Summary: The Council was at fault because it did not review Ms Y’s occupational therapy assessment. This meant another council completed adaptations to the front of her property which were unsuitable and therefore unusable. This caused avoidable frustration, distress, inconvenience and time and trouble complaining. The Council will apologise, make symbolic payments and revise procedures.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained Devon County Council (the Council) did not assess her mother Ms Y’s mobility properly. As a result, she now has a stairlift she cannot use.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
3. The complaint is about events from 2019 to 2022. Ms X complained to us in June 2022. So matters from June 2021 to June 2022 are not late. Events before June 2021 are late and there is no good reason to accept a late complaint. I have mentioned events between 2019 and May 2021 as background only.
4. 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)
5. 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

6. I considered Ms X’s complaint, the Council’s response to the complaint and its response to our enquiries. I discussed the complaint with Ms X.
7. Ms 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

Background

8. Ms X and Ms Y live in a bungalow on a slope. Ms X is Ms Y’s unpaid carer. Ms Y has mobility problems. She used to be able to walk using two sticks.
9. Ms Y fell at the end of 2018 and dislocated her shoulder leading to a permanent disability. After the fall, she could not get in and out of the bungalow because it has steps outside down to the pavement which she could no longer use her walking sticks.
10. An occupational therapist (OT) from the Council assessed Ms Y’s mobility, including her ability to get in and out of the home. The outcome was Ms Y needed adaptations to enable her to get in and out of the home. In 2019, another council (which is responsible for administering funding for grants for adaptations to disabled people’s homes) agreed a grant for an external stairlift from the front of the bungalow down to the street.
11. In Summer 2021, Ms Y broke her leg. She could no longer walk. Inside the home, she uses a transfer platform to help her move from sitting to standing.
12. In January 2022, the external stairlift was fitted. Ms Y could not transfer from the stairlift to the car because the transfer platform was not suitable for use outdoors.
13. Ms X complained to the Council in May. She said Ms Y could not use the stairlift.
14. The Council’s response to the complaint in June said:
• An OT had visited Ms Y in May.
• When the stairlift was agreed, Ms Y did not need to use a transfer platform. Her mobility had since declined
• The Council should have reviewed Ms Y before the work to install the stairlift took place
• The Council would not provide a transfer platform to use at the bottom of the stairlift because the ground was not level and it would be against the manufacturer’s guidelines. There was a tipping risk.
• It would contact the highways department to see if there was any way to make the pavement at the bottom of the stairlift level which may then mean a transfer platform could be used.
• It acknowledged the care and support Ms X had provided and would continue to work with her.
15. Ms X complained to us in June. We asked the Council to update us about recent actions it had taken. A highways officer from the Council visited the property. The highways officer told us:
• Levelling the footway was not an option because it would prevent water from draining off the footpath and in the winter this was the main way of stopping ice from forming
• It would not approve a scheme which promoted driving on the footpath
• One option would be to widen the dropped kerb and build a car bay on the flat garden and adjust the lift to turn and unload on the flat part. But there was a manhole cover which meant the sewer might need altering and there would also need to be excavation of the garden which would be costly.
16. A technical officer from the council responsible for funding further works told us the remaining options for access to the bungalow were not viable. He said:
1. Installing a platform lift to a level landing or creating a new opening to a window at the front which would mean the loss of one room at the front. And it would cost too much
2. Installing a platform lift in the back of the garage to alight in the garden at the point that the back wall of the garage meets the garden was considered. But the garden level is the same as the garage roof meaning that this option would not be possible. The driveway up to the entrance door to the garage is also too steep
3. An external ramp was considered but the front garden does not have enough space to offer an acceptable gradient for the ramp.
4. Moving house was not an option the family wished to pursue.
17.  The technical officer explained to us that the three options above (a to c) had already been discussed with the family in 2019 and the only option available within the funding allowed, was the one that was approved (changing the external steps and installing a stairlift.)
18. Ms X told me she was frustrated with the Council and just wanted to be able to take Ms Y out for a drive or for Ms Y to go to a day centre. She said it was an ‘utter waste of time and taxpayer money.’

Findings

19. The Council accepted in its response to the complaint that it should have reviewed Ms Y’s mobility before the stairlift was installed. The failure to complete a review was fault which caused Ms X and Ms Y avoidable frustration, inconvenience and distress and Ms X time and trouble complaining. As Ms X pointed out, it was also a poor use of public money.
20. Had the Council completed an up-to-date OT assessment before the work started, the outcome would have been that the stairlift was no longer viable because of Ms Y’s mobility. Information from the other council responsible for grants indicates the works would not have gone ahead at all because the other options were too expensive or not feasible for technical reasons.

Back to top

Agreed action

21. Our remedies aim to put people in the position they would have been ‘but for’ the fault identified. In this case, if the Council had reassessed Ms Y’s mobility, it is likely the external stairlift would not have been put in. So she would still not have had a way of getting in and out of the bungalow.
22. The injustice is avoidable distress, frustration, inconvenience and time and trouble because of disruption, with the result being unusable. The Council will apologise and make Ms X and Ms Y payments of £250 each to reflect the injustice. The Council will also amend procedures for OTs so all cases are reviewed to ensure a person’s needs have not changed before adaptations are installed. The Council will complete these actions within one month of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

23. The Council was at fault because it did not review Ms Y’s occupational therapy assessment. This meant another council completed adaptations to the front of her property which were unsuitable and unusable. This caused avoidable frustration, distress, inconvenience and time and trouble complaining. The Council will apologise, make symbolic payments and revise procedures.
24. I completed the investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

25. Ms X complained about a delay in fitting the stairlift. I did not investigate this because it is a late complaint. There is no reason she could not have complained about this within a year of funding for the stairlift being agreed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman