Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not consider his opinion or the information he provided about his health problems when he requested a stairlift as an adaptation to his home. The Council’s decision-making was flawed and took too long. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X for the uncertainty and frustration caused to him and reconsider his request.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision not to provide him with a stairlift he requested as an adaptation to his home. Mr X states the Council did not consider his opinion or the information he provided about his health problems. Mr X states this caused him distress and inconvenience as he struggled to get upstairs safely.

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. 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 read Mr X’s complaint and discussed the matter with him.
6. I read the documents provided by the Council.
7. Mr X 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

8. Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG) are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Councils have a statutory duty to provide grant aid to disabled people for certain adaptations. Before approving a grant, a council must be satisfied the work is necessary and appropriate to meet the disabled person’s needs and is also reasonable and practicable to carry out the works.
9. A DFG can be granted for adaptations that help people with disabilities to be able to remain in their home. A grant can fund adaptations such as installing ramps, a stairlift or through floor lift, or adapting a kitchen or bathroom.
10. A council should give the applicant a decision on a grant application as soon as reasonably practicable and no longer than six months after the application is made. If a council refuses a grant, it must explain why.
11. A council tenant can apply for a DFG and, if approved the funding must come from the Council’s Housing Revenue Account and not the DFG allocation. Many councils do not require council tenants to make a formal application and will carry out works on the request of an Occupational Therapist (OT).
12. Mr X lives in an area where there is a two-tier council system. This means the District Council is responsible for administering the DFG scheme. Usually, the District Council will require an assessment by a County Council OT when considering DFG proposals.
13. The OT will assess the person’s needs and consider whether they can safely access rooms and facilities in the house. The OT recommends suitable adaptations to the District Council which will determine whether they are reasonable and practicable. This complaint concerns the actions of the County Council’s OT and not the District Council.

What happened

14. In September 2020 Mr X lived in a Council house owned by the District Council, Council B. Mr X referred himself for an OT assessment. He stated because of a medical condition he would faint several times a week. He wanted a stairlift to avoid fainting on the stairs and a wet-room so he could bathe unaccompanied. Mr X said he was only able to access the toilet and his bathroom, which was on the first floor, if his daughter was at his home.
15. The County Council’s OT visited Mr X at home later that month and began an initial assessment of his needs. The assessment identified Mr X had a health condition which caused him to faint up to five times a week without warning. This meant going up and down stairs unaided and bathing unaccompanied were both dangerous in case he fainted. The OT assessment stated a through floor lift would be suitable, but Mr X had declined this as he felt he did not have enough space in his house. It said Mr X’s preferred option was a stairlift which would be unsafe. The assessment recorded the OT would complete a recommendation for a wet-room and would explore other alternatives for Mr X to safely access upstairs.
16. The OT spoke to Mr X twice on the phone and explained they believed the stairlift would be a hazard due to Mr X fainting. The record shows in both calls Mr X told the OT he did not experience the fainting episodes while he was sitting down, and he felt a stairlift would be suitable.
17. The OT requested information from Mr X’s GP. The GP responded in October and confirmed that Mr X had regular fainting episodes. The OT discussed the case with their manager and they decided a stairlift would not be appropriate. The OT contacted Mr X and offered him a housing needs assessment to move to a one level property. Mr X stated he did not want to move from his property. Mr X’s daughter asked if the stairs could be removed and a through floor lift installed.
18. In November 2020 the OT contacted Council B to see if it would consider funding a through floor lift for Mr X. The OT completed a joint visit to Mr X with the Council Surveyor and Housing Officer from Council B. The record shows the Surveyor told Mr X it was unlikely they would install a lift as there was insufficient space in the property. Mr X requested an extension for a wet-room downstairs.
19. In December 2020 the OT contacted the Surveyor at Council B and stated it would not support a stairlift or a through floor lift for Mr X due to the risks to his safety. The OT stated it would support a ground floor extension for a wet-room. Mr X repeated to the OT he did not want to move from his home.
20. In February the OT made enquiries with a lift provider to see if a lift could be padded inside to reduce the risk of injury should Mr X faint in the lift. The lift provider stated that was not possible.
21. In March the OT discussed the matter with their manager. The record shows the manager confirmed they could recommend a lift with a fixed seat and lap strap to minimise Mr X’s risk of injury should he faint in the lift.
22. In April the OT again visited Mr X with the Surveyor from Council B and the lift provider. Mr X declined a through floor lift as he did not feel there was enough space in his house. Mr X confirmed he did not faint in a sitting position or when getting up from a chair. The records show the lift provider suggested a design of chairlift which would limit the risk of Mr X falling should he faint while on it or alighting from it. The OT stated they would discuss this option with their manager.
23. In May the OT told Mr X the risk assessment panel would discuss his request and make a final decision on the stairlift.
24. In June 2021 the Council held a risk assessment strategy meeting to discuss Mr X’s request. The OT told the risk panel:
• Mr X had regular fainting fits;
• his GP had confirmed this and advised that he got some warning before fainting although Mr X stated that was not always the case;
• Mr X had reported he tended to faint when standing up from a sitting position;
• Mr X may forget to use a strap or harness when using a stairlift;
• the lift provider had offered to complete a design drawing of a stairlift that may reduce the risk of falling should Mr X faint;
• the OT identified the stairlift may be an unsafe option due to the risk of Mr X fainting as he tried to stand up from the stairlift; and
• the Council had offered a through floor lift which it felt was an appropriate alternative, but Mr X did not want to rearrange his furniture to accommodate a lift.

The panel decided the risk of a stairlift was too great because Mr X was at risk of falling down the stairs when standing up or falling over the chair if he fainted. It considered the alternative of a through floor lift as appropriate.

25. The Council informed Mr X of its decision and offered the option of a through floor lift. Mr X declined this as he felt there was not enough room. The OT informed Mr X they were not sure if he could have the wet-room installed as he had no way to get upstairs safely to use it.
26. In July the OT completed their recommendation for the wet-room for Mr X and sent it to Council B. The OT then closed Mr X’s case with the Council.
27. Mr X complained to the Council about its decision not to approve the stairlift. He stated he disagreed with its decision and he was at more risk of being hurt fainting while walking up and down the stairs than while sitting on a stairlift.
28. The Council responded and did not uphold Mr X’s complaint. It stated there were safer options for Mr X to access upstairs and the Council was willing to progress the through floor lift.
29. Dissatisfied with the Council response Mr X complained to us. Mr X told me that a through floor lift in his house would take up most of his living room leaving no space for living. He also stated he would have to buy new bedroom furniture to accommodate the lift, which he could not afford to do.
30. In response to my enquiries the Council stated in October 2021 it had recommended the wet-room and Council B had begun the work. In January 2022 the Council stated Council B was applying for planning permission for a vertical lift on the outside of Mr X’s home. Mr X did not yet know if he wanted to go ahead with this option.

My findings

31. It is the role of the Ombudsman to review the process by which decisions are made, and, where we find fault in that decision-making process, to determine what injustice it caused.
32. In this case, the information provided by the OT to the risk assessment strategy meeting was incorrect and incomplete. This is because it stated Mr X reported he tended to faint when standing up from sitting, when the records showed he had reported on three separate occasions that he tended to faint when he was upright.
33. The report also did not include:
• Mr X’s concerns about the loss of his living space and the cost of purchasing all new bedroom furniture; or
• the Surveyor had stated it was likely there was insufficient space to install a lift.
34. Furthermore, there is no evidence the strategy meeting considered the following relevant information:
• the option of a design drawing for a stairlift with mitigated risks suggested by the lift provider;
• the Council accepted the mitigation of a strap or harness to outweigh the risk of using a lift but dismissed the same as appropriate mitigation for a chairlift as Mr X may forget to use it.
35. The Council’s failure to properly consider all the information available to it is fault.
36. As a result of the Council’s fault, Mr X has been caused uncertainty over whether the Council properly considered his request for a stairlift.
37. The Council took nine months to make a final decision whether to approve Mr X’s request for a stairlift. Although the Council was in regular contact with Mr X it could have taken the matter to the strategy meeting in December when it stated it would not support a stairlift or through floor lift. The delay in making a final decision was unnecessary and caused Mr X frustration.

Back to top

Agreed actions

38. Within one month the Council will:
• write to Mr X and apologise for the uncertainty and frustration caused to him by the faults; and
• reconsider Mr X’s request for a stairlift taking into account the correct and relevant information and inform Mr X of its decision. This should not impact the ongoing application for planning permission for an external lift.

The Council will provide us evidence it has completed the recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

39. I have completed my investigation. I found fault leading to injustice and the Council agreed to my recommendations to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman