Summary: There was fault by the Council in how it managed a disabled facilities grant application and installation, because it cannot provide an objective record of its initial visit to the property in question, but this did not cause an injustice. There is no other evidence of fault by the Council here, and so we have completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Mrs W.
2. The Council provided Mrs W with a disabled facilities grant (DFG) to install a wet-room in her property, which has now been completed. She complains:

• the Council did not use an occupational therapist (OT) to assess her needs as part of the application process. As a result, she can no longer wash her hair in the sink, which she needs to do because she cannot use the shower for this purpose;
• the tiles are too dark and that she is “struggling with this”;
• the toilet roll holder is too far from the toilet and she cannot reach it;
• the toilet seat and tiles have not been fitted properly and the contractor has refused to fix this;
• the contractor had left her bedroom door open, allowing dust from the work to settle in there. This meant she had to pay for a cleaner, and had to spend more time in guest accommodation at additional cost; and
• that there is a “problem with sound-proofing” and she can now hear her neighbours while in the bathroom.

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. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I reviewed Mrs W’s correspondence with the Council, notes made during the Council’s visits to Mrs W’s flat in August 2021, and a copy of Mrs W’s DFG referral and application form.
6. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mrs W suffers from a physical disability which limits her movement. In April 2020, Mrs W’s GP made a referral to the Council, explaining she found it difficult to get in and out of the bath. The Council began to consider the referral in December, and Mrs W completed a DFG application form over the phone.
8. In January 2021, the Council allocated Mrs W’s case to a grant surveyor. The surveyor visited Mrs W to measure the bathroom and discuss adaptations with her. The Council put the work out to tender in February and then approved the grant application in April. It sent Mrs W a contract to sign which she returned in May.
9. In July, after Mrs W confirmed her choice of finish, the contractor began the work.
10. After Mrs W raised concerns with the work, a Council officer visited on 2 August. He noted Mrs W said the tiles were “more gloomy” than in the brochure and that she had vision problems. The officer explained the tiles could not now be changed, but suggested additional lighting and contrasting fixtures to assist Mrs W with her vision. The officer noted Mrs W had declined this.
11. The officer also noted Mrs W complained the tiles were bigger than the sample she had been shown, but explained the samples were not meant to represent the full-size tile.
12. Mrs W also complained the contractor had left her bedroom door open, allowing dust to enter. The officer said he could not confirm this as the bedroom was too cluttered for him to enter, but observed the contractor had removed a radiator and placed it inside the bedroom during the work, which prevented the door from closing.
13. Mrs W said the contractor had switched off her answering machine, and the officer explained the contractor would have had to switch off the electricity during the work and it was likely they did not how to switch the machine back on.
14. However, the officer also noted Mrs W was happy with the standard of workmanship and was content to allow the contractor to continue.
15. The work was completed on 12 August. On 20 August, the surveyor visited to inspect the works. He noted some snagging issues and agreed it was not acceptable the contractor had left the bedroom door open, which he said he would address.
16. However, the surveyor explained to Mrs W she had agreed the colour of tiles and they could not now be changed. The surveyor also explained the reason she could hear her neighbours was because all the extractor fans in the building were linked to the same vent. He noted Mrs W was unhappy with the sink, but explained the purpose of the shower was to allow her to wash her hair there.
17. The surveyor visited again on 14 September for a final inspection. He again discussed the tiles and sink issue with Mrs W, reiterating his previous comments.
18. On 25 September, Mrs W emailed her landlord, copying the Council in. She complained:

• the contractor had mislaid her key fob;
• dust had been able to settle in the rest of her property;
• about the choice of tiles;
• that the contractor had spoken to her ‘abruptly’ on the phone;
• the shower did not work;
• there was “an issue” with the sound from the extractor fan, and now someone had switched it off, there was an echo and she could hear other residents in the building, compromising her privacy;
• she could not sit on the toilet lid because it was “domed”;
• the toilet was positioned wrongly for her needs;
• the shower motor was not fixed securely;
• she could not wash her hair in the sink because it had a mixer tap;
• the carpet riser had not been fitted properly.

19. Following further correspondence in October, the Council provided Mrs W with a formal complaint response on 25 October.
20. The Council said the contractor had apologised for losing the key fob, and explained that English was not their first language and had not intended to be abrupt with her. The contractor had agreed to reimburse Mrs W for the loss of her key fob and for the cleaners, but not for her additional stay in a guest room.
21. The Council acknowledged Mrs W was not happy with the colour of the tiles, but explained it could not provide funding for this to be changed for aesthetic reasons. The Council also acknowledged Mrs W said it was difficult for her to wash her hair in the sink, but said the wet-room was designed specifically “upon the [OT] recommendation” so she could do this in the shower.
22. The Council noted Mrs W had refused to “sign off” the work but said it did not need her to do this, as the surveyor and contractor had both done so already. However, it would arrange for the surveyor to return urgently to inspect the additional snagging points Mrs W had reported. The Council reiterated it could not make retrospective changes to the design, but said its offers to install additional lighting and drop-down rails to assist with toilet transfer were still open.
23. Mrs W submitted a further complaint on 14 December, reiterating her original points and complaining she had not been consulted about her needs. The Council responded on 28 January 2022.
24. The Council reiterated its own previous response to Mrs W’s complaints, and said the surveyor’s inspection on 20 August had shown the facilities to be in good order. It had arranged for the surveyor to return after its original complaint response and again found no issues. The Council noted Mrs W had declined its offer of additional lights and drop-down rails.
25. The Council explained it separated DFG referrals into ‘complex’ and ‘non-complex' cases, and in the latter (which Mrs W’s case was) it would not use an OT to assess, but instead a ‘trusted assessor’ such as a surveyor.
26. The Council did not uphold Mrs W’s complaint, and signposted Mrs W to the Ombudsman if she wished to pursue her complaint. Mrs W then approached the Ombudsman on 16 February.

Back to top

Legislative background

27. 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.
28. In March 2022, the Government published guidance for local authorities about DFGs, which is called Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) delivery: Guidance for local authorities in England. At paragraphs 4.9 and 4.10, the guidance says:

“Authorities should also ensure they have the right team of professionals to assess and recommend adaptations. For example, trusted assessors (in simple cases), paediatric occupational therapists, educational setting assessments and other occupational therapists and technical officers, particularly where major adaptations are required.

“Trusted assessors are staff who are trained to assess people and their home environment for home adaptations in simple cases. They also know when to refer on to an occupational therapist for further assessment. It is good practice for trusted assessors to be supervised by an occupational therapist.”

Back to top

Analysis

29. Mrs W has raised several points in her complaint to the Ombudsman. For clarity, I will address each point separately and in turn.

The Council did not use an OT during the assessment process, and as a result she can no longer use the sink to wash her hair

30. The Council has explained that, under its DFG policy, it separates applications into ‘complex’ and ‘non-complex’ cases. For non-complex cases, it does not use an OT to assess the application, instead relying on a trusted assessor.
31. The Council also says that, when the surveyor visited Mrs W’s property in January 2021, it agreed with her it would install a wet-room, and without any further complications this meant it did not require an OT assessment.
32. I note here, first, that in its response to Mrs W’s complaint, the Council said it had designed the wet-room specifically on the recommendation of an OT. I asked it to comment on this discrepancy, and it explained the reference to an OT was an error. I have therefore disregarded this.
33. As I have described, the Government has recently issued guidance which explicitly states that councils can rely on a trusted assessor, rather than an OT, for simple DFG applications. It is for the individual council to decide what constitutes a 'simple’ application; but I have no reason to question the Council’s judgement in this case, that adapting a bathroom to a wet-room did not require the input of an OT. This, therefore, is not fault.
34. The Council has provided its notes of the surveyor’s return visit on 20 August, during which Mrs W raised the point about not being able to wash her hair in the sink – this, I understand, is because of the position of the tap. The surveyor noted that nothing about this was mentioned in the previous notes.
35. I have reviewed a copy of Mrs W’s DFG application form, which contains only her personal details, and no other substantive information at all. I also asked the Council for a copy of the surveyor’s notes from his initial visit in January, but it explained that this visit was ‘contact-free’ because of concerns about COVID-19, and that the surveyor took no notes, but only measurements.
36. I made an initial draft decision on this, where I commented that the Council’s response here did not appear to make sense. I could not understand why the surveyor’s visit being contact-free meant he did not take notes; nor could I understand how the application could then have been progressed, if no notes were taken. It is also unclear what notes the surveyor was referring to, when he commented about the notes during his visit in August. I made a finding of fault on the basis the surveyor had not taken notes in during the January visit.
37. The Council responded to my draft decision to confirm the surveyor did take notes during the visit in January. It explained the purpose of the visit was not as assessment, but merely to take measurements. It also provided a photograph the surveyor had taken during the visit, in which his notepad is visible. However, the Council said it could no longer locate the notepad.
38. I accept it is not accurate to say the surveyor failed to take notes during the visit, although I am critical the Council failed to explain this properly in its response to my enquiries. Either way, I maintain my finding of fault here because the Council has been unable to provide any contemporaneous record of the surveyor’s visit in January. This means I cannot objectively confirm what was discussed between Mrs W and the surveyor at that time.
39. Even accepting this though, I find the Council’s argument here persuasive. It has explained the point of installing a wet-room was to allow Mrs W to wash herself more easily, including her hair. I do not understand how Mrs W’s condition could allow her to wash her hair in the sink, but not the shower, as this seems counter-intuitive. There is nothing in Mrs W’s correspondence which explains this, nor in the initial GP referral (which simply says she was struggling to get in and out of the bath).
40. Therefore, although I find fault here, I am not persuaded this amounts to an injustice. Although it would be better if the Council could evidence the surveyor’s discussion with Mrs W in January, it has explained properly that it expects Mrs W to use the shower to wash her hair. I am satisfied this makes sense, and as it is for the Council to decide what adaptations are necessary, I consider this is what would have happened, regardless of the discussion the Council had had with Mrs W in January.
41. I find fault, which did not cause injustice, in this element of Mrs W’s complaint.

That the bathroom tiles are too dark

42. Mrs W says the bathroom tiles are took dark and that she is “struggling with this”.
43. The Council has explained the tiles were those that Mrs W has chosen, and said it could not change these retrospectively. It offered to install more lighting if Mrs W had vision problems, but notes she declined this.
44. It is not clear what Mrs W means when she says she is struggling with the tile colour. However, either way, I am satisfied with the Council’s response here. I accept it cannot reasonably replace the tiles simply for aesthetic reasons, and it offered to install more lighting if Mrs W is experiencing vision problems. It was for Mrs W to decide whether she wished to take the Council up on this offer.
45. I find no fault in this element of Mrs W’s complaint.

The toilet roll holder is too far from the toilet

46. I note, in her written complaint, Mrs W said the “positioning of the toilet [was] totally inappropriate for [her] needs”. In response to this, the Council said it had offered to install drop-down rails, to assist Mrs W in getting on and off the toilet, but noted she had declined this.
47. However, I can see no point in Mrs W’s complaint where she specifically refers to a problem with the toilet roll holder.
48. It may be that this is what Mrs W meant when she complained about the positioning of the toilet; but even if that is so, I do not consider the Council should reasonably have deduced this from what she said. This being the case, I am not satisfied the Council has had a reasonable chance to address this element of Mrs W’s complaint, which is required before it is eligible for investigation by the Ombudsman.
49. If Mrs W wishes to pursue this element of her complaint, she will need to refer it specifically to the Council first.
50. I have therefore discontinued my investigation of this element of Mrs W’s complaint.

The toilet seat and tiles have not been fitted properly

51. During its inspection visit on 20 August, the Council noted some small snagging issues, which it arranged for the contractor to address before its final inspection visit on 14 September. Then, after Mrs W’s complaint, the Council arranged a further visit to check for the further snagging issues she had raised. The Council said it found no issues and is satisfied with the work the contractor has done, which it has signed off.
52. I understand Mrs W does not share this view, and has declined to ‘sign off’ the work herself (although this is not part of the process in her case).
53. However, the role of the Ombudsman is to review how councils have made their decisions. We may criticise a council if it has (for example) not followed an appropriate procedure, not taken into account relevant information, or not properly explained its decision. But we do not make decisions on councils’ behalf, and we cannot uphold a complaint simply because somebody disagree with a council’s decision.
54. In this case, the Council visited Mrs W’s property on four occasions during and after the work, with two specifically to address snagging points. I consider the Council took the proper steps to investigate this matter and has reason to be satisfied with the work that was completed.
55. I note also the Council has explained to Mrs W there is one year guarantee on the work, in case she notices any problems going forward.
56. I find no fault in this element of Mrs W’s complaint.

The contractor left her bedroom door open, allowing dust from the work to settle in there, and meaning she had to hire a professional cleaner before she could return

57. I note the Council upheld this point of Mrs W’s complaint, and as a result, the contractor agreed to reimburse her for the cost of the professional cleaner. In this sense, this element of Mrs W’s complaint is resolved.
58. But Mrs W also complained that, because of her asthma, she was forced to spend extra time in guest accommodation while the dust in her flat was cleaned, at a cost of £180. However, in response to this, the Council said the contractor had declined to take responsibility for her accommodation costs.
59. In my initial draft decision, I upheld this element of Mrs W’s complaint. I could not reconcile the fact that contractor had taken responsibility for the cleaning costs, but not the (apparently linked) accommodation costs Mrs W had incurred, and I was critical of the Council for failing to pursue this matter with the contractor. I therefore recommended the Council reimburse Mrs W.
60. In its response to my initial draft decision, however, the Council has provided more information. It now says:

“The Contractor did not agree they were responsible for the dust and it could not really be proved either way by our investigation as there were no witnesses and the flat was very cluttered. However, the Contractor agreed to pay the costs of cleaning as a goodwill gesture … It was [Mrs W’s] choice to stay in alternative accommodation to avoid the disruption of adaptations being carried out in her flat, not for the five hours her cleaner took.

“There was no clinical justification or prior request for this and so it was not considered until the point where a claim for it was made by the Customer in her Complaint. The council are not able to fund alternative accommodation in these circumstances, either retrospectively or if it had been requested from the start.”

61. I accept the Council’s DFG duty does not include an obligation to provide alternative accommodation while the work is undertaken – but this, however, was not the reason I had upheld Mrs W’s complaint here. My recommendation was on the basis the contractor had (as I understood it) accepted responsibility for the dust, and so it naturally followed they should reimburse Mrs W for her costs associated with this, which were both cleaning and accommodation.
62. And, as project manager, the Council bore vicarious responsibility for the contractor. So I did not consider it appropriate for the Council not to pursue the contractor for the full additional amount Mrs W had incurred, hence my recommendation it reimburse her itself.
63. However, from the new information provided by the Council, I am now satisfied this recommendation is not appropriate. As the Council has explained, the contractor did not accept responsibility for the dust, but was merely making a gesture of goodwill to Mrs W in paying for her cleaner. It therefore does not necessarily follow the contractor should also pay for the accommodation.
64. And more importantly, the Council has now explained it does not accept Mrs W’s accommodation costs were a reasonable expense arising from the need to clean her flat, given the relatively short time this took.
65. Taking this all together, I find no fault with this element of Mrs W’s complaint.

There is a problem with ‘sound-proofing’ and Mrs W can hear her neighbours while she is in the bathroom

66. The Council has explained that this is because the extraction fan in Mrs W’s bathroom links to a common vent for the building, and so sound travels between the different areas.
67. This is a matter for Mrs W’s landlord to address, not the Council.
68. I find no fault in this element of Mrs W’s complaint.

Conclusions

69. There was no fault by the Council in not using an OT to assess Mrs W’s DFG application. I do find fault because it cannot provide records of the surveyor’s initial visit to Mrs W’s flat in January, but I am not persuaded this would have made any difference to the adaptations the Council agreed. There is no injustice to Mrs W from this fault, therefore.
70. I have discontinued my investigation of Mrs W’s complaint about the position of the toilet roll holder, because I am not satisfied she raised this point to the Council.
71. I find no fault in any of the other elements of Mrs W’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

72. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault which did not cause injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman