Summary: Ms X complained the Council refused to carry out kitchen adaptations and delayed carrying out adaptations to the bathroom. There was no fault in the way the Council reached the decision not to adapt Ms X’s kitchen. The Council significantly delayed adapting the bathroom and failed to keep Ms X updated on progress. This caused her avoidable frustration and meant she had to use unsuitable facilities for longer than necessary. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her £750 and to review its procedures.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council refused to carry out kitchen adaptations originally agreed by an Occupational Therapist in 2018 and delayed carrying out adaptations to the bathroom. She says this caused distress and hardship to her and her husband.

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 have considered the information provided by Ms X and discussed the complaint with her on the telephone.
6. I have considered the information provided by the Council in response to my enquiries.
7. I gave Ms X and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision and considered any comments I received in reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Disabled Facilities Grants

8. 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. Councils will often consult an occupational therapist (OT) from the social services department to determine what is necessary and appropriate.
9. The law sets out the purposes for which a grant may be given. These include:
• facilitating access by the disabled occupant to, or providing for the disabled occupant, a room in which there is a bath or shower (or both), or facilitating the use by the disabled occupant of such a facility; and
• facilitating the preparation and cooking of food by the disabled occupant.
10. A council should decide a grant application as soon as reasonably practicable. This must be within six months of the application. The works should be completed within 12 months of the approval.
11. ‘Home adaptations for disabled people: a detailed guide to relate legislation, guidance and good practice’ is non statutory guidance published by the Home Adaptations Consortium. The guidance states ‘it is important to keep service users and their carers informed about progress, including any problems arising at all stages in the provision of service’.

The Council’s policy

12. At the time of the complaint the Council did not have its own DFG policy. It introduced a policy in September 2021. The policy sets out that the Council will endeavour to approve or refuse an application within four weeks. It says it will aim to complete the installation of all disabled adaptations within 12 months from the date of grant approval.

What happened

13. Ms X lives in a Council owned property. She has chronic sciatica and osteoarthritis.
14. Ms X requested adaptations to her property due to her health conditions. An OT visited Ms X in October 2018. They assessed Ms X had difficulty reaching items in cupboards and insufficient food preparation space, difficulty getting in and out of the shower cubicle and the toilet was low. They recommended a shallow low-level bath or level access shower, a higher toilet and wall hung sink. They also recommended additional cupboards and worktop space in the kitchen, with existing cupboards lowered or replaced with lowering baskets.
15. In December 2018 the Council’s tenancy management service agreed in principle to the adaptations. In January 2019 Ms X contacted the Council to ask about progress. The Council advised her the case was waiting to be allocated for a survey. It estimated this would be in around two weeks. The Council’s notes record the case was not passed for a survey until April 2019.
16. Ms X contacted the Council again in June 2019 to chase progress. The notes record the Council was awaiting the plans for the works and the case would then be tendered for installation costs. The Council’s notes record it received the plan for the bathroom in September 2019. In response to my enquiries the Council said due to long term sickness and contractual issues, there was a backlog of cases. It said it implemented a restructure and employed new surveyors in September 2019.
17. Ms X contacted the Council again in April 2020 for an update. The Council responded in May 2020. The notes record the officer advised they were awaiting financial approval. They hoped to have an update soon, but matters were delayed slightly due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
18. In November 2020 the surveyor requested an OT reassessment. This was because they considered the OT recommendations were conflicting as Ms X was having difficulty getting in and out of a shower cubicle and they considered getting in and out of a bath could be more difficult.
19. A second OT visited Ms X in March 2021. They recommended replacement of Ms X’s shower with a shallow bath. They recorded Ms X would benefit from being able to soak in the bath to relieve her back pain and considered Ms X would be able to transfer in and out of a low bath.
20. They noted at the previous assessment Ms X had difficulty reaching items in cupboards and had insufficient food preparation space. They noted Ms X had now bought and had two wall cupboards fitted and a shelving unit. There was limited worktop space but all available space was taken up with food and crockery. They noted ‘more worktop space could be created if [MS X] were to organise her kitchen items more efficiently therefore I will not be recommending any additional work to the kitchen’.
21. The surveyor visited Ms X with a kitchen designer in May 2021. The Council says at the visit Ms X advised she wanted a new kitchen, not adaptations.
22. The Council emailed Ms X in June 2021 to advise the kitchen designer had left the company without preparing any plans. The surveyor arranged to visit again with an OT to clarify the recommendations.
23. In July 2021 Ms X complained to the Council about the delay and that the Council had now decided not to do works to the kitchen.
24. The OT and surveyor visited Ms X in August 2021. The OT noted the surveyor would check whether Ms X’s kitchen could be done on a Council housing planned maintenance programme. The OT stated they could only recommend an extra cupboard on the left hand side to allow for more storage and access and a small piece of worktop underneath this. They recommended that Ms X’s shower be replaced with a new wet room shower, as well as a new toilet and wall hung sink.
25. The OT later discussed the case with the surveyor who confirmed they had emailed the planned maintenance team regarding the possibility of a new kitchen and the OT closed the case.
26. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint in August 2021. It said it had instructed a contractor to prepare a design brief for the wet room. It said the view of the officers was that she did not require an adapted kitchen. It said the kitchen was replaced in 2014 and it would not expect to replace it until 2034.
27. Ms X remained unhappy and asked to go to the next stage of the complaints’ procedure. Ms X says the kitchen was not new in 2014.
28. The Council responded to Ms X at the second stage of its complaints’ procedure in September 2021. It referred to the visit by the OT and surveyor of August 2021 and said the OT no longer recommended an adapted kitchen but had asked the Housing Repairs Section to contact her regarding remedial work following her removing kitchen units and a larder door. It said at the visit the surveyor and OT confirmed works for a level access shower should still proceed.
29. The works to install a level access shower commenced in November 2021 and were signed off as completed in December 2021.

Findings

30. The OT first recommended works to Ms X’s bathroom in October 2018. The works were not completed until December 2021, over three years after the initial assessment. The Council said there were delays in allocating a surveyor due to a restructuring and contractual issues. However, there is no evidence of any action on the case between September 2019 and November 2020. The Council was at fault for the significant delays in progressing the adaptations.
31. Restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic later impacted upon the time taken. But, had the Council progressed the adaptations more quickly, the works would not have been affected by the pandemic. While Ms X had access to bathroom facilities throughout this period, they were not suitable to meet her needs. The Council's delay meant Ms X had to continue using the unsuitable facilities for longer than necessary.
32. The Council failed to keep Ms X updated on progress of the application. This meant she had to continually contact the Council for updates. When the Council did update her, it provided unrealistic timescales, advising her the case would be allocated for a survey in around two weeks when it took around three months. This was fault and caused Ms X frustration and meant she went to undue time and trouble chasing updates.
33. The Council must ensure any adaptations are necessary, meet the disabled person’s needs and are practicable. The surveyor considered the OT’s recommendations for Ms X’s bathroom were conflicting. Given these concerns, the Council was not at fault in deciding to request a further OT assessment.
34. The Ombudsman cannot question a council's decision if it is made without fault. An OT initially recommended works to the kitchen, which raised Ms X’s expectations this would happen. However, two further OTs did not. The OTs considered Ms X’s views and the relevant law in making their recommendations. As there was no fault in the way the OTs reached their views, we cannot question them. The surveyor considered Ms X wanted an updated kitchen rather than adaptations to meet her needs. They passed Ms X’s request for an updated kitchen to the Council Housing planned maintenance team. There was no fault in the way the Council reached the decision not to adapt Ms X’s kitchen.
35. Since this complaint was made, the Council has introduced its own DFG policy which sets out expected timescales and the process that will be followed.

Back to top

Agreed actions

36. Within one month of the final decision, the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her £750 to acknowledge the impact of the faults upon her.
37. Within two months of the final decision, the Council has agreed to review its procedures to ensure they contain guidance specifying how and when applicants will be:
• advised of the process and are given realistic timescales for this; and
• kept updated regarding the progress of their Disabled Facilities Grant.

Back to top

Final decision

38. I have completed my investigation. The Council was at fault. It has agreed to remedy the injustice this caused Ms X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman