Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed carrying out adaptations or moving the family to meet her care needs. The Council was at fault for the time taken to carry out the adaptations, although some of the delays were outside the Council’s control. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £1200 to acknowledge the frustration and distress caused by the delays.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council delayed carrying out adaptations or moving the family to meet her care needs. She says her home is currently unsuitable, she has no access to suitable bathing facilities and her privacy and dignity is affected.

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. 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) I have considered what has happened back to July 2019 as events were impacted by COVID restrictions, the issues were a continuing chain of events and Mrs X complained promptly to us once the Council had considered her complaint.
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 have considered the information provided by Mrs X and have discussed the complaint with her on the telephone. I have considered the Council’s response to my enquiries.
6. I gave Mrs X and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered the comments I received in reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Disabled facilities grants

7. Disabled Facilities Grants 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.
8. The maximum grant payable by a council is £30,000. A council can award other discretionary help if it thinks it is necessary. The council grant amount is subject to a means test. The test does not apply to applications from landlords, or from parents for grants for their disabled children. Regardless of who makes the application, the means test applies to the disabled person (the ‘relevant person’). If the relevant person has a partner, their finances are assessed jointly.
9. In March 2022 the government issued non-statutory guidance “Disabled facilities Grant (DFG) Delivery: Guidance for local authorities in England”. This guidance replaced the ‘Home adaptations for Disabled People :A detailed guide to related legislation, guidance and good practice (2013). The guidance identifies five key stages to delivering home adaptations:
• Stage 0: First contact with the service. Councils should ensure the public has access to information and advice about the DFG process.
• Stage 1: First contact to assessment and identification of the relevant works. An occupational therapist (OT) will assess the person’s needs and potential solutions through home adaptations
• Stage 2: 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: Grant application to 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.
10. Both the previous and current guidance set out best practice target timescales for moving through the stages which depend on the urgency and complexity of the works required. The guidance suggests 95% of urgent and complex works should be carried out within 130 working days and 95% of non-urgent and complex works should be carried out within 180 working days.

Continuing health care (CHC)

11. CHC is a package of ongoing care arranged and funded solely by the NHS where the individual has been found to have a ‘primary health need’.

What happened

12. Mrs X lives with her husband and four children in their own home. Two of the children have additional needs, one of whom, Y, has a specially adapted downstairs bedroom. Mrs X has a neurological disorder and uses a wheelchair. Mr X provides a significant amount of care and support to Mrs X. Mrs X also received some CHC funding for care workers to support her with washing and dressing.
13. In July 2019 the Council OT assessed Mrs X’s needs. They noted Mrs X had a bed downstairs and could not access the bathroom which was upstairs. She strip washed or showered outside using a hosepipe, and used a commode as she had no suitable toilet access. The front of the property was too high for a ramp and the side had a steep uneven path. The OT noted the case was complex and recommended further work to consider Mrs X’s medical condition, what could and could not be done to the property and to explore the feasibility of rehousing the family.
14. The Council’s technical officer considered it was not feasible to install a ramp for Mrs X at the property and in September 2019 a multi-disciplinary team meeting considered it was unlikely the property could be adapted. Mr and Mrs X agreed to consider rehousing.
15. In December 2019 the OT provided Mrs X with details of a potential five bedroom property to meet their needs. This was later discounted as it needed adapting, the rent was high, and the private owner offered it to someone else. No other properties which met the family’s needs were available.
16. In January 2020 Mrs X explored the option of privately installing a ramp but this was not viable. From March to May 2020, England was in the first of three national lockdowns due to the COVID-19 pandemic. People could only leave their home for limited purposes including travelling to and from work, but only where this was absolutely necessary.
17. Following further discussion with the OT, in April 2020, the OT advised the Council’s technical officer was considering what might be feasible.
18. In July 2020 Mrs X instructed an architect to draw plans to extend the property. She submitted the plans and received planning permission. However, the Council was not satisfied the plans would fully meet the family’s needs. The Council’s technical officer drew up some proposals in September 2020, one of which Mr and Mrs X preferred and in November 2020 they confirmed they would be happy to accept the proposed scheme.
19. A second national lockdown came into force from November to December 2020.
20. The Council estimated the proposed scheme would cost around £53,000. Mr and Mrs X could not afford to contribute to the cost which was above the £30,000 DFG limit. The OT contacted a charity which was unable to assist with funding. It decided to progress the works through funding two DFGs, one for Mrs X and one for Y as both would benefit from a downstairs level access shower.
21. In January 2021 the OT submitted the written request for two disabled facilities grants. One for Y and one for Mrs X for a level access shower, and increased accessibility downstairs and into and out of the building.
22. The third national lockdown was in place from January to March 2021.
23. Between January and September 2021, the Council obtained architect drawings, prepared a schedule of works, made amendments to this for structural works required by Building Control, obtained quotes, appointed a builder and sought and obtained planning permission. It also sought CHC funding to contribute the cost of the step lift. In September 2021 it approved the DFG applications.
24. Mrs X continued to shower outside using a hosepipe. In October 2021 the OT provided details of community facilities Mrs X could access to shower.
25. Due to concerns about flood risk, in December 2021 the Council sought to have a drain survey conducted so it could assess what, if any, impact this would have on works. The Council had difficulty identifying a suitable company and this survey was carried out in February 2022.
26. In February 2022 Mrs X complained to the Council about the delays and about it not meeting her care needs. The Council responded in March 2022. It upheld her complaint that her current care needs were not being met and that there was a lack of suitable housing to meet her needs. It acknowledged the adaptation works were severely disrupted due to the pandemic and the adaptations were taking longer due to the need for specialist equipment and the complexity of the case. It said the works were severely disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic when major adaptations were paused. There were further complications due to the location of a drain at the property. It anticipated works would commence in April 2022. It advised officers felt they had responded to her enquiries but acknowledged there needed to be a reflective discussion on how complex adaptations were managed in future to avoid delays.
27. Later in March the Council carried out a complaint de-brief. At the de-brief officers acknowledged the size of the project was challenging for the existing adaptations team. The Council recommended the use of a project officer to have oversight of larger projects such as this one, to ensure actions were completed in a timely manner. The Council also acknowledged it would be beneficial to have one clear identified point of contact for applicants to go to rather than having to contact various staff within the service. The Council also noted the lack of affordable housing stock in the Council's area which it considered should be reviewed as part of the Council’s housing strategy.
28. In April 2022, work commenced. However, the contractor found another drain which was not identified during the drain survey. Due to its position this impacted upon the works and required moving. Any works to the drain required agreement from a water company. The Council was provided with an estimate that this additional drainage work would cost around £30,000.
29. The budget for the DFG was now estimated to cost nearly £90,000 plus £10,000 to be contributed through CHC funding for the step lift.
30. In June 2022 the OT and a service manager met with Mr and Mrs X to discuss the options available due to the difficulties encountered with progressing the adaptation. They offered a new build property to be completed in September 2022 but the property still required adaptations. Mr and Mrs X agreed they still wanted to go ahead with the adaptations. The OT also discussed Mrs X using community facilities to shower. Mrs X had concerns her carers, provided through CHC funding, did not have enough allocated time to do this. The OT agreed to contact the CHC manager to discuss this.
31. In July 2022 the additional drainage work commenced.
32. The OT, technical officer and an officer from the lift company met at the property in August 2022 to discuss the option of moving the step lift to the front of the property. However, this would require separate planning permission. The OT agreed to liaise with the builder to see if work on the extension could commence in the meantime.
33. In August 2022 Mrs X complained to us.
34. In early October 2022 the Council advised work would commence over the next few weeks.

Findings

35. Mrs X’s case is particularly complex due to the size of the family, the configuration of her property and the care needs of her and Y.
36. The records show in 2019 the Council sought to address Mrs X’s care needs through alternative housing as it did not consider adapting the property was likely to be feasible. However, it was unable to identify an alternative property that could meet all the family’s care needs. This was not fault as the Council made suitable efforts to try and identify housing including considering private rented accommodation and new build properties. We recognise the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas and the complexity of Mrs X and her family’s needs are such that the Council was unable to identify a suitable property.
37. As it could not find alternative housing, the Council’s remaining option was to adapt the property. However, this brought further complexities when the estimated costs outstripped the maximum grant limit.
38. The guidance says that best practice is that from first contact to the completion of the work should take no longer than 180 working days, even in complex cases. In this case it has taken over three years to carry out the works. There were significant delays in carrying out the work to adapt Mrs X’s property which is yet to be completed. But not all these delays were due to Council fault.
39. The time taken to undertake the works has been affected by a number of factors outside the Council’s control including:
• the COVID-19 pandemic and the restrictions it imposed which meant major adaptation work was paused;
• the impact of the pandemic on the availability of contractors to both bid for the work and then start it; and
• unforeseen difficulties such as the unidentified drain which has led to further works and increased costs.
40. However, even taking these factors into account the works have taken far too long, and some of the delay is the result of drift by the Council. In particular, even given the impact of the pandemic, it took at least six months longer than it should have for the Council to propose and agree a feasible scheme in 2020. This delay was fault, causing Mrs X distress and frustration. Once the Council had determined the best approach was through two DFG applications, I can see no obvious periods of delay caused by Council fault during 2021. Further delays in 2022 were not caused by Council fault but by a previously unidentified drain and the additional works and costs required because of this.
41. Mrs X’s care needs are met through CHC funding and so the NHS is therefore responsible for ensuring her care needs are met. It provided carer support to assist with personal care. The Council also recommended community facilities to assist with bathing. However, without these delays in the adaption process, it is likely Mrs X would have had her care needs met in a more convenient and appropriate way at least six months sooner.
42. The Council has already acknowledged through its complaint debrief that the size of the project was difficult for it to manage, and it has recommended the use of a project manager in future to deal with such cases. It has also acknowledged that although officers tried their best to keep Mrs X updated, it would be beneficial to have a single point of contact in future. This was appropriate so I have not made a further remedy to prevent the fault occurring again.

Back to top

Agreed action

43. Within one month of the final decision, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £1200, that is £200 a month to acknowledge the distress and frustration caused by the avoidable delays of at least six months in carrying out the adaptations.

Back to top

Final decision

44. I have completed my investigation. The Council was at fault leading to injustice for which it has agreed a remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman