Summary: Miss Y complains about the Council’s refusal to remove a through-floor lift that it fitted as part of a Disabled Facilities Grant for her son. She says her son no longer needs the lift. She says her son is afraid of the lift and the situation has negatively affected her and her son’s mental health. The Ombudsman has decided to uphold Miss Y’s complaint. This is because the Council failed to clearly respond in a timely manner to Miss Y’s request for the removal of the through-lift. This caused Miss Y distress and confusion. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss Y, provide her with a clear timeframe by which it will make a decision about the removal of the lift and make a payment to her. The Council has also agreed to make a service improvement to provide clear guidance to staff on how to handle requests for removals of adaptations.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall refer to here as Miss Y, complains about the Council’s refusal to remove a through-floor lift that it fitted as part of a Disabled Facilities Grant for her son, B. She says her son no longer needs the lift.
2. Miss Y also complains the Council delayed in installing the lift in 2018.
3. Miss Y says the lift takes up space in two rooms and is a risk to her son and two other children. She says her son is terrified of the lift due to frequent breakdowns when he was using it. She says her son will not play in the room where it exits. Miss Y says the situation with the lift has negatively impacted her and her son’s mental health.
4. Miss Y says she feels frustrated and not listened to by the Council.

Back to top

What I have investigated

5. I have investigated the part of Miss Y’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to remove the through-floor lift. The last section of this decision statement explains my reasons for not investigating Miss Y’s complaint about the Council’s original decision to install the lift and alleged delays involved, which dates from 2018.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

6. 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)
7. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
8. 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)
9. 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

10. I considered the information and documents provided by Miss Y and the Council. I spoke to Miss Y about her complaint.
11. Miss Y and the Council both had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered all comments before making a final decision.
12. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

What I found

Disabled Facilities Grants adaptations and their removal

13. Housing authorities award Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG) for adaptations to homes which are ‘necessary and appropriate’ to meet the disabled occupant’s needs, and where it is ‘reasonable and practicable’ to carry out such adaptations.
14. Usually, the housing authority relies on the opinion of an occupational therapist to decide what is ‘necessary and appropriate’. Where the disabled occupant is a child, the housing authority may also consult children’s services.
15. In terms of the removal of bulky home adaptations that have been put in place through a DFG, Home adaptations for disabled people: a detailed guide to related legislation, guidance and good practice, published by the Homes Adaptations Consortium (2013), provides guidance on good practice. This recommends councils consider, when commissioning bulky adaptations like through-floor lifts, whether the contracts used include options for removal, reconditioning and reuse of such equipment, where appropriate.
16. The Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government has indicated this guidance and good practice guide supersedes its own guidance from 2006.

What happened

17. In 2018, the Council’s lift provider installed a through-floor lift in Miss Y’s home to meet certain disability-related needs of her son, B. The Council had awarded a Disabled Facilities Grant for this adaptation.
18. Miss Y rents her home through a local housing association.
19. In January 2020, Miss Y contacted the Council to complain about issues with the lift. She said the battery had failed and B was terrified of the lift as he had been stuck in the lift several times. She said B no longer needed the lift as he was now able to manage the stairs himself. Miss Y asked for the lift to be removed as he no longer needed it and was too scared to use it.
20. A Council occupational therapist (OT) replied to say she was looking into her request. She said she needed to clarify who was responsible for removing the lift and refilling the ceiling as Miss Y was renting from a local housing association. She confirmed she would organise the repair of the lift because, even if the Council removes the lift, it would need to be working properly.
21. At the end of January, Miss Y confirmed to the Council that the lift had been fixed.
22. In February, the Council sent Miss Y its stage one complaint response. It said:

• it had reviewed the action taken by its occupational therapy service. The Council found the officer had promptly responded to Miss Y’s request for assistance in repairing the through-floor lift. It decided the issue with the lift had been resolved to Miss Y’s satisfaction by 30 January; and
• B’s current needs at home and school were being met fully. However, it invited Miss Y to contact the Council if any other changes arise so an OT may assess.

23. In March, the Council OT tried to organise to meet Miss Y and reassess B’s needs. For various reasons, Miss Y was unable to meet with the OT.
24. In May, Miss Y chased the Council for an update on her request the lift be removed. She said the lift had broken down again.
25. The Council officer said it would contact the lift provider to make sure it came to repair the lift.
26. Miss Y replied to complain the lift was no longer fit for purpose and asked for its removal as she was concerned it was not safe to use.
27. The Council officer replied the same day to confirm someone would come to repair the lift that day.
28. Miss Y emailed the Council to say the lift provider had come to repair the lift, but it had stopped working again. She said the lift provider had reported to her that the lift had not been correctly installed.
29. The Council OT replied to Miss Y and said would carry out a review to see if a different lift model would better suit B’s needs. It asked Miss Y a number of questions to establish if she would consider a different model, whether she and B would use it and, if not and the lift is removed, how B would move between floors. However, the Council officer explained that, as it considered B would still benefit from access to a lift, she would need approval to remove it from her managers as well the agreement of Miss Y’s housing association.
30. In November, Miss Y complained to the Council. She said:

• the lift was constantly breaking down making it unusable. She had gone to significant time and trouble reporting the issues to the lift provider;
• she was concerned about the lift safety as it did not have a phone line inside the lift for when someone became stuck in the lift when it broke down;
• the situation was having a significant impact on her family and was affecting B’s mental health. She said B was scared of the lift and she was not prepared to make him use the lift if he did not wish to; and,
• in any case, she said B’s needs had changed and he no longer needed the lift. She requested the lift be removed and alternative adaptations, like a stair lift, be considered for B.

31. At the end of November, the Council sent Miss Y a further stage one complaint response. It said:

• the lift was originally installed because it had been assessed as the best option to meet B’s long-term needs and to avoid the impact lifting B had on Miss Y’s own health;
• it apologised to Miss Y given that, since January 2020, Miss Y had had to contact the lift provider on five occasions to get the lift repaired. It said it had arranged for a full service of the lift to take place in December with a view to trying to give Miss Y more confidence in using the lift too;
• although Miss Y had previously requested a stairlift, it understood she no longer wished for this to be considered. It confirmed, however, a reassessment of B’s needs would take place to assess whether any further equipment or adaptations may be required to promote his safety while using the stair; and,
• as the lift had been provided to meet a long-term need and may be needed by B in the future, it refused her request for its removal. The Council suggested Miss Y park the lift upstairs in the bedroom during the day and then downstairs at night when this downstairs living space was not in use.

32. Miss Y replied to the Council. She complained the Council had failed to follow the correct procedures around her request for the removal of the lift. She said there was a phone in the lift, but complained this had never been properly connected so did not work. She asked again that the Council remove the lift as B’s needs had changed and he no longer needed the lift.
33. In December, the Council sent Miss Y its stage two complaint response. It said:

• it confirmed that there was an override system within the lift should it breakdown with someone in it. It provided details of how to access this system;
• however, it explained the phone inside the lift had not been connected upon installation because access to a landline was required, but there was not one in Miss Y’s property. The Council said, at the request of Miss Y, the service of the lift had been rescheduled to January 2021 during which the lift provider would check if the phone in the lift had been connected and ensure the use of this safety function. In the meantime, it explained the lift user’s manual provided details of how to connect the phone in the lift; and,
• following a reassessment of B’s needs by a senior OT in November, the Council explained it agreed with the OT’s clinical assessment that the lift should remain in place. Although it acknowledged B’s need for the lift were currently reduced, it explained his future needs and permanency of his progress in negotiating the stairs was not clear. The Council said the OT would review B’s needs in accessing upstairs in six months time and provide Miss Y with a decision about lift access.

34. Miss Y complained to the Ombudsman after receiving the Council’s final response.

Analysis – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

35. Miss Y complains about the Council’s refusal to remove a through-floor lift that it fitted as part of a Disabled Facilities Grant for her son. She says her son no longer needs the lift.
36. In Miss Y’s case, the through-floor lift came with a five-year warranty as part of the DFG. Based on the records of lift breakdowns reported by Miss Y to the lift provider, this shows Miss Y reported four breakdowns between January and November 2020. The lift provider visited Miss Y’s property on the day these were reported to fix the issues. This is inline with the expected timeframes for the lift provider to repair the lift if it is not working (to be completed on the same day).
37. In response to questions I asked, the Council explained, under the terms of the contract with Miss Y’s lift provider and while the lift is still within the warranty period: the Council may consider removal of the lift if the lift is no longer required. Usually, the Council would remove such items when the service user, for whom the lift was installed, no longer lives at that property. If removed, the lift would be stored by the contractor and reused. I find that this practice is in line with the good practice guidance referred to in paragraph 15 above. I do not find the Council at fault here.
38. As explained, the Council says removal of Miss Y’s through-floor lift would be considered if the lift is no longer required. Based on the evidence I have seen, the Council decided that this requirement was not fulfilled as the Council cannot say the lift is no longer required for Miss Y’s son. I have considered how the Council made this decision and do not find it at fault in the way it made this decision. This is based on the following:
1. in response to questions I asked, the Council explained, based on the clinical judgment of the senior occupational therapist (OT) who reassessed B’s needs, the Council decided the lift should remain in place as there was still a clinical need for it. When the OT reassessed B’s needs in November 2020, she found B was able to negotiate the stairs with full supervision for safety. However, the OT remained concerned that B’s ability to do so would not be a long-term one and so the need for the lift in the future remained. The OT report confirms this. I have seen evidence of how the Council considered Miss Y’s health needs when caring for B and how it assessed B’s conditions when deciding about his potential future need for the lift. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make;
2. the Council has explained that B will receive OT reviews every six months to monitor and assess his ability to negotiate the stairs. It has said the OT will consider Miss Y’s views too. The Council has said it had not ruled out removing the lift if B’s assessed clinical needs change. If B’s mobility function remains stable or improves, the Council will consider the provision of a second low stair rail to assist with safer negotiation of the stairs. However, it has explained a decision to remove the lift would only be made if it can be shown that B’s assessed needs in the future would not require reverting to a replacement lift;
3. the Council has considered the impact on Miss Y and B if the lift remains. It said the lift could be parked upstairs and out of the way from the downstairs living area to avoid causing B distress. Following a recommendation in the senior OT’s report, the Council liaised with a learning disability nurse at Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) to set up support to help B overcome any anxiety or distress from using the lift and help assist Miss Y in managing this. This decision was taken by the Council as it was concerned B may need to use the lift in the future; and,
4. the Council factored in the following additional points of concern when reaching its decision: the additional cost to the public purse of removal (around £1,300) given the original installation costs (over £10,000), the number of callout for repairs during the course of 2020 was not considered excessive, and the fact Miss Y’s landlord preferred decommissioning the lift over removal given the work and cost involved in removing the lift combined with the potential use of the lift for future tenants. This was explained to Miss Y in the Council’s stage two complaint response. The Council is entitled to consider these points when making such a decision to refuse a request for removal of an adaptation. Though I find these considerations were used to support the Council’s decision, in my view, the Council was still primarily led by the assessed clinical needs of B when refusing to remove the lift.
39. I appreciate that this finding may disappoint Miss Y as she has explained to me how she and her son have been affected by the Council’s decision. However, without fault in the way the Council made this decision, I cannot question its content.
40. However, I do find the Council at fault in terms of its handling of Miss Y’s request for the lift to be removed. This is based on the following:

• when Miss Y initially requested the lift be removed in January 2020, the Council OT’s response did suggest the Council would look to remove the lift. The Council officer said she would look into who was responsible for removing the lift. This is likely to have led to raised expectations of Miss Y;
• when the Council provided a stage one complaint response in February 2020, it failed to respond to Miss Y’s request for the lift to be removed. This is fault;
• in March, the Council OT tried to organise to meet Miss Y and reassess B’s needs. However, it was not clear whether this was still with a view to assessing whether the lift could be removed;
• when Miss Y chased the Council again in May 2020 for an update on whether the Council would consider removing the lift, the Council failed to provide a clear response. It said it would look into providing a different model. However, the Council did not provide a complete response to Miss Y’s request until November 2020, when it provided its stage one response. This meant there was a period of 11 months during which Miss Y was unsure what action, if any, the Council could take regarding her request to remove the lift. This delay caused Miss Y uncertainty and distress. I find, on balance, it is likely that if the Council had responded to Miss Y’s request in February 2020 then B’s reassessment of needs by the OT would have taken place sooner. This further added to the uncertainty and distress caused to Miss Y;
• between July and November, internal emails within the Council’s children’s occupational therapy services show a member of the team visited Miss Y in July. Miss Y reported backpain from having to lift B up the stair as he was too afraid to use the lift. She complained the lift continued to breakdown. However, emails during this time show conflicting decisions were being made about whether the lift could be removed, when a reassessment of B’s needs would take place and whether alternative adaptations were being considered with a view to removing the lift. I consider this communication further delayed Miss Y’s complaint being resolved as staff were not clear on how to handle Miss Y’s request for a removal;
• in response to questions I asked the Council, it explained the Council does not have a written policy for the removal of adaptations. Where appropriate, it said removal can be made using discretionary assistance. In the case of lifts, the provision for removal is covered in the contract with the lift provider. The Council said it aims to follow the Good Practice Guide published by the Home Adaptations Consortium (see paragraph 15 above). Although this makes no recommendation on a removals policy, the Council agreed the guidance does recommend that provision is in place for the installation, servicing, removal and reuse of equipment, which the Council said it considered to be critically important aftercare provision. The Council said it incorporated such provision in its contract with lift providers for the installation of lifts. In my view, the Council is not at fault for not having a specific policy on the removal of bulky adaptations. However, I find that, without clear guidance to staff on how to handle requests for the removal of bulky adaptations, this, on balance, is likely to have contributed to the confusion and delays Miss Y experienced. I have, therefore, recommended the Council produce guidance to staff based on this complaint and the explanation it has already provided me with on how it expects staff to handle requests for removal of adaptations; and,
• in response to questions I asked, the Council explained its senior OT had recommended a further review of B’s needs six months from its final complaint response in December. Paragraph 38, bullet point b, above provides the circumstances in which the Council would consider removing the lift. However, I do not find the Council has provided Miss Y with a clear timescale by which a final decision regarding the lift can be realised and how it will decide if, for example, the OT does recommend alternative adaptations whether this could lead to the removal of the lift. I find the information provided to Miss Y about this to be confusing and, without a clear timeline for a decision, has caused her further uncertainty.

Back to top

Agreed action

41. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise in writing to Miss Y for the distress and uncertainty caused by its handling of her request for the removal of the through-floor lift (paragraph 40 refers);
2. write to Miss Y with a clear plan and timeframe for reviewing and deciding whether B still requires the lift; and,
3. make a payment to Miss Y of £200 for the distress and uncertainty caused. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies.
42. Within three months of my decision, the Council has also agreed to make the following service improvement:
1. include guidance to staff on how to handle removal requests concerning Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) adaptations in its Housing Renewals Assistance Policy, which details the provision of adaptations through DFGs, as well as the wider discretionary assistance available through other forms of grants and loans, and
2. share this decision with relevant staff members.
43. The Ombudsman will need to see evidence that these actions have been completed.

Back to top

Final decision

44. I have completed my investigation. I have decided to uphold Miss Y’s complaint. This is because the Council failed to clearly respond to Miss Y’s request for the removal of the through-floor lift in a clear and timely manner. The above recommendations are suitable ways for the Council to remedy the injustice this caused Miss Y, which the Council has agreed to.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

45. Miss Y also complains the Council delayed in installing the lift in 2018.
46. The law says we cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
47. Miss Y has explained why she did not complain sooner and I have considered her reasons. In Miss Y’s case, I think that she could have complained to the Ombudsman sooner. I have, therefore, decided not to investigate this aspect of Miss Y’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman