaptations under a disabled facilities grant (DFG). He said the work cost more than it should have. And because the total grant was over £5,000, he now has a local land charge registered against his property. This means the Council can recover grant money from him if he moves house within 10 years. He also said the shower installed by the Council was not the one he wanted.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
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 considered:
• the information provided by Mr X and the Council; and
• relevant law and guidance, as set out below.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Disabled facilities grants

7. A disabled facilities grant (DFG) can be used by people with a qualifying disability to make adaptions to their home to help them stay living there. They can be used to make improvements, such as level access bathrooms.
8. Councils must award a grant if the applicant meets the criteria. The works proposed must be:
• necessary and appropriate to meet the disabled person’s needs. This is usually assessed by an occupational therapist (OT);
• reasonable and practicable, depending on the age and condition of the property.
9. If the grant is more than £5,000 and the applicant owns their own home, the grant will have a condition that the money is repayable in certain circumstances. For example, if the person moves home within 10 years, except for health reasons. In such cases, the council will register a local land charge against the property so it can recover the grant money if the property is sold.

What happened

10. Mr X asked for a DFG for a stairlift in mid May 2019. Two weeks later he asked for a grant for a level access shower. A Council officer visited him at home to discuss the work needed for both of these and an occupational therapist (OT) confirmed the work was necessary and appropriate to meet Mr X’s needs.
11. Mr X said the officer did not explain to him that both works were included in one DFG, which would mean the total cost was over £5,000 and a local land charge would be registered against his home. He said he was worried the grant would need to be repaid if he died within ten years.
12. The Council said that although the two adaptations had come through as separate referrals initially, it had always treated them as one application, which would be its usual practice when referrals came through at about the same time. It said its officers would usually explain about the local land charge (and other aspects) in the initial home visit. The Council confirmed it would not recover the grant if Mr X died within ten years of the grant.
13. Mr X completed a DFG application form, which contained details of both the stairlift and the level access shower. He confirmed he did not intend to move within five years. The form explained about the local land charge. Mr X also signed a grant conditions checklist, which explained about the local land charge and recovery of the grant money if the property was sold within ten years.
14. The Council agreed the DFG. It considered two quotes for the work and decided to use the contractor who had provided a slightly lower quote.
15. After the initial quotes were received, there was a change from an electric shower to a boiler mixed shower. This increased the cost of the shower but this increase was offset by not needing a pump, the cost of which was removed from the final invoice.
16. When the contractor was on site, Mr X said the floor could not be breached due to a manufacturer’s warranty. This meant a different shower tray was needed. There was no extra cost for the different shower tray. The OT said the shower tray needed to be a minimum width of 800mm for safety reasons. The change was agreed with Mr X and the OT.
17. Mr X also decided not to have half height carer screens installed, which further reduced the overall cost. Mr X says this should not have been included in the original quote.
18. The Council usually fits stairlifts from a particular company under an arrangement whereby the Council owns and maintains the stairlift and recycles them for reuse. Mr X did not wish to use that company’s stairlift. He obtained his own quote from another company, which he said included a five year warranty. The Council did not initially realise that the warranty was, in fact, for only two years and there was an extra £330 to pay for the additional three years. The DFG cannot be used to fund an additional warranty.
19. After the work was completed, Mr X raised some queries about the costs, which the Council responded to. It considered the overall costs were reasonable and in line with estimates for similar work elsewhere.

My findings

20. Mr X’s main concern was about the local land charge. He said if the two adaptations had been done separately the cost would not have exceeded £5,000 and a local land charge would not have been needed. He was worried that the grant would have to be repaid if he died within ten years.
21. The Council said its officers would usually explain about the local land charge in the initial home visit. It has not provided a record to show this was explained on this occasion. However, I have seen the application form and grant conditions checklist, both of which show the works within were part of one DFG application. Both forms, which Mr X’s wife signed on his behalf, explain about the local land charge. Although Mr X says his wife did not understand what she was signing, on balance, I am satisfied the Council gave Mr X sufficient information about this. In any event, Mr X has not suffered an injustice because the Council has confirmed it will not recover the grant money if he dies ten years of the grant.
22. Mr X complained he did not get the shower he wanted. He initially wanted a straight replacement of his existing shower to the same dimensions. The OT said the shower needed to be a minimum 800 mm wide for safety reasons. Mr X’s existing shower was 700 mm wide. The Council followed the recommendations of the OT and specifically agreed the width of the shower tray with Mr X. This was appropriate.
23. Mr X has also complained that the work cost more than it should have. I note there were changes to the works specified, which meant the costs also changed. These changes were agreed with Mr X. Some of the changes increased the costs and others reduced them. The Council responded to the specific queries and concluded the overall costs were reasonable. The Council was not at fault.
24. The Council did not initially realise the stairlift did not come with a five year warranty and that an additional sum needed to be paid, which was not covered by the DFG. This was because the quote had been obtained by Mr X and it relied on the information he provided. Although it should have identified this issue sooner, this is not sufficient to warrant a finding of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I have completed my investigation. I have not found evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman