Summary: Mr & Mrs D complain about the Council's decision not to award a Disabled Facilities Grant to fund a loft conversion. We have found no fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr & Mrs D complain through their advocate about the Council's decision not to award a Disabled Facilities Grant in respect of their disabled dependents to fund a loft conversion. In particular that in making its decision the Council failed to take into account:
• the importance of the home environment and how this impacts on family dynamics
• supporting documentation from local Councillors
• the need for mental and emotional space for each dependent family member
2. They say as a result of the lack of bedroom space the family is under significant pressure causing a breakdown in relationships, emotional harm and anxiety.

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)
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 Mr & Mrs D sent, the Council’s response to my enquiries and:
• The Council’s professional guidance - The Provision of Housing Adaptations for Disabled People 2018
• The Council’s Housing Assistance Policy
• Home adaptations for disabled people – a good practice guide, Home Adaptations Consortium 2015
6. Mr & Mrs D 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

Disabled Facilities Grants

7. Disabled facilities grants (DFGs) are provided under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 to help towards the cost of adaptations to the home of a disabled person. The Act says mandatory grants (up to £30,000) are for adaptations which are needed to facilitate access by the disabled person to a room used for sleeping and essential facilities or to make the dwelling safe for the disabled person.
8. DFGs may be used to fund an extension to construct a wheelchair accessible bedroom for the disabled person. The Council’s professional guidance says this may be when there is a need to provide extra space for a person with a disability that results in severe behavioural management problems and it is unacceptable for that person to share a room. However, an additional bedroom cannot be provided where there are too few rooms and the disabled person is sharing a room with another family member. In this situation the guidance says re-housing may be supported as this is an overcrowding issue.
9. DFGs 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.
10. When a person wants adaptations, the Council will ask an Occupational Therapist (OT) to visit the applicant's home to assess their needs and consider whether they can safely access rooms and facilities. The OT recommends suitable adaptations to the Council's home improvement agency who will visit the applicant at home to determine whether the adaptations are reasonable and practicable.
11. A council should give the applicant a decision on a grant application as soon as reasonably practicable. This must be within 6 months of the grant application. The work must usually be completed within 12 months from the date the council approved the DFG.

Discretionary funding

12. Councils may also provide discretionary home improvement funding where there are works required that cannot be considered for mandatory grants. Discretionary assistance may also be given in addition to a mandatory DFG.
13. The Council’s Housing Assistance Policy says it offers home improvement loans to bring homes up to the decent homes standard and a disabled person’s rehousing assistance scheme, to help people buy a suitable replacement property if it is not possible or cost effective to adapt their home.

What happened

14. Mr & Mrs D have three children who are now adults, Miss J, Mr K and Miss L. Miss J has cerebral palsy, epilepsy and autism. Mr K has a diagnosis of ADHD, learning difficulties and problems with substance misuse. Miss L has anxiety and depression. The family live in a three-bedroom house; Miss J and Miss L share a bedroom.
15. Following an OT assessment of Miss J, in January 2018 the Council’s disabled adaptations top-up panel considered a request for a DFG to fund a loft conversion to create two bedrooms. The cost of the conversion was estimated to be £48,000. The panel considered a letter from local councillors which supported Mr & Mrs D’s application.
16. Mr & Mrs D considered the conversion was necessary so that Miss J and Miss L did not need to share a room, securing them much-needed independence and improving their mental health, and to give Mr K a larger room as his current room was too small and was unsuitable. The panel decided the loft conversion was not necessary and declined the application.
17. In 2019 Miss J had a seizure in her bedroom. Mrs D was unable to get into the room due to where Miss J had fallen. Mrs D was concerned the bedroom was too small and was unsuitable for Miss J. She was also concerned that Mr K’s behaviour was causing harm to his siblings. This was exacerbated as Mr K “had taken over” the living room as his bedroom was too small. As a result, Miss L spent more time in the shared bedroom and was awake at night to avoid Mr K. This was affecting Miss J’s routines, causing her significant distress. The social worker made a referral for an OT assessment in June 2019. Miss J was an adult, but as Mr K and Miss L were children, a referral was made to children’s social care.
18. There was a child safeguarding “signs of safety” meeting on 2 July 2019 to discuss the risk of significant harm to Miss L from Mr K’s behaviour. The meeting found the family were being emotionally harmed, Miss J had expressed suicidal thoughts and Miss L was missing education. Problems were also caused by Miss J and Miss L sharing a bedroom. The meeting found the family were at the point of break down and the children were suffering, or were likely to suffer, significant harm. It was considered that Mr K’s addiction needed to be addressed to improve his emotional wellbeing, enable him to engage with further education and have some aspirations for the future. This in turn would reduce the risk of harm to Miss L and Miss J and enable Mr & Mrs D to manage the situation. Suggestions were made about techniques to manage Mr K’s behaviour and further social care support would be provided. The social worker also suggested the parents could swap bedrooms with Miss J and Miss L and encouraged the family to access activities outside the home.

OT assessment 2019

19. An adult services OT and a children’s OT made a joint visit to the home on 16 July 2019. They spoke to Mrs D, her advocate and Miss J and Miss L. The OTs assessed the layout of the property, number of bedrooms, living rooms, outdoor space and how the family used the space. They reviewed the councillors’ supporting letter and viewed video footage of Mr K’s behaviour and its impact on the family. Following the visit, they considered the minutes of the signs of safety meeting and a report from child and adolescent mental health services.
20. The assessments found that Mr K had access to a room for sleeping as well as access to a living room and had no needs that could be met by adaptations. It was considered that a larger bedroom would not prevent his challenging behaviour, which was exacerbated by substance misuse and addiction.
21. In relation to Miss L, there was no identified need for her own bedroom. She had access to a room for sleeping, two living rooms and a garden area. Her increased anxiety and isolation was mostly caused by Mr K’s behaviour. Miss J also had access to a room for sleeping and to essential facilities and no requirement to have a bedroom of her own. She therefore had no needs which could be met by adaptations. It was suggested that routines around bedroom use could be used to improve privacy, easier storage encouraged and that Miss J could be supported to keep her area of the bedroom clear.
22. The Council determined that the criteria for a DFG had not been met. It wrote to Mr & Mrs D on 23 July 2019 explaining there were no grounds for a DFG to fund a loft conversion to provide additional bedroom space.

Mr & Mrs D’s complaint

23. Mr & Mrs D complained about this decision through their advocate on 27 January 2020. They said the mental and emotional safety of each family member was at risk as freedom of movement in private space was not an option in the present configuration of the home environment. Miss J needed access to private space at specific times because of her Autism and a place to be when she felt intimidated and anxious.
24. The family had considered moving house, however they want to remain together in the family home because a familiar location was important to each child for stability, they had invested their time and finances to make necessary adaptations to the family home and local facilities close to home were essential for the family to begin to develop independence skills, use public transport, to access community amenities.
25. The Council asked an independent officer to investigate the complaint. He met Mr & Mrs D in February 2020. The investigation report was issued on 23 September 2020. It found the impact of the home environment on the family dynamics and the need for mental and emotional space for each dependent family member was taken into account by the OT assessment. The assessments had found that extra bedrooms were not needed and would not prevent Miss J and Miss L from being exposed to Mr K’s behaviours or make them any safer. If Mr & Mrs D considered they were overcrowded they could consider rehousing or extending the current property. The Council did not uphold the complaint. Mr & Mrs D complained to the Ombudsman in January 2021.

My findings

26. It is not for the Ombudsman to say what the family’s needs are or what adaptations are required to a property. That is the Council’s role. My role is to determine whether the there was any administrative fault in the way the Council reached its decision.
27. When the Council received the referral for a DFG, a children’s and adult OT assessed the family and the property. I have looked at the OTs’ assessments. They considered all relevant matters, including the size of the existing rooms, the layout of the house, how the family used the property and how they were affected by Mr K’s behaviours. They considered the councillors’ letter, information from mental health services and the child safeguarding discussions. The evidence therefore shows the Council followed the correct process when considering the DFG application.
28. The Council was aware of the family’s wishes to convert the loft into two bedrooms. It decided the criteria for a DFG had not been met.
29. I find no fault in this decision. This is because DFGs are provided specifically for the person with disabilities, which is Miss J. Therefore, providing sleeping rooms for her siblings would not meet the criteria and the assessment did not find that Miss J required her own room. DFGs cannot be used to provide extra space if a family is overcrowded. In addition, the cost of the conversion was more than the maximum grant allowed and the Council does not have a discretionary grant which would fund the additional cost.
30. Mr & Mrs D say that a DFG can be given to make a dwelling safe for the disabled person, and Miss J was not safe as she could not avoid Mr K or Miss L and had no private space. The Council took this into account when it made its decision and it made other suggestions to deal with Mr K’s behaviour and manage the situation between Miss J and Miss L.
31. The Council was entitled to decide that the proposed works were not necessary or appropriate to meet the disabled person's needs. While Mr & Mrs D disagree with the Council’s decision, there is no evidence of fault in the way it was made. That means I cannot question the decision.

Back to top

Final decision

32. There was no fault by the Council. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman