Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the decision not to award a Disabled Facilities Grant for a new upstairs bathroom in the complainant’s home. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with his application for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). He says the Council refuses to fund an upstairs bathroom. Instead recommended a level access shower in the downstairs bathroom and installing a stairlift.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the Mr. X including the Council’s repose to his complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG’s) are for people with a qualifying disability who need adaptations in their home to help them remain in their home. DFG’s are mandatory and must be awarded if the applicant meets the qualifying conditions.
6. But the law says councils must be satisfied the grant works are “necessary and appropriate” to meet the needs of the disabled person, and it is “reasonable and practicable” to carry them out.
7. It is for the Council to decide what adaptations are required to a property. Our role is limited to considering if the Council followed the correct procedures during the DFG process.
8. From the information provided I do not see sign of fault in the way the Council made its recommendations in Mr X’s case.
9. Mr X has Crohn’s Disease. He wants the Council to install an upstairs bathroom in his home. He says this will meet his needs. He wants the downstairs bath kept as his wife needs to soak in the bath following surgery and she has pain in her lower body and ankles.
10. Two Council Occupational Therapists (OTs) carried out an assessment of Mr X’s needs. They decided these could be met by installing a level access shower in the downstairs bathroom and a stair lift. They recognised his wife requirements but noted the bath is not a medical need and suggested alternative ways for her to soak her ankles. The Council suggested Mr X ask for a review by the bowel disease team to explore the impact of his condition and identify any suitable alternative approaches.
11. It also suggested that following the review it would contact the team. And it would contact his wife’s GP to confirm whether there is a medical need to keep the downstairs bath.
12. Mr X complained to the Council, saying one OT who visited his home projected her own experience of Crohn’s disease, rather than concentrating on his needs and those of his wife. The Council accepted one OT advised she also suffers from Crohn’s disease. However, this was intended to show an understanding of the condition rather than cause any distress. The Council recognises peoples experience of the disease differs and apologised for any distress the OTs approach had unintentionally caused.
13. The Council reviewed the assessment. It confirmed this had been carried out correctly by two OTs who could not support his request for an upstairs bathroom. Instead, their professional recommendation was to install a level access shower downstairs and a stairlift.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault in the was the Council assessed his application for a DFG.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman