Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s delay in progressing an application for a disabled facilities grant and he says the Council is ignoring his wishes and needs. We have found delay at two stages of the process and lack of communication during one stage of the process. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B and pay him a financial remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr B is a person with disabilities. He is supported by his friend Mr C in his complaint.
2. Mr B asked the Council to provide him with a disabled facilities grant (DFG) to adapt his home. He says there have been delays in the Council’s response to his application and the Council is not listening to what he wants and needs.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

3. I have investigated the complaint regarding events from March 2021 until September 2022.
4. I have not investigated the events between October 2020 and March 2021 as these involved a different council.
5. I have not investigated events after September 2022 as they occurred after the complaint process was completed. However, I have commented on the events insofar as it was relevant and necessary to consider injustice and remedy relating to the complaint I am investigating.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

6. 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)
7. 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

8. I have considered the evidence provided by Mr C and the Council, the relevant law, guidance and Council policies and both sides’ comments on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law, guidance and policies

Disabled Facilities Grant

9. 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 grants 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.
10. The maximum grant payable by a council is £30,000. A council can award other discretionary help if it thinks it is necessary.

DFG Guidance

11. In March 2022 the government issued non-statutory guidance: ‘Disabled facilities Grant (DFG) Delivery: Guidance for local authorities in England’.
12. This Guidance advises councils in England on how they can effectively and efficiently deliver DFG funded adaptations. It brings together in one place existing policy frameworks, legislative duties and powers, together with recommended best practice.
13. The Guidance identifies four key stages to delivering home adaptations:
• Stage 1: First contact to assessment of eligibility. An occupational therapist (OT) will assess the person’s needs and potential solutions through home adaptations.
• Stage 2: Compile the grant application. Identification of the relevant works to submission of the formal grant application. The person completes and submits the application form together with designs and costing for the works (where necessary).
• Stage 3: Make the grant decision. The Council will check the application and issue a decision letter. If a council refuses a grant, it must explain why.
• Stage 4: Approval of grant to completion of works. The works are arranged and carried out and the necessary quality checks made.
14. The timescales for moving through the stages will depend on the urgency and complexity of the works required. The guidance gives the following timescales for complex works which are urgent/non-urgent:
• Stage 1: 20/35 working days
• Stage 2: 45/55 working days
• Stage 3: 5/20 working days
• Stage 4: 60/80 working days
• Total: 130/180 working days

Stage 2 – Compile the application for DFG

15. The Guidance acknowledges that, often, people are not able to make their own application for a DFG as the application should include the finished design document and the quotes from the contractors.  For simple jobs, a standard instruction to the contractor can suffice, but in more complex cases, an individual detailed specification with drawings will be necessary. The Guidance says clients should be fully involved with the design and specification of works to their home.
16. The Guidance says:
• Grant applications are normally required to include at least 2 estimates from different contractors for the costs of the relevant proposed works. Housing authorities have discretion to require only one estimate in a particular case.
• Contractors are a crucial part of the home adaptations process. Authorities should develop a list of qualified contractors who will deliver quality works in a timely manner, with due consideration for the needs of the disabled person and their family. Delivery through agency services can enable a better service to applicants, and allow the authority to better control standards of work and regulatory compliance.

Stage 3 – Decide the application of DFG

17. The Guidance and the Act say:
• A grant cannot be approved if the works have already been completed.
• A grant cannot be approved if the works have already started unless there is a good reason why. 

Payments of DFG

18. The Guidance says:
• It is recommended that a formal contract is signed between the applicant and the contractor for all building works. This will set out the rights and responsibilities of both parties and can include the role of contract administrator, normally the technical officer employed by the agency/local authority.
• The authority will need to consider the terms of the contract between the applicant and contractor when making any payments.
• The authority will usually pay the grant directly to the contractor but must notify the applicant before approval of the application.
19. Section 37 of the Act says the payment of a grant, or part of a grant, is conditional upon:
• the eligible works or the corresponding part of the works being executed to the satisfaction of the authority, and
• the authority being provided with an acceptable invoice, demand or receipt for payment for the works and any preliminary or ancillary services or charges in respect of which the grant or part of the grant is to be paid.
20. The Guidance says: The grant can either be paid in instalments as the work progresses or in full on completion (section 35). If paying by instalments, no more than 90% of the grant can be paid before the works are completed. The housing authority can also specify how the works should be carried out (section 37) and will only make a payment if they’re satisfied with the works and receive an acceptable invoice.
21. For this purpose an invoice, demand or receipt is acceptable if it satisfies the authority and is not given by the applicant or a member of his family.
22. Once the work is complete, the council must pay the grant in full within 12 months of the application date.

Council’s complaints procedure

23. The Council’s complaints procedure says:
• It will provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of receiving the complaint.
• It will provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of receiving the request for a stage 2 response.
24. These deadlines can be extended by a further 10 working day and this will be discussed with the applicant.

What happened

25. Mr B lives on his own in a bungalow. Mr B started to build an extension which housed a bedroom, but ran out of funding to complete it.
26. Mr B contacted a different council (council 2) to start the DFG process as council 2 had the responsibility to carry out the occupational therapist’s (OT) assessment.

Occupational therapist’s recommendation – 29 March 2021

27. Council 2 forwarded the OT’s assessment to the Council on 29 March 2021.
28. The assessment said that, as Mr B used a wheelchair, some adaptations were needed to allow Mr B to access the rooms in his bungalow more easily in his wheelchair. The OT recommended:
• The bungalow’s layout to be reconfigured so that the wet-room could increase in size. The wet-room would include a level access shower.
• The kitchen layout to be reconfigured.
• Existing kitchen and bathroom fixtures and fittings were to be re-used.
29. The OT proposed a layout plan which left the kitchen and bathroom in their existing place but moved the bathroom walls out a little and removed some internal walls to create a large living/dining area. This created enough circulation space for Mr B’s wheelchair.

Surveyor’s visit –April 2021

30. The Council’s surveyor visited Mr B’s property in April 2021. Mr B said his architect had drawn up a different proposal than the OT’s proposal and he would send these plans to the Council. Mr B said these plans better met his needs than the plans drawn by the OT.

Mr B’s plans – 18 May 2021

31. Mr B’s architect sent the plans to the Council on 18 May 2021. Mr B wanted to move the kitchen and the bathroom to a different part of the bungalow so the layout was different from the OT’s proposed layout.
32. In the following weeks the Council started to draft a schedule of works based on Mr B’s plans. Once the schedule was completed, the Council would then obtain quotes for the works. However, Mr B indicated that he wanted to go down the DIY route so that he would obtain quotes and hire the contractors.
33. The Council explained to Mr B that the DFG could not fund works that had already been done or works that were not necessary to meet Mr B’s needs. Any costs relating the extension would not be met by the DFG.
34. Mr B was not satisfied with the Council’s position. He referred to the VAT rules on works on disabled adaptations (which are zero rated). The VAT rules said that, if, as a result of disabled adaptations, space in the home was lost and an extension was built or works were done to make up for that space, these works would also be included as disabled adaptations for VAT purposes. Mr B argued that this meant the Council should fund his extension or alternatively, pay for the equivalent of the bedroom which he had lost. The Council disagreed.
35. Mr B wanted to progress the works himself, but said this was difficult because of the Council’s lack of flexibility in what it would approve as DFG and how DFG was funded.

Mr B’s decision - July 2021

36. The Council sent an email to Mr C on 10 July 2021 which set out its position:
• Essential works only would be funded. This would, for example, exclude some of the external doors.
• Two itemised builders’ estimates for all the works which were eligible for DFG were required. If Mr B wanted to continue down the DIY route, then the Council would consider paying the cost of materials. The cost of materials would have to be precalculated and priced for the application for DFG to be approved.
• The Council had to be sure that Mr B had the private funds to complete the project, i.e. for any works not eligible for DFG.
• Payment of the grant was made on completion of the works. Three stage payments and a final payment could be made on submission of invoices.
• Materials had to be fixed and installed before the Council could pay for them.
• It was ‘not possible to make payments for purchase of materials ahead of use in construction, neither legislation nor the Council’s policy allow this.’ Therefore Mr B would need to have private funds to purchase materials.
• Payments for works were also dependent on Building Control confirming the works were carried out to a satisfactory standard.
37. Mr B reluctantly accepted on 10 July 2021 that he could not proceed down the DIY route. He agreed that the Council could obtain the contractors to do the work. He said the Council had shown no flexibility and he still insisted that the Council would have to make good ‘lost space’.
38. On 13 July 2021 the Council emailed the process in detail. The Council would:
• Stage 1: Provide a detailed schedule of works which would list the individual building tasks which were to be DFG funded including both materials and labour. It would discuss the schedule with Mr B.
• Stage 2: Once the schedule was agreed, the Council would take the schedule to its approved panel of contractors and, after 2 to 3 weeks, choose a contractor. The surveyor and the appointed contractor would then meet with Mr B on site to go through the details of the build.
• Stage 3: The Council would then give Mr B a start date for the works, hopefully 6 to 8 weeks from the pre-start meeting.

OT’s approval of the revised plans – 24 August 2021

39. A new OT had been appointed. The Council sent Mr B’s plans with the revised layout to the OT. The OT confirmed that the revised layout would meet Mr B’s needs.

Mr B’s complaint - August 2021

40. Mr B complained about delay in August 2021. He said he started this process in October 2020 and the Council’s surveyor did not visit him until April 2021. It was now August and matters had not progressed.
41. The Council replied and said:
• The delay was caused because Mr B wanted to do the works on a DIY basis, but, as the Council would only fund materials once they had been installed, and as Mr B had no funds, the matter could not progress.
• Mr B did not decide until 13 July 2021 that he wanted the Council to make the DFG application and that he was not proceeding under the DIY route.
• A site visit was planned for 19 August 2021 to collect the information to draft the detailed schedule of works.

Surveyor leaves the Council - October 2021

42. The Council informed Mr B on 1 October 2021 that the surveyor who had been dealing with his case had left the Council. The Council said it would employ an agency (agency 1) to carry out the survey and progress the case.
43. Agency 1 made an appointment to visit the property on 26 October 2021, but this appointment was cancelled as Mr B was unwell.

Visit by Agency 1 - November 2021

44. Agency 1 visited Mr B’s home on 15 November 2021.
45. Mr B signed a DFG application form on 3 December 2021.

Plans and schedule completed - 28 March 2022

46. Agency 1 sent its plans and schedule of works to Mr B on 28 March 2022. The layout on the plans was the same as the layout on Mr B’s architect’s plans.
47. Mr B was not satisfied with the plans and the schedule of works as he said a lot of items were missing from the schedule.
48. The Council replied and said the schedule only covered DFG works, not the works that were not eligible for DFG which Mr B had to fund. The Council had liaised with the OT in the previous months to be clear what works were needed to meet Mr B’s needs and what works were not. The Council responded to the different items of work which Mr was querying such as tilt and turn windows, tilt and slide door, additional kitchen work tops and so on.
49. The Council explained it had provided different options for the items which would meet Mr B’s needs. If Mr B chose a more expensive option, he could do so but the Council would only fund the most cost effective option and Mr B would have to pay the difference. Some items would not be paid for by DFG as they were not needed to meet Mr B’s needs, but were Mr B’s personal choice.
50. Mr B contacted the Ombudsman on 4 April 2022 to complain about the Council.
51. On 13 April 2022 the Council emailed Mr B to tell him that agency 1’s plans had been forwarded to the OT for their consideration. Once this had happened and any comments that Mr B had provided were taken into consideration, the Council would prepare a final schedule of works and would start the tender process.
52. The Council organised a visit/meeting at Mr B’s house to discuss a way forward on 5 May 2022. Mr C emailed the Council and said Mr B did not want to attend the meeting. Mr B had made a subject access request for his records as he said he needed his records before he could discuss the matter with the Council. Mr C said:
• There was no need for the visit as the Council should already have all the information it needed to approve the DFG.
• The Council had already approved Mr B’s plans in August 2021 so there was no need for the later plans by agency 1.
53. On 31 May 2022 the Ombudsman told Mr B that the complaint had to go through the Council’s complaint process first before the Ombudsman could consider the complaint.

Stage 1 complaint – 31 May 2022

54. Mr B complained to the Council and said:
• He applied for a DFG in October 2020. There had been long delays in the Council’s actions and little progress had been made.
• The plans prepared by agency 1 on 29 March 2022 did not reflect Mr B’s plans and were incomplete.
• Mr B’s friends had been continuing with the works to progress the improvements as Mr B thought it unlikely the Council would progress the works in a ‘timely and competent matter’ but Mr B had been living in a building site for 12 months. Therefore, the Council should reimburse him for the cost of the materials which had been used.

OT visit – 31 May 2022

55. The OT visited Mr B’s property on 31 May 2022 and noted that there had been substantial alterations to the property. Internal walls, electrics, heating and kitchen had been removed. A staircase had been installed to the loft/roof space. This meant that the existing plans and schedule of works were no longer relevant and would have to be redone. These works had been carried out in January 2022. Mr B says he started these works because he could no longer use his bathroom.

Council’s reply to the complaint – 12 July 2022

56. The Council replied to Mr B’s complaint and said:
• The adaptations had taken longer than expected for a variety of reasons that Mr B was aware about. The Council acknowledged the delay caused by the surveyor leaving the Council’s employment. To address this, the Council had employed agency 1.
• Mr B had done further works to the property which then caused further delay as the Council had to establish which of the works that had not yet been completed would be eligible for DFG. This would require further input from the OT and a new plan and schedule of works.
• Agency 1’s plans were based on the property when they visited. In April 2022 Agency 1 had offered a further visit to Mr B to resolve the concerns Mr B had about agency 1’s plans and schedule, but Mr B had refused the visit.
• The Council would not refund materials which had been paid for before the DFG approval. Strictly speaking the Council could have stopped the progress of the application once Mr B started the work. But the Council had agreed to continue to work with Mr B and a further visit had been agreed for 22 July 2022.

Further developments – July and August 2022

57. The Council held a meeting with Mr B and Mr C at the property on 22 July 2022.
58. The Council sent emails to Mr B in August 2022 to clarify its position:
• The OT would prepare new recommendations and the Council would complete a new schedule of works.
• Once these had been completed, Mr B could then obtain quotes from contractors based on the new schedule.
• If Mr B wanted to work on the property himself then the Council would pay DFG for the materials only.
• The Council could pay DFG in staged payments if a stage of the works had been completed. This would require a completion certificate, certification that the works were done to the correct specification and an invoice that matched the original quote. It could only make 3 staged payments up to 90% and then one further payment when all the works were completed.
59. There continued to be disagreement between Mr B and the Council on which works were needed to meet eligible needs and should be included in the schedule of works.

Stage 2 complaint – 28 July 2022

60. Mr B escalated his complaint to stage 2. He said he had been forced to do the works because of the delay. These works were done by friends for free and he had paid for the materials. He was now without a sink in his home which made it difficult for him, particularly as he had disabilities.
61. Mr B sent a further email to the Council on 4 August 2022 as he had not received any reply to his email of 28 July 2022. The Council responded and said it had not received his email of 28 July 2022. The Council then progressed the complaint to stage 2.

Stage 2 response – 1 September 2022

62. The Council responded and said:
• The Council did not become involved until March 2021 and any delay before that date was not the Council’s fault.
• It accepted there were ‘slight delays’ during the early months.
• Agency 1 sent its plans to Mr B at the end of February 2022. These plans were never signed off as Mr B did not agree with the plans. The Council offered a meeting to resolve Mr B’s concerns but the meeting was turned down. The Council was willing to offer a full DFG up to £30,000 but the only reason this was not progressed was because Mr B did not agree the plans.
• The OT visited the property on 31 May 2022 and noticed that significant changes had been made to Mr B’s home following works in January 2022. Therefore the OT had to make new recommendations and new plans had to be drawn up.
• This would also complicate the DFG as the Council would only cover costs for works that were recommended by the OT as necessary.

Developments after the complaint response

63. Mr C said Mr B had expected the Council to find the contractor from its panel of contractors. He also said Mr B could not progress the works without payments up front as he had no money.
64. The Council said on 15 September 2022 that it could not assist in finding a contractor as Mr B wanted the contractor to carry out works which were not part of the DFG application and that would ‘muddy communication and costs.’
65. The Council said on 27 October 2022 that it would assist Mr B in finding a contractor through its dynamic purchasing system (DPS). The DPS is a framework of accredited contractors who provide quotes to carry out DFG works. The Council also said it would consider making staged payments in advance.
66. During this time there continued to be communications regarding what could and could not be included in the schedule of works. Agency 1 produced three updated schedules of work. Agency 1’s last schedule of work was dated 14 November 2022.
67. On 19 November 2022 Mr B said he did not want the Council’s assistance in obtaining quotes from contractors, but wanted to pursue the DIY route. The Council explained that it could pay for works by specialist contractors and for the materials, but the materials would need to be ‘precalculated and priced ahead of work’ and estimates should be obtained from the specialist contractors.
68. To date, there has been no further progress as the Council says the documentation provided by Mr B to apply for the grant does not meet the statutory requirements.
69. The Council has also commented on the delay in the complaint response and says this was due to the complexity of the complaint.

Analysis

70. I have investigated both the complaint about delay and the complaint about the Council’s failure to properly listen and consider Mr B’s wishes and needs.
71. I note that the Council has been involved since March 2021 and the DFG grant has still not been approved. A full DFG application containing the detailed schedule of works, the quotes from the two contractors and the winning bid has not been made yet so, in essence, Mr B is still at stage 2 of the process (compiling the application).
72. However, the passage of time itself does not equate fault by the Council. There would only be fault if the Council did not progress the matter or did not act in line with the law, guidance and policies.

April to July 2021

73. I find no fault in the actions of the Council between April and July 2021 as the Council tried to progress matters. The Council visited Mr B’s property and the OT had drawn up a plan. Mr B then said he wanted a different layout and sent his plans in May 2021.
74. The Council started to discuss the schedule of works with Mr B, but it could not progress matters as Mr B wanted to proceed down the DIY route. The Council explained to him that, if a person proceeded down the DIY route, they should have sufficient funding to pay the contractors as payment was not made until after the works (or a stage of the works) were completed. The problem was that Mr B had run out of funding.
75. Mr B then said in July 2021 that he wanted the Council to progress the application. The surveyor then visited Mr B’s property in August 2021 and the OT approved the layout Mr B preferred.

August to October 2021

76. However, there was delay and lack of progress between August 2021 and October 2021. I cannot find evidence that the Council progressed matters during this time and this was fault.

October 2021 to March 2022

77. The Council’s surveyor then left in October 2021 and the Council appointed agency 1. The fact that agency 1 had to start from scratch indicated that the Council’s previous surveyor had not really progressed much further with drafting the schedule of works or obtaining quotes from contractors. It also meant that agency 1 had to visit the site again which took more time.
78. The Guidance says that stage 2, the compilation of the application which includes drawing the plans and the schedule of works and obtaining the quotes from the contractors should take 45/55 working days (9/11 weeks) depending on the urgency of the works.
79. I appreciate that it was more difficult for the Council to draft the plans and the schedule of works for Mr B’s property as he had started (but not completed) an extension and other internal works. These works were not eligible for DFG for two reasons:
• The works had been carried out before the approval of the DFG.
• Some of the works were not necessary to meet Mr B’s needs but were his choice.
80. This made it more complicated as the Council had to ensure that the schedule of works excluded any non-eligible works. I also accept that the original appointment for agency 1 to visit Mr B’s property was delayed by a few weeks because of circumstances outside of the agency's control.
81. However, I think six months to draft the plans and the schedule is excessive and therefore there was delay at this stage as the drafting could have been completed in a shorter time span. This was fault.
82. In addition, I cannot find evidence that agency 1 or the Council involved Mr B in the drafting of the schedule during that time and that was further fault. It meant that Mr B felt that no progress was being made and that he was not consulted. If Mr B had been involved earlier, some of the later delay may have been avoided.

March 2022 to September 2022

83. Mr B received agency 1’s plans in March 2022. His second complaint to the Ombudsman is that the Council did not listen to him and ignored his needs and wishes. He is of the view that the Council could have proceeded with the original plans drawn up by his architect and approved by the OT in August 2021. He says the Council’s failure to proceed on that basis led to further delay.
84. It is correct that the Council received Mr B’s plans in May 2021. They contained a different layout than the original layout recommended by the OT. This revised layout was approved by the OT and the Council in August 2021.
85. However, the Council could not proceed to make an application for a DFG based on these plans.
86. To make an application for DFG, a detailed schedule of works had to be provided in addition to the plans. That was necessary for two reasons:
• Firstly, the plans did not set out what works were eligible and not eligible for DFG. A schedule of works was required to set this out. For example, the bedroom extension was shown on the plans, but was not eligible for DFG.
• Secondly, the Council (or Mr B) could not obtain quotes from contractors without a detailed schedule of works.
87. Agency 1 produced its owns plans which broadly reflected Mr B’s plans and preferred layout so I cannot say that the Council ignored Mr B’s wishes and that there was fault in that respect.
88. However, agency 1 also produced a schedule of works and this was the main area of dispute between Mr B and the Council. Mr B felt that the Council had omitted works from the schedule that should have been included. However, the Council said these works were not eligible for DFG.
89. I note the Council offered Mr B a visit in May 2022 to resolve the issues and agree a schedule of works. But Mr B declined the visit so the visit did not take place until July 2022.
90. At the July 2022 visit, the Council then found out that Mr B had made further substantial alterations to the property in January 2022 which meant the schedule of works was obsolete and it had to start again and obtain a new approval by the OT. I cannot find fault in that respect.
91. The new schedule of works was completed in September 2022 and then, after further re-drafting it is my understanding that the final agreed version was completed in November 2022.
92. Therefore, I do not find fault, overall, with the Council’s actions between March and September 2022 as the Council was progressing matters.
93. I do however, find fault with the Council stating in August and September 2022 that it would not assist Mr B in obtaining quotes from contractors. I appreciate that the relationship between the Council and Mr B may have been difficult at this stage. I also accept that it would be difficult to find a contractor to do the works as some of the works may not be eligible for DFG and had to be paid by Mr B. Nevertheless, Mr B should still have been given access to support in obtaining contractors’ quotes if he wanted to do so.
94. Mr B did not suffer any great injustice because of this fault as the schedule of works had not been agreed yet so the Council could not have obtained quotes yet. In any event, when the Council offered to obtain quotes from contractors in October 2022, Mr B then said he wanted to proceed down the DIY route.

Delay in the complaint response

95. The Council provided Mr B’s stage 1 within 28 working days and its stage 2 response within 25 working days. I accept that this was a complex complaint so the Council may have needed more time to respond. However, the Council should have communicated this to Mr B, in line with its policy and did not do so.

Remedy

96. In deciding the remedy, The Ombudsman can consider what actions the Council has taken to remedy the fault.
97. I note that the Council has twice exercised its discretion by agreeing to proceed with the application, even though Mr B had started the works.
98. I also note the Council has agreed to pay DFG grant upfront, once it has given the DFG approval, to help Mr B. This decision was made at the Council’s discretion and is highly unusual.

Back to top

Agreed action

99. The Council has agreed to take the following actions within one month of the final decision. It will:
• Apologise in writing to Mr B.
• Pay Mr B £750 to reflect the distress and delay caused by the fault.
100. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

101. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed the remedy to address the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman