Summary: Mrs X complained about delays and poor communication in the Council’s handling of her Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) application and request for additional funding for exceptional circumstances. She said the delays caused her and her family considerable inconvenience and distress. The Council was at fault. The Council has already accepted fault in how it handled Mrs X’s case but not provided a suitable remedy. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Mrs X £500 in recognition of the impact of the delays and poor communication on the family and the distress caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about delays and poor communication in the Council’s handling of her Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) application and request for additional funding for exceptional circumstances. She says the delays have caused the whole family significant inconvenience, distress and affected their mental health. She wants the Council to offer a sincere apology for the delays and poor communication and a financial remedy in recognition of the distress caused.

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. 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

4. I read Mrs X’s complaint and spoke with her about it on the phone.
5. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
6. I considered our Guidance on Remedies.
7. Mrs X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Disabled Facilities Grants

8. Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs) 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.
9. The maximum grant payable by a council is £30,000. A council can award other discretionary help if it thinks it is necessary.

What happened

10. Mrs X’s husband, Mr X, is disabled and has care needs. In 2019, Mrs X contacted the Council to request a needs assessment for Mr X and a review of their housing. The Council completed its assessment and agreed their house needed adaptations to meet Mr X’s needs. It worked with Mr and Mrs X to agree the works required in 2021 and submitted a planning application.
11. In August 2021, Mrs X was granted planning permission. The Council invited contractors to tender and quote for the works.
12. In October 2021, the building quotes showed the works would cost significantly higher than £30,000 available through a DFG. The Council approved the DFG application but asked Mrs X and the housing association if either were able to meet the additional costs. Both said they were unable to do so.
13. The Council advised Mrs X to complete a “letter of exceptional circumstances” and submit this to the Council. The Council would then consider whether it could approve discretionary funding to meet the additional costs and enable the work to be completed.
14. Mrs X submitted the letter of exceptional circumstances in November 2021.
15. The Council acknowledged her request and said as part of the process, it would arrange an occupational therapy review. It said this was standard practice when requesting discretionary funding, to ensure the planned building work and adaptations remained appropriate to meet Mr X’s needs.
16. The occupational therapy review was initially planned for December 2021 but was cancelled due to illness. Mrs X contacted the Council twice to ask for this to be rearranged as soon as possible to avoid further delay. The occupational therapist completed the review at the end of January 2022.
17. Mrs X chased the Council for a progress update during February 2022. The Council did not respond. Mrs X chased again in March 2022. The Council told her it was in the process of changing its policy so had not yet been able to progress her discretionary funding request. Mrs X expressed her frustration that she had submitted the discretionary funding request in November 2021, but the Council had not yet decided whether it would agree to this.
18. The Council told Mrs X it would provide an update at the end of March but did not do so.
19. Mrs X complained to the Council in April 2022. She complained about the delay since November 2021 in the Council’s consideration of her application for discretionary funding, which meant the adaptation works could not begin. She also complained about poor communication. She said the delays and poor communication were having a significant impact on her, Mr X and their family and causing them all significant inconvenience and distress.
20. Between April and June 2022, Mrs X continued to chase the Council for a decision.
21. In July 2022, the Council considered the case and told Mrs X it had approved her discretionary funding application. It confirmed it would meet the additional costs of the works above the £30,000 DFG award.
22. The Council responded to her complaint. It apologised for the delay in considering her discretionary funding request. It said it was in the process of changing its policy but that this had not caused the delay in this case. It said it accepted it had taken a significant amount of time to hear and decide her case and apologised for the distress caused by this. It upheld her complaint about poor communication and apologised. It also apologised for delay in responding to her complaint.
23. It said it would learn from her complaint to improve its process for considering discretionary funding requests where adaptation costs exceeded the maximum disabled facilities grant. It also said it would act to ensure communications were easy to understand and that the service communicated more proactively with customers.
24. Mrs X remained unhappy and brought the complaint to us.
25. In August 2022, the Council provided us with evidence of how it has improved its processes following Mrs X’s complaint. It has changed its procedures to ensure DFG applicants requesting additional discretionary funding are identified earlier, so the Council can hear and reach a decision in each case without undue delay. It was also taking action to improve how it communicated with its customers and ensure it was more proactive in its communications. It said in Mrs X’s case, it had allocated her a named worker who would keep her updated and offer support as needed every two weeks. It said they were currently awaiting the contractor to confirm a start date for the works and that Mrs X was aware of this.
26. Mrs X confirmed the adaptations works started in October 2022. She told us she did not feel the Council had fully appreciated the effects of the delays and poor communication on her family.

Analysis

27. The Council has upheld Mrs X’s complaint that there was delay considering her request for discretionary funding. Mrs X submitted the application in November 2021 and the Council did not confirm it had approved the request until July 2022. This is excessive delay and I agree this is fault. This delay caused Mrs X and her family considerable distress. It also caused significant disruption to their family life, as they were continuing to live in a property that did not meet Mr X and the family’s needs.
28. The Council also upheld Mrs X’s complaint that there was poor communication. The evidence shows there were multiple times when the Council did not respond to her emails or only responded when she chased them. Some emails were also difficult to understand and contained jargon and there were times when Mrs X was promised an update by a specific date which never materialised. I agree there was poor communication, and this is fault. The poor communication caused Mrs X significant frustration and distress.
29. The Council has already apologised to Mrs X in its complaint response for the impact of the delay and poor communication on the family. Mrs X has told us she does not consider the apologies provided so far to be sincere. Although I acknowledge the Council has already apologised, in this case I do consider a further apology is warranted. This is because the Council made its apologies in July 2022, before the building work started and before Mrs X brought the complaint to us. When the apologies were made, Mrs X was continuing to strive towards getting the work started and the family were continuing to live without the adaptations needed. Now the work has begun and in light of my findings and Mrs X’s wishes, a further, sincere apology along with a financial payment is appropriate to acknowledge the impact of the faults on the family and to remedy the injustice caused. This is also in line with our guidance on remedies.
30. The Council has provided us with evidence that since Mrs X’s complaint it has reviewed its processes to reduce delays in similar cases going forward. It has also acted to improve its communications. I am satisfied the Council has taken appropriate actions to improve its service to prevent recurrence of the faults.

Back to top

Agreed action

31. Within one month of the final decision, the Council will:
• Write to Mrs X to provide a further apology and pay her £500 to acknowledge the distress caused and the impact of the delays and poor communication on her and her family.
32. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault and the Council has agreed action remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman