Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to an application for a Disabled Facilities Grant for an adapted bathroom. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decisions.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Ms X, says that the Council:
• Has refused her request for an accessible bath;
• Relied on the assessment of an Occupational Therapist (OT) who did not understand her needs;
• Ignored medical advice from her GP; and
• Told her if she wanted a bath she would have to fund it herself.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
3. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X.
5. I considered information provided by the Council, consisting of its complaint responses to Ms X and its response to her GP.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
7. Ms X had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered her comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Ms X applied for a DFG for an adapted bath, due to her disabilities. The OT assessed her needs and felt they would be best served by a walk in wet room shower. Ms X was not happy with this, and requested a bath which she feels would meet her needs better.
9. The Council agreed to an accessible bath, but refused to recommend Ms X’s preferred options of a low level walk-in bath or a bath without a high back lift, on Health and Safety grounds. It explained it had assessed the risks of damage to the property or of accident and injury to Ms X as being too high.
10. The Council remains willing to fund a bath with a high back lift, which it says will allow Ms X to access a bath, which it accepts she needs. However, it says it cannot fund anything which it considers unsuitable or unsafe.
11. In making this decision, it took into account evidence from the OT and the GP, as well as Ms X’s wishes. We cannot question the merits of a properly taken decision, or substitute our view for that of the OT.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council has made its decision about which facilities it can fund.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman