Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about how the Council handled their disabled facilities grant referral and application. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complain the Council:
1. refused to reinvestigate complaints about matters which took place at the beginning of 2020 and which resulted in the Occupational Therapist (OT) and architect involved in adaptations to his house being replaced. They say they want a reinvestigation because they were later told the OT was replaced for reasons not connected to the Council’s investigation; and
2. delayed in ordering the specialist equipment Mrs X requires for their property under the disabled facility grant (DFG) process.
2. As a result, Mr and Mrs X say they have had to pay rent and other costs on the property they have been renting whilst waiting for the work to be completed. They also say they are in the process of adopting a baby and this has been delayed because they cannot proceed until they have moved into the house.

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. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
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 and considered their view of their complaint.
7. I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided. This included complaints correspondence and the Council’s case notes for Mr and Mrs X and the adaptations to their house.
8. I wrote to Mr and Mrs X and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Disabled facility grants (DFGs)

9. Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG) are for people with a qualifying disability to help towards the costs of adaptations they need to help them remain in their home. They must be awarded if the applicant meets the qualifying conditions.
10. The council must give an applicant a decision in writing within six months of receiving a valid DFG application. The work must usually be completed within 12 months of the Council approving the application.

What happened

11. Mrs X is disabled. She and her husband bought a house and in December 2019 they made enquiries about a DFG to carry out work to the property. At this time, Mr and Mrs X lived in another, rented property.
12. An architect employed by a not-for-profit agency was appointed to draw up the plans. There were significant differences between the adaptations Mr and Mrs X wanted and the proposals drawn up by the architect. A number of site visits and discussions took place about this between December 2019 and March 2020. Mr and Mrs X also submitted a complaint to the Council about this and the Council responded in March.
13. At the end of March, the architect submitted an enquiry to the Council’s planning department to determine if the proposals would be approved in their current form.
14. In April 2020, Mr and Mrs X submitted their DFG application. Later that month, the Planning Department responded and said planning approval would not be granted.
15. In May, the architect amended the proposals and sent them to Mr and Mrs X who approved them. Later in May, the architect submitted a planning application for consideration on behalf of Mr and Mrs X.
16. Whilst waiting for a planning decision, and once the COVID-19 restrictions allowed site visits again, work began with a private kitchen specialist.
17. Planning approval was awarded in July. In mid-August, the Council sent tenders for the building work to four companies, which included the contractor Mr and Mrs X wanted to use. The deadline for tenders was 14 September 2020.
18. On 14 September, the Council awarded the tender to one of the building companies.
19. In October, the Council approved a DFG grant of £30,000. The DFG covered works to provide level access and accessible bathing and kitchen facilities. In addition, the Council approved an additional £10,000 discretionary grant for specialist adaptations. These included powered internal and external doors, an automatic electronic door access system and a hoist for the bathroom.
20. From December to June 2020 the case notes record the Council began work to source suppliers and obtain quotes for the hoist, doors and entry system from private suppliers. The evidence demonstrates the Council chased the different suppliers frequently.
21. Whilst the Council was taking the above steps, building work started in January 2021. It was estimated this would take around 10 weeks, although bad weather and low temperatures caused some delays. A Council officer made regular site visits to keep the building work under review.
22. On 20 April, following regular attempts to chase a response, the Council received quotes for the doors and entry system. It authorised the order the following day.
23. At the end of April, because the hoist company had still not provided a quote, the Council offered Mrs X a temporary hoist. She declined this be she did not think it would work.
24. At the beginning of May, final measurements were taken for the doors and the order was placed.
25. On 7 May, the Council held a site visit where Mr and Mrs X said they were unhappy with the delays relating to the hoist, doors and entry system. The Council said there had been delays in obtaining quotes but it had chased the suppliers frequently. However, the matter had been outside its control because the suppliers were private companies.
26. Towards the end of May, the private company informed the Council it had placed the order for the hoist which was then installed.

Mr X’s complaint

27. Mr X complained to the Council at the end of May 2021. He said that when the building work began in January 2021, he believed the specialist equipment had been ordered ready to be fitted during the building work. However, in April and May, he found out none of the equipment had been ordered.
28. Mr X said he could accept delays to the building works which were due to the weather and the pandemic but he was upset that the Council had failed to keep him updated and could not provide a firm date for the equipment to be fitted.

Council response

29. The Council responded in June 2021. It explained the company supplying the hoist was based abroad. The Council had regularly requested updates and was not responsible for the delays. These delays were increased because of delays at the ports due to the pandemic.
30. In relation to the electronic door system, the Council stated the OT made a referral in November 2020 and asked the provider to liaise with the architect to plan the installation to coincide with the rest of the adaptations and building work. The Council said its records showed the OT contacted the provider six times between January and April and received the quote on 21 April. The order was placed the same day but there had been delays outside the Council’s control.
31. The Council apologised for not informing Mr X the Council had to receive quotes before it could order equipment but did not uphold his complaint.
32. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman.
33. During my investigation, the Council informed me of the following points:
• the doors had not yet been fitted. The original manufacturer had been unable to complete the order because it could not obtain the raw materials. The Council had then instructed another manufacturer to make the doors. To date, the second manufacturer had been unable to make the doors, again because of a scarcity of raw materials, which the Council says was an issue across the whole of the UK; and
• in light of the issues above, on 1 July 2021, the Council had offered Mrs X the option of having the automatic door entry system fitted to the existing doors as a workaround, but Mrs X had declined this offer.

My findings

Refusal to reinvestigate Mr and Mrs X’s earlier complaint made in February 2020

34. The Council responded to Mr and Mrs X’s first complaint in March 2020 and took certain actions to help move the DFG process forward. There is no indication Mr and Mrs X remained unhappy about the outcome or pursued it further, for example, by complaining to the Ombudsman. As a result, the Council was entitled not to reopen the complaint.
35. The Ombudsman will also not investigate the first complaint. The Council considered Mr and Mrs X’s original complaint and they were happy with the outcomes, which involved replacing some of the officers working on their case. It is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome and we could not achieve anything more.

Receipt of the DFG application in April 2020 to the Council’s approval in October 2020

36. The Council received Mr and Mrs X’s DFG application in April 2020. It approved this in October 2020. Between April and October, the Council took action to agree plans with Mr and Mrs X, start work with a kitchen company and complete the tendering process. There was no drift in the process and the Council made its decision within the statutory timescales. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Events from the Council’s approval of the DFG application in October 2020

37. The law says councils must complete the DFG work within 12 months of approving the application. The specialist equipment was not part of the DFG process and therefore the statutory timescales do not apply. However, they are useful as a guide to what is a reasonable timescale for completing work or installing equipment.
38. Mr and Mrs X are unhappy because the Council failed to order the hoist, doors and electronic access system until after the building work was nearing completion. However, the Council’s daily records show that the Council took acted in a timely manner to start the process to acquire the specialist equipment. It then maintained constant oversight of the situation and took appropriate steps to prevent delays by frequently chasing the suppliers. Ultimately, these efforts were unsuccessful because the suppliers were slow to respond. However, that was not because of fault by the Council. The suppliers were private companies, and as a result, the matter was largely outside the control of the Council.
39. When the hoist was ready for delivery, further delays occurred at the ports. At this stage, the Council offered Mrs X a temporary hoist which she declined. The hoist ha snow been fitted and this took place within twelve months of the Council approving the grant for the equipment.
40. Issues outside the Council’s control also led to delays with ordering the doors. Again, the Council offered Mr and Mrs X a temporary solution which they declined. The Council acted appropriately at all stages, and there was no fault in its actions. However, it would have been helpful if, in its complaint responses to Mr and Mrs X, it had provided a fuller explanation about why it had been unable to order the specialist equipment earlier. But the fact it did not do so does not amount to fault.

Back to top

Final decision

41. I have completed my investigation. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman