Summary: The Council’s delay progressing Mr X’s request for a Disabled Facilities Grant was fault. There is also fault in how the Council dealt with Mr X’s application to the housing register. As a result, Mr X spent two years in accommodation where he could not access bathing facilities. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Mr X £7350.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council delayed dealing with his application for a Disabled Facilities Grant to adapt his home.
2. Mr X also complains the Council did not deal properly with his application for rehousing under the Council’s allocations scheme. He says the Council placed unfair restrictions on the properties he was eligible for.
3. As a result, Mr X had no access to bathing facilities or a bedroom for over two years.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
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 spoke to Mr and Mrs X about the complaint.
7. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
8. I referred to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
9. 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

County and district councils

10. The matter subject to this complaint began in early 2019. At that time, the area where Mr X lives was a “two-tier authority”. This means that some functions were the preserve of the County Council and others of the District Council.
11. In April 2020, the County Council and various district councils merged to form a new unitary authority.
12. Where necessary in this decision, I will refer to the District Council, which until April 2020 had responsibility for Housing, and the County Council, which was responsible for Adult Social Care. The new unitary authority is referred to as the Council, which bears responsibility for the actions and decisions of its constituent legacy councils. It is the Council to which I make recommendations.

Disabled Facilities Grants

13. Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs) are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Councils have a statutory duty to provide grant aid to disabled people for certain adaptations. Before approving a grant a council must be satisfied the work is necessary and suitable to meet the disabled person’s needs and also reasonable and practicable.
14. Social care authorities must promote ‘wellbeing’ when carrying out any of their care and support functions. Wellbeing includes the suitability of living accommodation. The Care Act 2014 recognises that suitable accommodation is one way of meeting care and support needs. Prevention is critical to the Care Act, and home adaptations are an example of secondary prevention.
15. Section 23 of the Care Act clarifies the existing boundary in law between care and support and general housing. Where housing legislation requires authorities to provide housing services, they must provide those services under housing legislation. However, this should not prevent authorities working together. The guidance states:

“... community equipment, along with telecare, aids and adaptations can support reablement, promote independence contributing to preventing the needs for care and support. A local [social care] authority may wish to draw on the assistance of the housing authority and local housing services.”

16. A council should give the applicant a decision on a grant application as soon as reasonably practicable. This must be within six months of the grant application. If a council refuses a grant it must explain why. Once the work is complete the council must pay the grant in full before 12 months from the date of the grant application

Housing allocations

17. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises housing applicants, and its procedures for allocating properties.  All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
18. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:
• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))
19. Applicants have a right to request a review of a council’s decision about the priority band they have been awarded.
20. Bidding: The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme. This means housing applicants can apply for available properties. This is called bidding. The Council advertises new properties on a weekly cycle.
21. Priority band: The Council places applicants who qualify to join the housing register in a priority band from Band A (highest priority) to Band E (lowest priority). This priority is the first factor the Council uses to allocate a property. The Council decides what priority band to award based on its assessment of the applicants housing need and the criteria in its allocations policy.

What happened - DFG

22. Mr X has a health condition which affects his mobility and ability to care for himself. His condition gets worse over time and he sometimes uses a wheelchair. Mrs X, his wife, is his carer.
23. In 2018, Mr X and his family moved into a property let by a Housing Association. Shortly thereafter, Mr X’s condition deteriorated. He could no longer climb the stairs. This meant he was unable to access either a bedroom or bathing facilities. He slept in the living room and Mrs X bathed him by hand in the downstairs toilet.
24. In January 2019, an OT (Occupational Therapist) from the County Council assessed Mr X at home. The assessment found Mr X needed a level access shower and would benefit from a wheelchair accessible property. Between January and March, the OT attempted to contact Mr X’s Housing Association several times to discuss his housing needs. The Council’s records show it was unable to make contact.
25. In April, the OT was able to contact the Housing Association. The Housing Association’s Adaptations Lead advised that having visited the property, it was not suitable for adaptation.
26. As a result, the OT sent a rehousing report to the District Council in May. This recommended Mr X be rehoused as the current property was unsuitable and could not be adapted.
27. However, Mr X wished to dispute the Housing Association’s finding that the property could not be adapted. Mr and Mrs X did not want to move home.
28. Therefore, in July the OT recommended an extension to the property to allow Mr X to have a bedroom and bathroom downstairs. The OT sent this to the District Council’s Staying Put team, which managed applications for DFGs. The County Council then closed the case.
29. The CEO of the Housing Association wrote to Mr X in July granting permission for the proposed works. Mr X says the OT was also sent a copy of this letter.
30. The District Council allocated a Grants Officer in February 2020. The Officer visited Mr X at home. The Officer thought the property was not suitable for adaptations because the garden might not be big enough for the extension. The Council was also concerned that Mr X’s Housing Association might not agree to the works. If it drew up plans which were not then approved, Mr X would be liable for that cost.
31. Therefore, the District Council decided it was not reasonable and practicable to adapt the home and closed the case.
32. In August, the OT submitted a new referral to the Staying Put Team for the same adaptations as previously.
33. The Grant Officer visited again, accompanied by an architect. The architect advised that the proposed adaptations would be possible.
34. In August, the Council realised that the Housing Association’s CEO had given permission for adaptations in July the previous year. The Council sent Mr X a Staying Put Agreement to sign.
35. In September, Mr X told the Council that the Housing Association had told him that any adaptations would have to be reversed at the end of the tenancy. Mr X forwarded this correspondence to the Council.
36. In October, the OT approved the proposed plans and the Council granted planning permission in November.
37. In December, the Council wrote to the Housing Association to ask it to complete the necessary Landlord Certificate. The Council followed this up with the Housing Association in January and eventually received it in February 2021.
38. At this point, the Council sent Mr X the Disabled Facilities Grant Application, which Mr X returned a week later.
39. In March 2021, the Council approved the DFG and the top up grants necessary to fully fund the extension.
40. Work began in April 2021.

What happened – allocations

41. The Council says it would not usually pursue both rehousing via the housing register and an adaptation through a DFG at the same time, as it did in this case. However, given the circumstances, where it was unsure if the landlord housing association would consent to the work, it considered it appropriate.
42. Mr and Mrs X applied to the housing register in April 2019.
43. The Council uses ‘mobility categories’ to indicate the level of adaptation an applicant needs. Mobility 1 indicates an applicant who needs a wheelchair adapted property. Mobility 3 indicates a need for a property with level access.
44. Initially, their application was assessed as Band C, mobility 3 with a three-bedroom need. In October 2019, after the OT and Mr X provided more information, the District Council increased their priority to Band B with a need for a four-bedroom property or one with two ground floor reception rooms and a mobility 1 or 3.
45. The Council awarded Band B for medical needs. So far as is relevant to this complaint, the allocations policy says Band B is for applicants who need to move for medical reasons because “their current home is having a severe impact on the health of a member of the household.”
46. The allocations policy says the Council will award Band A when the health of a member of the household “is so severely affected that they physically cannot access their current home and/or essential facilities within their current home”.
47. Mr X needs a type of property which is very uncommon. Mr X says the Council told him that he could only bid for properties that were already adapted. Its records show the County Council also believed this to be the case.

My findings – DFG

Delay allocating a Grant Officer

48. The County Council sent the referral to the Staying Put Team at the District Council in July 2019. The District Council did not allocate a Grants Officer to deal with the application until February 2020. This is eight months.
49. In its response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council acknowledged that “8 months is a protracted period to wait on any waiting list.” It apologised to Mr X for this.
50. The Council told Mr X that “this delay was unfortunately out of our control” but does not explain why. I find the failure to allocate a Grants Officer sooner to be fault. This delayed Mr X’s application for a DFG by at least six months.

Landlord consent

51. Mr X is a Housing Association tenant. Landlord permission is required to adapt rented homes. The Council’s records show that it was unable initially to contact anyone at the housing association to discuss Mr X’s needs. This caused a delay of four months.
52. In April 2019, the Housing Association told Mr X and the Council that the home was not suitable for adaptation. On this basis, the Council instead pursued rehousing.
53. However, in July 2020, the Council realised that the CEO of the Housing Association had granted permission to do the proposed works the previous year.
54. The Council confirmed this with the Housing Association. Despite this, in September the Housing Association advised Mr X that any adaptations would have to be reversed when their tenancy ended. In response to my enquiries, the Council set out its difficulties communicating with the housing association. It said the “matter of landlord consent continued to cause confusion and worry.”
55. The actions of the housing association are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Mr X has made a separate complaint to the Housing Ombudsman about its actions.
56. However, the letter from the Housing Association granting permission for works in July 2019 says a copy was also sent to the OT. Therefore, as early as July 2019 the Council had confirmation of Landlord Consent. The Council’s failure to properly record this letter was fault.
57. The concern about whether the Housing Association would consent, and therefore whether a DFG application would be approved, was a significant factor in the Council’s decision not to pursue a DFG in February 2020. Had it properly considered the available information, I find it likely it would have started the DFG process sooner. In addition to the delay allocating a Grant Officer, this added a further seven months to the delay.

My findings – allocations

Banding

58. Mr X had no access to a bedroom or bathing facilities. This meets the criteria for Band A. Yet the Council awarded Band B. There is no evidence to show how the Council decided Mr X’s circumstances did not warrant Band A.
59. In response to my enquiries the Council said “It is not clear why the decision was not made that this should have met a Band A criteria. I do feel that this could have been resolved with further investigation.”
60. Therefore, I consider its failure to properly consider whether Mr X met the criteria for Band A to be fault. Had the Council properly considered the medical evidence in line with its Allocations Policy, I think it more likely than not it would have awarded Band A.
61. Mr X bid on a property which was already adapted for a wheelchair user in November 2019. This property went to an applicant with Priority Band B. Had the Council awarded Mr X Band A, it is likely his bid would have been successful.
62. This property was allocated in November 2019. Mr X would spend another 17 months in unsuitable accommodation before DFG works began. Were it not for the Council’s fault, this could have been avoided. This is a significant injustice to Mr X.

Bidding

63. Mr X says the Council told him that he could only bid on properties that were already adapted to meet his needs. In other words, that he could only bid on Mobility 1 properties. The OT’s notes confirm this understanding.
64. In response to my enquiries, the Council said that in October 2020 it “changed our procedures to ensure that applicants bid on anything they feel is suitable and then we check on an individual basis whether it can be adapted as we do not have a large supply of already adapted properties becoming available.”
65. I understand this to mean that at the time of Mr X’s application, it was indeed the case that any bids Mr X made on general needs properties would be skipped without the Council considering whether the property could be adapted to be suitable. This blanket application of its mobility criteria is fault.
66. Given the acknowledged lack of already adapted properties, this unfairly limited Mr X’s access to rehousing. This is an injustice to Mr X.

Communication

67. In its complaint response, the Council accepts that “this situation has necessitated communication between three parties and that this has not been as seamless and efficient as it could have been.”
68. In his complaint, Mr X describes his perception that there was no one at the Council with oversight of the entire DFG process. He says this meant he often had to repeat information and didn’t know who to approach for updates.
69. Prior to April 2020, the County and District Councils had distinct functions in the process, and the County Council involvement would end once it referred the case to the District.
70. Since April 2020 the Council has been a unitary authority. However, the records show that the same failures in communication and lack of joined up working between Adult Social Care and Housing persisted. This is fault.
71. This created avoidable confusion and frustration for Mr X.

Conclusion

72. The Council identified that Mr X’s home was unsuitable in January 2019. Work did not begin on adapting the property until April 2021, over two years later.
73. The delay in the DFG process arose for different reasons at different times. Approximately six months of this delay was due to the Housing Association and is therefore outside the scope of this investigation. However, I have found that fault by the Council caused avoidable delays of at least 13 months.
74. At the same time, fault in the Council’s housing allocations process restricted Mr X to bidding on already adapted properties. It’s failure to consider his medical evidence before awarding his Priority Band meant he likely missed out on an offer of an adapted property. This delayed Mr X accessing suitable accommodation for 17 months.
75. As a result, the Council created a situation in which it knew Mr X’s home was unsuitable but he could neither access the necessary adaptations nor rehousing. Four months of the delay in the DFG process occurred before Mr X missed an offer of accommodation. I therefore consider the Council’s fault amounts to 21 months of delay.
76. During this time, Mr X was unable to access a bedroom or bathing facilities. He had to rely on his wife to give him a “strip wash” and slept in the living room. This is a significant injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Agreed action

77. To remedy the injustice to Mr X from the faults I have identified the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Mr X in writing
• Pay Mr X £350 for each month he spent in unsuitable accommodation for a total of £7,350
78. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
79. The Council should also take the following action to improve its services:
• Consider how the Council can ensure the DFG process is effectively coordinated between Adult Social Care and Housing.
• Ensure applicants for Disabled Facilities Grants are informed of the timescales and any possible delay.
• Produce guidance or information for applicants for Disabled Facilities Grants explaining the process and the various Council departments involved. This should be provided at the outset by the Occupational Therapist.
80. The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action it has taken within three months of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

81. I have completed my investigation. There is fault by the Council. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman