Summary: Mr X complains the Council did not deal with a Disabled Facilities Grant properly. The Council is at fault because it did not consider the duties it owed to Mr X properly. The Council has offered to apologise, make service improvements, update a Child and Family Assessment, consider any evidence of adaption costs including whether any duty was owed under Section 17 of the Children's Act 1989 and Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and pay Mr X £300 for time and trouble. The Council should also pay Mr X £500 for distress and provide a report.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains the Council did not properly deal with a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) application properly because it:
• did not work together correctly with the Housing Authority who were dealing with Mr X’s DFG and subsequently did not work correctly with HEART when it was formed in 2016;
• did not ensure that DFG applicants had access to requests for funding under the Acts for which the Council was responsible
• failed to consider whether any duty was owed under Section 17 of the Children's Act 1989 and Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.
2. Mr X says he was told he had to borrow £39,000 to meet costs over the DFG grant amount and has suffered distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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 spoke to Mr X about his complaint and considered documents he provided. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response and the supporting documents it provided.
6. 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

What happened?

7. This is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain everything I reviewed during my investigation.
8. In 2013, the Council received a referral concerning adaptations to Mr X’s house in order to meet his son’s needs.
9. Mr X decided to build an extension to his house, aware that the projected costs would exceed the maximum DFG amount.
10. Mr X received the maximum DFG amount and borrowed money to complete the extension.
11. Mr X complained to the Council in May 2021 that it had not ensured that he had access to funding sources other than the DFG. The Council told Mr X that it could not consider his complaint because it was made too late.

Analysis

12. Nuneaton and Bedford Borough Council dealt with Mr X’s DFG grant application. At the time, Warwickshire County Council Adult Occupational Therapists were co-located with Housing.
13. HEART (a Home Improvement Agency) was created with a formal partnership between Warwickshire County Council and the Districts and Boroughs in Warwickshire. Initially it was a partnership between Warwickshire County Council and NBBC, North Warwickshire and Rugby Borough Council. In April 2017 it expanded to include Warwick and Stratford District Councils.
14. Mr X’s son Y has Muscular Dystrophy which is a condition which causes progressive muscle weakness. He uses a wheelchair and needs support with aspects of daily living such as eating, toileting and bathing.
15. The Council accepts this complaint raises issues of significance and that:
• this case has highlighted the need for a referral to children’s social care for every child for whom there is a referral for a major adaptation;
• Y was not known to Children’s Social Care at the time of the adaptations to the property in 2015/2016;
• There was no consideration at the time of the adaptations to the property of Warwickshire County Council’s powers and duties under s.17 Children’s Act 1989 and s.2 Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970;
• There is a duty on HEART as the Housing Authority to consult the welfare authority under s.24(3) Housing Grant, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA) to satisfy itself that the works are necessary and appropriate to meet the needs of the disabled occupant. This duty is delegated by Warwickshire County Council to HEART, so effectively HEART consults with itself. HEART bases a decision that works are necessary and appropriate on the assessment by the Children’s Occupational Therapist. There is no routine consultation with children’s social care as part of this process; and
16. The Council clearly identified the significant issues in responding to Mr X’s complaint in 2021. It is disappointing that it did not openly accept them and propose a remedy before Mr X had to complain to the Ombudsman.
17. This is fault by the Council and I uphold Mr X’s complaint. Mr X’s circumstances were not properly considered. Mr X has suffered distress and lost the opportunity to be considered for additional funding opportunities.

Action by the Council

18. The Council has offered to:
• Apologise to Mr X;
• Pay Mr X £300 for his time and trouble;
• Update a Child and Family Assessment;
• Consider any evidence from Mr X regarding costs of adaptions; and
• Consider whether it is possible to complete a retrospective assessment of powers or duties under CSDPA 1970 or CA 1989 in relation to the costs of the adaptation to the property
19. The Council has also identified necessary service improvements as a result of Mr X’s complaint, including:
• for every child for whom a referral for a major adaptation is made, there will be a concurrent referral (with parental consent) to Children’s Social Care for assessment.
• Information will be available to parents about potential funding options from Warwickshire County Council which are in addition to the DFG;
• Staff training for both HEART and the Children with Disabilities service in relation to Warwickshire County Council’s duties and powers in relation to home adaptations under s.17 Children’s Act 1989 and s.2 Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.
20. The action and service improvements are welcome. However, this is not an appropriate and complete remedy.

Back to top

Agreed action

21. To remedy the additional outstanding injustice caused by the fault I have identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within 8 weeks of this decision:
• Pay Mr X £500 for avoidable distress.
• Provide a report to Mr X and the Ombudsman explaining:

a)  How it has considered evidence from Mr X regarding costs of adaptions together with any outcomes;

b)  why it will/will not complete a retrospective assessment of powers or duties under CSDPA 1970 or CA 1989 in relation to the costs of adaptation; and

c)  the outcome of any retrospective assessment undertaken as part of b).

Back to top

Final decision

22. I have found fault by the Council, which caused injustice to Mr X. I have now completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman