Summary: Mrs X complained the Council told her it would build a ground floor extension to provide suitable facilities for her disabled son, Mr Z, and then changed its mind and failed to respond to her telephone calls. The Council assessed Mr Z’s case without fault and made suitable recommendations. There is no evidence it told Mrs X it would build an extension. There was some delay in communicating its recommendations to Mrs X but this did not cause her an injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council:
• told her it would build a ground floor extension to provide suitable facilities for her disabled son, Mr Z, and then changed its mind; and
• failed to respond to her telephone calls when she asked it for an update on her case.
2. Mrs X says that as a result, Mr Z’s wellbeing has been put at risk because the house does not have the adaptations he needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. This complaint involves events that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government introduced a range of new and frequently updated rules and guidance during this time. We can consider whether the council followed the relevant legislation, guidance and our published “Good Administrative Practice during the response to COVID-19”.
4. 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)
5. 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)
6. 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

7. I spoke to Mrs X and considered her view of her complaint.
8. I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided. This included the two occupational therapist assessments, the medical information submitted by Mrs X and complaints correspondence.
9. I wrote to 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)

10. If a disabled person needs adaptations to their property, they may qualify for a disabled facilities grant (DFG).
11. The first stage in the process is to make a referral to the council. The council will generally request an occupational therapist or social worker assess the disabled person's needs and the property and make recommendations on what equipment, adaptations or support are required to meet those needs.
12. Once this information has been gathered, a formal application for a DFG can be submitted. When making a decision on whether to approve a grant, a council must be satisfied the work is necessary, meets the disabled person’s needs, and is reasonable and practicable. This can include consideration of the costs involved in carrying out the work.

What happened

13. Mrs X’s adult son, Mr Z, is visually impaired.
14. In February 2020, Mrs X contacted the Council and requested a referral for Mr Z. She said the referral was supported by the Council’s Visual Impairment Team (VIT).
15. The Council assessed the case to be non-urgent. It spoke to Mrs X and said Mr Z would have an assessment within eight weeks.
16. Because of the restrictions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Council carried out a telephone assessment in April. During this, Mrs X said she wanted a downstairs bedroom and bathroom for Mr Z because his use of the stairs was dangerous. She also said Mr Z’s consultant had said Mr Z’s sight was deteriorating.
17. The assessor concluded they did not have enough information at that time to make a decision about adaptations, but they thought Mr Z would benefit from more training, particularly on using his cane.
18. In mid-May, the assessor spoke to the VIT. The VIT provided information about its involvement with Mr Z from his early years at school. It said it had recommended to Mrs X that she refer Mr Z to the Adult Sensory Team (AST) when he reached 18 to continue his training. The AST informed the assessor that it had not received a referral from Mrs X but it said Mr Z would benefit from an assessment and assistance with training and independent living. The AST said this would improve Mr Z’s use of the house.
19. The assessor spoke to Mrs X about the need to refer Mr Z to the AST and said they would close the case until the AST has carried out an assessment.
20. In June, an officer from the VIT contacted the Council. They said Mrs X had told them that the Council had agreed to build a ground floor extension once Mr Z had received some training on using his cane. The assessor said this was not the case and agreed to call Mrs X.
21. The assessor spoke to Mrs X a few days later. The Council notes record the assessor told Mrs X they had not identified Mr Z needed ground floor accommodation and facilities. Mrs X said Mr Z was struggling to go upstairs, mainly because there was only a banister on one side. The assessor said they would speak to the VIT about how people with Mr Z’s impairment managed at home.
22. The assessor spoke to two officers from the VIT. They both said Mr Z should be able to manage the stairs and navigate around the home. However, the assessor contacted Mrs X to arrange a home visit for the following week.
23. The assessment was carried out by the assessor and their manager. They recorded how Mr Z used the stairs and moved around the house, assessed his muscle strength in his legs and spoke to Mrs X. Following the assessment, the assessor contacted a charity which worked with Mr Z to discuss his prognosis. The assessor agreed to wait until Mr Z’s upcoming visit with an occupational therapist (OT) before making a decision about whether a ground floor extension was needed. In the meantime, they arranged for the installation of a stair rail and a bath lift and seat to help with Mr Z’s independence.
24. The OT carried out Mr Z’s assessment in November and called the assessor to discuss the results. The OT said Mr Z was unsafe on the stairs due to poor vision and leg strength. The OT recommended ground floor accommodation due to the risk of falls on the stairs.
25. The assessor discussed Mr Z’s case with their manager and concluded a stairlift would meet Mr Z’s requirements. They based their decision on the fact that Mr Z:
• was able to independently sit/stand from a chair;
• could use the control through touch;
• was able to move around both the ground floor and first floor of the house and could access the bathroom and his bedroom; and
• was able to use the bath now the bath lift was in place.
26. In mid-January 2021, the manager telephoned Mrs X to discuss this recommendation but could not get hold of her.
27. A month later, in February 2021, Mrs X contacted the manager who discussed the recommendation to install a stairlift. Mrs X was unhappy and the notes record she told the manager that the Council had promised her a ground floor extension. The OT manager said this had not been agreed. Mrs X said she would obtain additional information from Mr Z’s consultant to support her case and send this to the Council. The manager said they would await this.
28. Mrs X contacted the Council mid-April and said the consultant would not write a letter to the Council without a referral. The Council said it would not make a referral supporting the need for a ground floor extension because a stairlift would meet Mr Z’s needs. Mrs X said she was unhappy and would complain. Mrs X also said she did not want a stairlift installing.
29. Two days later Mrs X contacted the manager again to ask if they had received a letter from Mr Z’s GP. The manager confirmed this had arrived but it did not change the recommendation.
30. Mrs X complained to the Council who did not uphold her complaints. She then came to the Ombudsman.

My findings

31. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. Our role is to consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. If there was no fault in the decision-making process, we cannot question the decision itself.
32. The Council assessed Mr Z twice and sought evidence and updates from different organisations who had supported or worked with Mr Z for many years. It considered Mrs X’s views. It also arranged for an OT assessment to take place and considered their recommendations.
33. Ultimately, it decided not to accept the OT recommendations. In doing so, it took into account all the views it had and came to a robust, evidence-based decision about how to meet Mr Z’s needs. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decision.
34. Mrs X says the Council promised her it would approve the building of a ground floor extension. There is no evidence of this conversation in the records. And on balance, I consider it unlikely the Council told Mrs X this. Instead, it is more likely this belief arose from a misunderstanding. Although frustrating to Mrs X, this does not mean the Council acted with fault.
35. Initially, communication with Mrs X was good. However, following the OT assessment at the beginning of November 2020, the Council made no attempt to phone Mrs X to update her until mid- January 2021, over two months later. When the Council was unable to get through, it made no further attempts and it was not until a month later, when Mrs X called, that she was updated. This poor communication is fault.
36. However, Mrs X ultimately declined the adaptations recommended by the Council. Therefore, I do not consider these delays caused her sufficient injustice to recommend a remedy.
37. Mrs X complains the Council’s communication was also poor after she submitted further information in April. The Council does not have a record of how many times Mrs X called, but it spoke to her around two weeks after it received the information. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Final decision

38. I have completed my investigation. There was fault but this did not cause Mrs X or Mr Z an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman