Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not properly assess his needs before refusing his application for a disabled facilities grant to provide a second exit to his property. There was no fault in the way the Council assessed Mr X’s needs and made its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not properly assess his needs before refusing his application for a disabled facilities grant to provide a second exit to his property. Mr X stated this caused him depression and he struggled to access his garden.

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 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)
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 read the documents provided by Mr X and I discussed the complaint with him on the telephone.
6. I read the documents the Council provided in response to my enquiries.
7. 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

Relevant legislation

8. Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG) 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.
9. The delivery guidance for DFG that was in force at the time said a grant could be approved for a number of purposes including facilitating access to the home or garden.
10. The Council’s website states that before someone can apply for a DFG their needs must be assessed by an Occupational Therapist (OT).

What happened

11. Mr X lived alone. He had disabilities that affected his ability to walk, and he used a wheelchair. Mr X’s house had ramp access to the front door. To get to the back garden Mr X had to go out of the front door and round the house to the back garden, using a wheelchair accessible path.
12. Mr X applied for a DFG in July 2021. He said he wanted a door in his kitchen that would allow easier access to the garden where he grew food and kept pets. He said it would give him a second exit in case there was a fire by the front door.
13. An OT visited Mr X at home and discussed the matter with him. They recorded Mr X regularly went in his back garden and had safe access to do so. Mr X reported he had a disagreement with a neighbour who he said had set a fire by his front door and he was worried about his safety. The OT recorded that he signposted Mr X to relevant services about his fire safety concerns. Mr X would also need a kitchen adaptation if an external door was added.
14. The Council discussed Mr X’s application at a panel meeting in October 2021. It decided that Mr X’s need to access the community and his garden was met by the ramp he had in place and a second door was not necessary. It said the concerns around fire safety were not relevant to the DFG. It said Mr X did not need a kitchen adaptation to meet his needs.
15. Mr X complained to the Council about its decision. He said the OT did not assess him in his wheelchair accessing his back garden and the Council used old evidence in making its decision.
16. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint. It said the OT had completed a proportionate assessment and saw there was suitable access for a wheelchair user from the house to the garden. It directed Mr X to speak to his landlord about any concerns over fire safety. It did not uphold Mr X’s complaint.
17. Mr X complained again to the Council. He stated he was entitled to the DFG to make his life easier which a second exit would do. He said he needed a second exit in case of a fire. He said the OT had not assessed him in his wheelchair.
18. The Council responded to Mr X in February 2022. It upheld its decision and reiterated the advice to contact the landlord regarding concerns about fire safety.
19. Mr X was dissatisfied with the Council’s response and complained to us. He stated the OT did not assess him in his wheelchair and had supplied wrong information to the DFG panel.
20. In response to my enquiries, the Council provided evidence it had previously completed a Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan for Mr X at the property. This identified there was no fire risk to Mr X.

My findings

21. The Council completed a proportionate OT assessment of Mr X’s needs. It’s DFG panel appropriately considered Mr X’s application and decided that, as Mr X had a ramp at the front entrance and there was a wheelchair accessible path, he was already able to access his garden. It decided the work Mr X requested was not necessary to meet Mr X’s wellbeing needs.
22. The Council had previously decided there was no fire risk to Mr X in the property and Mr X’s needs had not changed. It directed him to discuss his concern about fire safety with his landlord, which was the appropriate course of action.
23. The Council made its decision in line with the guidance and its own policies, and so we cannot question the outcome. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have completed my investigation. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman