Summary: There was fault by the Council in its decisions about funding adaptations to Mr Y’s bathroom. There was also poor communication with him and his family about a step lift. The Council needs to apologise, make symbolic payments to reflect avoidable distress and time and trouble and take action set out in this statement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained on behalf of a relative Mr Y. He said the Council went back on an agreement to install a step lift and refused to complete adaptations to the bathroom. He also complained the Council did not act in line with tendering regulations because it only got one quote for the lift.
2. He said this caused avoidable distress and confusion and a loss of service for Mr Y.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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 Mr X’s complaint to us, his complaint to the Council and its responses and case records described later in this statement. I discussed the complaint with Mr X
6. Mr 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

Relevant law and guidance

7. Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs) are paid to help towards the cost of adaptations to the home of a disabled person.
8. A council can only approve a grant if it considers works are necessary and appropriate to meet a person’s needs and that it is reasonable and practicable to carry out the works having regard to the age and condition of the property. (Section 23(3) Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996)
9. Good practice guidance in force in 2021 was Home Adaptations for Disabled People (2013) This was withdrawn in March 2022 because of updates to practice since it was issued. It said:
• The person must be provided with clear, comprehensive information and kept fully informed of the outcome of an assessment (7.19)
• Recommendations following assessment are best drawn up and agreed in discussion between all agencies involved. This can reduce the chance of miscommunication. The joint team of officers representing social services and housing may need to agree the appropriate service to identified standard needs. (7.58)
• Close collaboration between staff in the grants and OT service from the earliest stage will ensure there is a shared view of the adaptation work needed (9.4)
• Maximising value for money was a core objective (9.1)
• Councils could keep an approved list of builders for adaptation works, open to all contractors who meet a published set of criteria (9.14)
10. Disabled Facilities Grant Delivery: Guidance for Local Authorities in England is current guidance for councils. Although not applicable at the time officers assessed Mr Y in 2021, it came into force shortly before Mr X complained to the Council. The current guidance says:
1. councils may choose the lowest cost option (B82).
2. councils are normally required to get two quotes from different contractors. But they have discretion to require only one estimate where the estimate has been produced using a schedule of rates of framework agreement approved by the authority (B92)
3. public procurement rules do not apply (B94).

What happened

11. Mr Y has a physical disability. He wants the Council to provide him with a DFG to cover the cost of a step lift to the front of his house for access. The Council decided to fund a ramp through a patio door at the back of the house which would involve digging up the back garden and is not acceptable to the family. This led to Mr X complaining to the Council and then to us.
12. An occupational therapist (OT) visited Mr Y at his home in August 2021 and discussed options for access to the property at the front and back and adaptations to access the bathroom.
13. The OT called Mrs Y after the visit and said the Council would ‘need to consider a step lift as the first option to provide access to the front entrance.’ The OT noted the family’s agreement to reverse the bathroom door hinge, so it opened on the opposite side outwards. This was noted to be a minor adaptation. The records indicate the bathroom adaptation was processed and sent to the Council’s contractor. The works did not go ahead, possibly because more works were going to be needed to access the bathroom than the OT thought.
14. The case was allocated to a different OT in September. They arranged a joint visit with a Housing Improvement Officer. The second OT’s note of the visit said ‘the purpose was to complete a feasibility visit for major adaptations: door widening and reverse hanging to the bathroom to allow easier access to the toilet and shower area. Also to look at access to the property via a step lift.’ Both officers agreed it was feasible to widen the bathroom door by removing some of the wall on the left. The plan was for the Home Improvement Officer to look at the most cost-effective way of meeting Mr Y’s needs. Officers were concerned about the cost of the step lift and noted it would be cheaper to install a ramp from two patio doors at the back.
15. The OT left a phone message for Mrs Y to say the Council had agreed the bathroom adaptations in principle and the proposal was to install a ramp at the back of the property.
16. Mr X emailed the Home Improvement Officer in October 2021 to say he was not happy with the Council’s decision. He said the family did not use the back entrance, it would spoil the look of the house and may affect its value. He asked for a better solution. The Home Improvement Officer replied saying the company was the only contractor providing lifts for the Council and it had a responsibility to opt for the most feasible and cost-effective solution. So unless the family accepted the latest recommendation for a ramp, the Council would not provide any funding at all (so it would not provide funding for the alterations to the bathroom unless the family agreed to a ramp.)
17. The case notes indicate officers sent a letter to Mr Y with the recommendations for a ramp to the back. A case note in December indicated the family did not agree with the works the Council recommended. There appears to have been no further action on the case until Mr X’s complaint to the Council in June 2022. The Council’s response was:
• The Home Improvement Officer and OT carried out a joint visit where new information came to light that meant the initial recommendation for a step lift was no longer the most cost-effective way. During the visit, officers were made aware of another access to the property through a gate to the back garden and doors to the back of the property which could be altered in a cheaper way
• It would not allow internal adaptations to a property if the property could not be accessed safely. So the bathroom adaptations were cancelled when the family refused works to create safe access
• The Council would consider paying a cost equivalent DFG (this means the Council would provide funding to the value of the rear ramp and the family would need to pay the difference)
• It had a contract with one company to provide lifts. This company went through a tendering process to win the contract.

Was there fault?

The agreement about the step lift

18. Communication with Mr X and Mr Y was poor and this was fault. The first OT raised expectations of a step lift and did not make it clear that funding for this was not agreed. I would have expected the first OT to explain clearly to the family that the Council would consider the most cost-effective option to meet needs and made a written note of the discussion and followed it up in writing. That advice is absent from the case records. The OT’s practice did not meet the expected standards in guidance in force at the time (2021) which stressed the importance of clear, comprehensive information. The Council’s poor communication caused the family avoidable confusion.
19. A further visit took place with a different OT and a Home Improvement Officer. They identified a second option for access to and from the house at the back of the property which could be ramped which was cheaper than the step lift. There was no fault in proposing a more cost-effective way of meeting the need. This is allowed in the legislation as I have set out in paragraph eight which says the Council needs to consider if works are necessary and appropriate. Guidance in force at the time as I have set out in paragraph nine, was clear that cost and value for money can be a factor in this consideration.
20. In its complaint response in June 2022, the Council offered funding equivalent to the cost of the ramp, with the family paying the difference. This is in line with current guidance (see paragraph 10 (a).)

The bathroom

21. The Council did not give an adequate explanation for refusing the family funding for the works to the bathroom when it has offered equivalent funding for access and this is fault. There is nothing in the law or current or previous guidance that would suggest it was or is acceptable to make funding for one adaptation be made contingent on accepting funding for a package of adaptations to a different part of the home.
22. The refusal to fund the bathroom works having agreed them formally, caused Mr Y avoidable distress and loss of a chance to have appropriate access to bathroom facilities within the home. It also caused Mr X avoidable time and trouble complaining.

Only getting one quote for the step lift

23. In 2021, the applicable practice guidance suggested councils may choose to hold a list of approved contractors. That guidance has now been withdrawn because practice has changed over the years since it was issued. Current guidance specifies councils only need to get one quote where there has previously been a tendering exercise for specific works and that usual procurement rules do not apply. There is no fault in the Council’s practice. It uses one company for step lifts, but that company has gone through a tendering process which will have involved price as one factor.

Back to top

Agreed action

24. Since my investigation started, Mr Y’s mobility has declined and getting out of the house is even more difficult for him. An occupational therapist from the Council has visited Mr Y and his family recently and minor adaptations to the bathroom for the door frame to be widened and the door rehung are in the process of being organised. The occupational therapist is arranging a further urgent visit to the family with a home improvement officer to look at alternative temporary ways of access to the property. This is an appropriate way forward given the change in Mr Y’s condition.
25. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice as I have described in paragraphs 18 and 22. Within one month, the Council will:
• Repeat its offer to the family equivalent funding which includes the adaptations to the bathroom and funding to the value of the ramp. This will give the family the option to have the ramp installed or to pay the difference to have a step-lift. And to have the works to the bathroom done.
• Apologise
• Pay Mr X £100 to reflect his avoidable time and trouble complaining
• Pay Mr Y £500 to reflect the avoidable inconvenience and loss of access to facilities in his home.
• Review its policy of refusing internal adaptations if access to the property could not be made safe and provide us with an updated policy.
26. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

27. There was fault by the Council in the way it made decisions about funding adaptations to Mr Y’s bathroom and poor communication with him and his family about a step lift. Provisionally, the Council will apologise, make symbolic payments to reflect avoidable distress and time and trouble and take action set out in this statement.
28. I have completed the investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman