Summary: Mr B complained about the way the Council considered an application for a disabled facilities grant (DFG) to provide bathing facilities for his adult sister. He considered the Council did not follow the proper process or had due regard to all relevant matters when deciding on the scheme it considered appropriate. He said the proposed scheme would have an adverse impact on his mother because of the reduction in size of her bedroom. There was fault by the Council in the time taken to arrange the second appeal hearing but not in the consideration of the appropriate works. The Council will apologise to Mr B.

The complaint

1. I refer to the complainant as Mr B. He complained on behalf of his adult sister, who has learning difficulties, and their parents. I refer to the parents as Mr and Mrs C and the sister as Ms X. Mr B complained about the way the Council considered an application for a disabled facilities grant (DFG) to provide bathing facilities for Ms X. He considers the Council has not followed the proper process or had due regard to all relevant matters when deciding on the scheme it considered appropriate. He said the proposed scheme would have an adverse impact on Mrs C because of the reduction in size of her bedroom.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
3. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

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 complaint, documents and audio files provided by Mr B and spoke to him. I asked the Council to comment on the complaint and provide information. I sent a draft of this statement to Mr B and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Summary of the events

6. Mr and Mrs C and Ms X live in a detached bungalow. There are three bedrooms on the ground floor, other living accommodation and two bedrooms in the loft space which are occupied by Mr and Mrs C’s son, wife and child. Mr and Mrs C are elderly and each use one the bedrooms on the ground floor.
7. They applied for a DFG to provide bathing facilities for Ms X which would be suitable for her needs and those of her carers. The Council proposed a scheme which extended the existing bathroom into the adjacent room which is Mrs C’s bedroom. The family agreed this would meet Ms X’s needs but considered it had an unacceptable impact on Mrs C’s bedroom as she has her own medical needs. They appealed against the decision. The appeal panel decided there should be a further assessment which took into account the needs of all the family members.
8. There was a visit to the family. The Council slightly amended the scheme but the key feature of extending the bathroom into Mrs C’s room remained unchanged. The family again appealed but it was not upheld.

Consideration of the scheme

9. The Council has to be satisfied that any works done under a DFG are appropriate and necessary. There is no dispute here that the proposed scheme would meet the needs of Ms X. The issue is with the impact on Mrs C’s bedroom.
10. Following the first appeal the Council did make some changes to the suggested layout of Mrs C’s room to show the correct size of her bed, a commode and a turning area for a wheelchair. It is the case that the reduced room would not accommodate the furniture that is in the room at the moment. The Council said that it will often be the case that a scheme will incorporate the conversion of second reception rooms, storage or circulation areas and sub-dividing existing rooms. It recognised this was not the family’s preferred option and said it would be possible to put the DFG towards the costs of an external extension. But it considered this scheme met all the relevant tests.
11. Mr B raised many points and concerns about the Council’s conduct throughout the process. As a publicly funded body we must be careful how we use our resources. We conduct proportionate investigations; completing them when we consider we have enough evidence to make a sound decision. This means we do not try to answer every single question a complainant may have about what the organisation did. My focus is to consider whether there were faults in the Council’s consideration that calls into question the decision reached.
12. The officers who made the recommendation had all the key points about the impact on Mrs C’s room before them when they made their decisions. I considered the relevant Government guidance (Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) Delivery: Guidance for Local Authorities in England’) which was revised in March 2022 just before the second appeal hearing. I have seen nothing that prevents the Council from taking the approach it has here of altering the existing layout of the house. Even though that does make Mrs C’s room smaller.
13. There was delay in arranging the second appeal hearing. The Council referred to the absence of a key officer and to the practical difficulties of getting a panel together. However it took over five months to arrange the hearing which is unacceptable and is fault.
14. Mr B argued the delay by the Council was deliberate so the second appeal would be considered under the new guidance. There is no significant change in the guidance that would have disadvantaged Mr B or altered the fundamental basis on which the Council was considering the matter. The delay did not, therefore, affect the decision.
15. Mr B commented that he was prevented from making some points at the second appeal. The Council said that Mr B made some unacceptable comments which he was asked to stop. I cannot know exactly what happened at the hearing but the panel will have had all the significant points Mr B wished to make before them either from his submissions in person, or from the written information he had submitted.
16. Overall there was no fault in how the Council considered what works were necessary and appropriate. I recognise why Mr B and the family would prefer a different scheme but there is no fault in the Council’s decision making.

The complaint about officers

17. After the first appeal Mr B made a specific complaint about the conduct of the officers involved. The Council declined to consider it as a complaint. This was because it considered it was intrinsically linked to the consideration of the adaptations and the appeal.
18. There is not fault in the approach taken by the Council on this point. Mr B framed this as a complaint about the conduct of the officers but the core issue was the assessment of the scheme. Mr B further commented that he considered it was wrong that those comments were included in the submissions to the second appeal hearing. I do not agree, those were the comments he had made on the substance of the information that was being considered so it was not wrong for the Council to include them in the appeal documents.

Back to top

Agreed action

19. The Council will, within a month of the final decision, apologise to Mr B for the time taken to arrange the second appeal hearing. The Council should provide us with evidence it has done so.

Back to top

Final decision

20. There was fault in the time taken to arrange the second appeal hearing.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman