Summary: The Council was at fault for delay reviewing Mr X’s care plan but I do not consider this fault caused Mr X an injustice. The Council’s delay progressing Mr X’s need for a Disabled Facilities Grant is fault. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Mr X £3,000 in recognition of the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council has:
• delayed in progressing his application for a Disabled Facilities Grant
• delayed reviewing his Care and Support Plan
• refused to correct errors in a previous plan
• appointed an independent investigator for his complaint who was unsatisfactory
2. As a result, Mr X is without adaptations he needs to use his home safely and his care plan does not reflect his current needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. We cannot question whether an organisation’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)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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 considered the complaint and information provided by Mr X.
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 organisation 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

Care Act assessment and reviews

10. Sections 9 and 10 of the Care Act 2014 require councils to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. They must provide an assessment to everyone regardless of their finances or whether the council thinks the person has eligible needs. The assessment must be of the adult’s needs and how they impact on their wellbeing and the results they want to achieve. It must also involve the individual and where suitable their carer or any other person they might want involved.
11. Councils must carry out assessments over a suitable and reasonable timescale considering the urgency of needs and any variation in those needs. Councils should tell people when their assessment will take place and keep them informed throughout the assessment.
12. Section 27 of the Care Act 2014 says councils should keep care and support plans under review. Government Care and Support Statutory Guidance says councils should review plans at least every 12 months. Councils should consider a light touch review six to eight weeks after agreeing and signing off the plan and personal budget. They should carry out reviews as quickly as is reasonably practicable in a timely manner proportionate to the needs to be met. Councils must also conduct a review if an adult or a person acting on the adult’s behalf makes a reasonable request for one.

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 give grant aid to disabled people for certain adaptations. Before approving a grant, a council must be satisfied the work is necessary, meets the disabled person’s needs, and is reasonable and practicable.
14. The maximum grant payable by a council is £30,000. A council can award other discretionary help if it thinks it is necessary.
15. A council should decide a grant application as soon as reasonably practicable. This must be within six months of the application. If a council refuses a grant, it must explain why. Once the work is complete, the council must pay the grant in full within 12 months of the application date.
16. “Home adaptations for disabled people: a detailed guide to related legislation, guidance and good practice” has set performance targets for councils. It says the Council should aim to achieve these in 95% of its adaptations. The Ombudsman expects councils to meet these targets unless there are good reasons it could not do so in a particular case. 
17. This is split in three stages: 
• Stage 1: initial enquiry to OT recommendation (20 working days)
• Stage 2: OT recommendation to approval of scheme (50 working days)
• Stage 3: Approval of scheme to completion of works (80 working days) 
18. A non-urgent DFG should therefore take 150 working days.

Background

19. Mr X is an adult with care and support needs resulting from a disability. Mr X gets funding for 41.5 hours of care a week.
20. Mr X has a peer advocate, whom I shall call Mr Z. In November 2019, the Council told Mr X that it would no longer meet with or speak to him if Mr Z was there. It said this was because of Mr Z’s intimidating and aggressive behaviour towards its staff at a meeting to discuss Mr X’s DFG in October 2019, and in a subsequent phone call.
21. Mr X and Mr Z dispute that Mr Z was intimidating or aggressive. Mr X says he can ask whomever he wants to advocate for him and the Council must work with them.
22. The Council agrees that Mr X has the capacity to choose his own advocate. However, it says it is also entitled to decide not to work with that advocate.
23. In order to progress Mr X’s care plan review and DFG application, the Council suggested that Mr X access an independent advocate from a recognised advocacy service commissioned by the Council.
24. In September 2021, Mr X agreed to this referral. However, the allocated advocate could only help Mr X with the care plan review. Although the Council asked the advocacy service if it would also support Mr X with his DFG application and his complaint, it said it did not have the resources for this.
25. The Council then suggested that it pay for one of Mr X’s care workers to support him with the process instead. Mr X did not take up this offer.
26. In June 2020 the Council appointed an independent investigator to consider Mr X’s complaint. It says this was “due to the Council’s fraught relationship with [Mr X] and his advocate”.
27. The independent investigator did not uphold any of Mr X’s complaints. The matters subject to investigation in that complaint are different to those I have investigated.

My findings

DFG

28. An OT (Occupational Therapist) referred Mr X for a Disabled Facilities Grant in August 2018. This said Mr X needed:
• a new ramp for accessing his home
• repairs to the bathroom
• adaptations to the kitchen
29. At the time of writing, in April 2022, the works to Mr X’s home have not started.
30. The guidance says that councils should complete the entire DFG process in 150 working days. It took the Council 920 days to get to the point of approving works, which have not yet started.
31. The Council says the delay was due to:
• Changes in the works recommended by the OT
• The need to wait for Mr X’s approval before getting quotes for the works
• Difficulties in visiting Mr X after it decided not to work with Mr Z
• The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.
32. If the Council had followed the guidance, it would have completed the works to Mr X’s home in March 2019. This is before the meeting in October 2019 which resulted in the Council’s letter refusing to work with Mr Z. This is before the COVID-19 pandemic affected the UK.
33. Therefore, even allowing for time taken to agree whether Mr X needed a ramp or a step lift, and the re-design of the kitchen adaptations, I consider the Council delayed by at least 629 working days in progressing Mr X’s application for a DFG. This is fault.
34. As a result, Mr X remains without the aids and adaptations he needs to safely access and use his home. This is a significant injustice to Mr X.

Care Act review

35. The last care plan in which Mr X was involved was completed after a review in September 2019. Mr X says this plan is not accurate and a final version was never agreed.
36. The Council’s most recent care plan is from November 2021. The Council produced this plan without any involvement from Mr X based on the information it already held. As a result, it is the same as the 2019 review and does not reflect any changes in Mr X’s needs.
37. Mr X’s care plan should have been reviewed by December 2020, at the latest. The Council did not allocate a social worker until April 2021. This is a delay of four months and is fault.
38. There was a further delay of four months between May and August. The records show that the Council had decided a senior officer should respond to questions in an email from Mr X. The allocated social worker followed this up several times before the Council responded to Mr X in August. This delay is also fault.
39. Therefore, I find the Council delayed reviewing Mr X’s care plan for eight months. However, the Council arranged a virtual assessment at Mr X’s request in April, which he did not attend. Therefore, there is no injustice to Mr X from the second period of delay. This is because he had not taken up an opportunity to be assessed before then.
40. Mr X has also contributed to the delay by refusing to allow the review to proceed without Mr Z. Mr X is entitled to have whomever he wishes advocate for him. But the Council is also entitled to refuse to work with that person for the reasons it has given.
41. Mr X did agree to be referred to an advocacy service in September 2021. I can understand Mr X’s preference to have one advocate support him with all his interactions with the Council. This is logical and it is unfortunate that the advocacy service did not have the resources to accommodate it.
42. The Council has made efforts to work with Mr X within the limitations imposed by refusing to work with Mr Z. The Council:
• Referred Mr X for an advocate
• Asked the advocacy service to support him with the DFG and complaint as well as care plan review
• Offered to pay for some time for his care worker to support Mr X with the review.
43. Mr X has chosen not to engage with the Council in the review process. I therefore find there is no injustice to Mr X from the Council’s delay in reviewing his care plan.

Correcting the earlier plan

44. Mr X says the 2019 care plan contains inaccuracies that have never been corrected.
45. The Council’s view is that the most productive way to deal with this is through a new review and updated care plan.
46. I consider the Council is right to focus on producing a current, accurate, and up to date assessment and care plan for Mr X. Mr X has refused to engage in this process. This is not the fault of the Council.

Independent investigator

47. Mr X says the independent investigator the Council commissioned to investigate his complaint was unsatisfactory.
48. The Ombudsman cannot question the merits of a decision made without fault. In this case, the investigator met with Mr X and Mr Z, considered Mr X’s records and interviewed relevant officers from the Council and Mr X’s landlord before reaching the decision. There is no evidence the independent investigator failed to consider relevant information or was not independent. Therefore, I find no fault.

Conclusion

49. I have found fault and injustice in the delay progressing the DFG.
50. I have found fault but no injustice in the delay reviewing the care plan.
51. I have found no fault in the Council’s decision not to work with Mr Z as Mr X’s advocate.
52. I have found no fault in the Council’s decision not to amend the 2019 care plan.
53. I have no fault with the independent investigator the Council commissioned to investigate Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Agreed action

54. To remedy the injustice to Mr X from the fault I have identified the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Mr X for the delays progressing his DFG application
• Pay Mr X £3,000, being £100 a month for the 30 months of delay
55. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

56. I have completed my investigation. There is some 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