Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused him a Disabled Facilities Grant for adaptations to his home. He complained its decision was based on a flawed occupational therapy assessment and during a home visit to assess the adaptations, a council officer was rude to him. The Council was not at fault for its decision making around the Disabled Facilities Grant. We could not make a finding regarding the allegation against the council officer as there is no evidence to substantiate either account. We have not investigated the occupational therapy assessment as this is a matter for a separate council.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained that the Council:
1. wrongly refused him a Disabled Facilities Grant for adaptations to his home;
2. based its decision on a flawed occupational therapy assessment; and
3. a council officer was rude to him during a home visit regarding the adaptations.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated items a) and c) above, At the end of this decision I have explained why I have not investigated item b).

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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 considered the information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the relevant law and guidance as set out below.
7. I considered comments made by Mr X and the Council on a draft decision before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

8. Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG) are for people with a qualifying disability who need certain adaptations in their home to help them remain in their home. They are mandatory and must be awarded if the applicant meets the qualifying conditions.
9. Grants are only approved if the council accepts the work is necessary and appropriate to meet the needs of the disabled person and it is reasonable and practicable to carry out the work. The assessment of need is usually completed by an occupational therapist but it does not have to be an occupational therapist. 
10. Mr X lives in an area where there is a two-tier council system. This means the District Council is responsible for administering the DFG scheme. Usually, the District Council will require an assessment by a County Council Occupational Therapist (OT) when considering DFG proposals.
11. The OT will assess the person’s needs and consider whether they can safely access rooms and facilities in the house. The OT recommends suitable adaptations to the District Council which will determine whether they are reasonable and practicable. This complaint concerns the actions of the District Council in relation to Mr X’s request for adaptations.

What happened

12. Mr X asked the Council if he could be awarded a Disabled Facilities Grant for a walk-in bath, due to needs arising from his disability.
13. A County Council occupational therapist carried out an occupational therapy assessment for the Council. This assessment recommended a grant for the purpose of a walk-in shower.
14. Mr X was asked to provide evidence to assess whether he was financially eligible for the grant. He provided evidence of his benefits entitlement. The Council informed him that the type of benefit he received meant he automatically qualified for a Disabled Facilities Grant.
15. The Council also asked him to complete an application form to progress the works but no application form has been received by the Council to date.
16. The Council then visited Mr X’s home to assess the space identified for the works. However, during this visit Mr X said a walk-in shower would not meet his needs and he needed a walk-in bath. Mr X said during this home visit a Council officer was rude to him.
17. Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council, reiterating that he needed a walk-in bath, not a shower. He also complained that the occupational therapist had not carried out their assessment properly and repeated his allegation against the Council’s officer who attended his home.
18. The Council informed us that it investigated the allegation about the officer’s behaviour by reviewing the emails between the officer and Mr X and interviewing the officer regarding the visit. It said it was satisfied that the allegation was not substantiated.
19. The Council told Mr X it could not investigate his complaint about the occupational therapist as that would be a matter for the different Council who employed the occupational therapist. It also said it did not uphold his complaint that he was wrongly refused a grant, as it said it had followed the recommendations of the occupational therapist.

My findings

Disabled Facilities Grant

20. The Council identified that Mr X was eligible for a Disabled Facilities Grant for the works identified by the occupational therapist.
21. However Mr X did not agree with the occupational therapist’s recommendations for the works, so at this stage the application process stopped. I address Mr X’s complaint regarding the occupational therapy assessment later in this statement.
22. The Council must ensure any adaptations are necessary and appropriate to meet Mr X’s needs. To do this it relies on the recommendations of the County Council’s occupational therapist. In this case the Council agreed to follow the occupational therapist’s recommendations for the adaptations. Mr X did not agree with the recommendations made by the occupational therapist and so the adaptations have not progressed.
23. The Council says it is still open to Mr X to make an application for the works he seeks. If he does, the Council can consider his request further. This was reasonable action for the Council to take. The Council was not at fault.

Allegation against Council officer

24. The two accounts of the home visit differ and it is not possible for us to support either account as I was not present during the visit. I am therefore unable to come to a finding on Mr X’s allegation that a Council officer was rude to him.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I have ended my investigation. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint I did not investigate

26. Mr X was unhappy with the content of the occupational therapy assessment. This was carried out by an occupational therapist employed by the County Council. If Mr X wishes to complain about the occupational therapist or the assessment, he would need to complain to the County Council in the first instance.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman