Summary: Mr X complained the Council should not have approved a disabled facilities grant for adaptations for his home in 2012. He said the Council’s actions have had a negative effect on his son Y’s mental health and limited his physical development. There was no fault in the Council’s actions relating to its approval of the grant. There was fault in the Council’s complaint handling; it failed to respond to Mr X’s complaint within the required timescales. Mr X did not suffer a significant injustice due to this fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council carried out an assessment in 2020 which showed that adaptations made to his home in 2014 were unsuitable and caused his son Y to suffer with his mental and physical development. He also said the adaptations posed a health and safety risk to carers visiting the home.

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. 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

4. I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided.
   This included, Y’s Occupational therapy assessments, EHC Plans, Mr X’s complaint form and email correspondence shared between Mr X and the Council.
5. I wrote to Mr X and the Council with the draft decision. I considered their comments before I made the final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Disabled Facilities Grants

6. Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs) are for people with a qualifying disability who need adaptations in their home to help them remain in their home.
7. DFGs are mandatory and must be awarded if the applicant meets the qualifying conditions. These are that:
• the applicant, or someone living in the property, is disabled and owns or rents the property and intends to live in it for five years; and
• the council is satisfied that the works proposed are necessary and appropriate to meet the disabled person’s needs, and reasonable and practicable, depending on the age and condition of the property.
8. If these criteria are met, means tested DFGs must be given for adaptations (up to £30,000) which give the person better freedom of movement in and around the home or to access essential facilities within it.

Education, Health and Care Plan

9. A child with special education needs or disabilities (SEND) may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This sets out the child’s needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them.
10. The Council is responsible for making sure arrangements specified in the EHC Plan are put in place. We can look at complaints about this, such as where support set out in the EHC Plan has not been provided, or where there have been delays in the process.
11. The Council should monitor the provision and support needs of the child regularly and carry out a review of the plan on an annual basis.

Council complaints procedure

12. The Council has a three stage complaints procedure:
• Stage 1 - the Council will respond within 20 working days. If the Council is unable to do so, it should explain why.
• Stage 2 - two people independent of the Council will review the complaint and report their findings. A senior manager will also consider the complaint and issue a response.
• Stage 3 - a review panel will consider whether the stage 2 investigation was carried out correctly and focus on achieving a resolution.

What happened

Background

13. Mr X’s son Y is a teenager with severe learning and mobility difficulties. He requires constant supervision and a walker or wheelchair to move around.
14. In 2010 an Occupational Therapist (OT) assessed Y’s needs and recommended amongst other things:
• a ground floor bathroom and bedroom;
• level access to the house; and
• widened doorways to accommodate Y’s wheelchair
15. The Council approved a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) for the works to be carried out and the work was completed in 2012. The adaptations were intended to allow Y to navigate safely around the house.
16. Mr X was unhappy with the adaptations. He said Y could not use his walker or access the garden and he did not believe the adaptations were in line with the OT’s recommendations. He brought a complaint to the Ombudsman about this in 2014. The Ombudsman decided that the adaptations were not carried out in line with the OT’s recommendations but still met Y’s needs and did not uphold Mr X’s complaint.
17. In June 2016, the OT carried out an assessment of Y’s needs. In relation to Y’s movement, the OT noted, “Y needs plenty of space to use his walker. Mr X reported that the walker could not be used in the hall to bedroom area as there was insufficient space for Y to manoeuvre it, even though the walker technically fits through the doorway and hall.” The OT went on to state, “Mr X agreed Y was able to mobilise in various ways in the home and it was not limiting his development at this point in time. Should it become a problem as he grows and equipment gets larger, then this area should be reassessed.”
18. In June 2017, the OT assessed Y again and stated, “Y can use his walker to get around and also has a wheelchair.”
19. In February 2018, Mr X asked the Council for a reassessment because he was concerned about Y’s safety. In the “About me,” section, the OT recorded, “Y has space to use his walker and wheelchair.” The OT summarised that Y was developing in all areas and enjoying his living space.
20. Mr X disagrees with the OT’s comments and says the assessments were factually incorrect.

Mr X’s complaint

21. In January 2020, the Council amended Y’s EHC Plan and stated the following, “Y’s emerging mobility means he needs informed help from an adult and consistent approaches and mobility aids to access educational activities.” The plan noted Y’s reliance on the walker to transition on/off the school bus and said he needed his environment to be made safer to allow him to use and explore with his walker.
22. The Council made further amendments to the plan in June 2020 and said, “Y has a new walker but cannot use it when not at school. He requires more space to use it.”
23. In August 2020, the OT recommended a second DFG to enable Y to have more space at home and for his physiotherapy needs to be met. In September 2020, the OT and Y’s physiotherapist visited Mr X and Y at home and concluded Y did not have enough space to use his new walker.
24. Mr X wrote to the Council on 8 October 2020 to complain. He said the OT’s recommendations meant the Council should never have approved the adaptations made in 2012 because they stopped Y from being able to use his walker. He said Y’s mental and physical development had suffered because the walker was essential to Y’s physical progress. He also said he had suffered financial loss because of the adaptations.
25. In November 2020, Y’s physiotherapist wrote to the Council in support of the OT’s recommendations, “Y has grown since his original extension was completed and his walking frame is larger… his current adaptations make supporting Y very challenging.”
26. The Council sent Mr X several holding emails whilst it decided whether to investigate Mr X’s complaint. Mr X chased the Council for a response on 4 November 2020 as he was unhappy with the delay.
27. The Council wrote to Mr X on 27 November 2020 and apologised for delaying its reply. The Council said it would not investigate the complaint because it had previously been considered by the Ombudsman. The Council advised it would a arrange a review of Y’s needs because of the OT’s recommendations.
28. Mr X disagreed with the Council’s decision and complained again. He maintained he was not repeating his previous complaint as new information had come to light. He said the Council failed to consider the negative impact the adaptations had made to his Y’s health. He outlined that the OT had recommended that Y needed to use his walker for his needs to be met and said the property would need to be rebuilt from scratch.
29. The Council wrote to Mr X on 4 December 2020 and said it would issue a formal response within 28 working days.
30. On 18 January 2021, the Council said it could not comment on matters relating to the DFG or building works issues. The Council said it had not changed its decision and referred Mr X back to the Ombudsman.
31. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s response and brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.
32. In response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries, the Council said its role was to assess Y’s needs and make recommendations considering whether the adaptations were appropriate. The Council said Y’s needs had changed over the years and it could not have predicted these changes.
33. Mr X has continued to contact the Council whilst the investigation is ongoing. He has provided emails from the OT stating Y was able to use the walker when he was younger but as he has grown it has become more challenging for him. Mr X says this is untrue and the Council has always known Y could not use the walker once the adaptations were made.
34. Mr X has also provided emails from Y’s physiotherapist dated March 2021, stating Y has always found it too difficult to use the walker since 2013.

Findings

The adaptations

35. Mr X’s complains the OT’s recent recommendations prove the adaptations stopped Y using his walker and should not have been approved by the Council. The Council has a responsibility to approve the grant if the applicant is found to be eligible. The Ombudsman has previously investigated the Council’s actions and found no fault in its decision to approve the grant. I will not reinvestigate this part of the complaint.
36. Mr X maintains the Council has always been aware Y could not use his walker because of the adaptations. Having reviewed the available evidence, I am not persuaded that the Council is at fault. In Y’s assessments and EHC Plans there are references and observations made that indicate Y was using his walker. There are also statements from Mr X confirming that Y’s ability to use his walker is not a concern. I understand Mr X does not agree with this and believes the Council has falsified information included in the assessment. I cannot know whether this is true however, I consider it unlikely. The physiotherapists comments in support of the OT’s recommendations also indicate that the concerns around Y’s ability to use his walker are recent and have arisen primarily due to Y’s physical growth and change in walker. I have not seen evidence the Council was aware Y could not use the walker until the OT assessment in 2020. Once the Council OT assessed the situation and saw Y required more space, the Council took action to address this. The Council has behaved as I would expect. There is no fault in the Council’s actions.

The Council’s complaint handling

37. The Council’s complaints process requires it to respond to complaints at Stage 1 within 20 working days. Despite sending holding emails, the Council delayed responding to Mr X’s complaint and did not follow its process. This is fault. Whilst I imagine this caused Mr X frustration, I do not consider the fault caused him a significant injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

38. There was no fault in the Council’s approval of the adaptations. There was fault in the Council’s failure to respond to Mr X’s complaint in line with its process. This did not cause Mr X a significant injustice. I have completed the investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman