Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not assist with the extra cost of using electric heaters whilst he was waiting for disabled adaptations. The Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council provided electric heaters in late 2020, as a temporary measure whilst he was waiting for disabled adaptations to be completed, but did not consider how he could pay the additional electricity costs incurred, nor offered any assistance with those costs.
2. Mr X’s daughter, Ms Y, who is supporting him to make this complaint, said Mr X had incurred additional costs of £2,000 over the winter 2020-21, which led to arrears accruing.

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. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
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 the information provided on behalf of Mr X and by the Council in response to my enquiries.
7. Mr X, Ms Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision and I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

8. Mr X lives with his daughter, Ms Y, and her children. By 2020, his mobility had deteriorated to the point he could no longer manage the stairs. He started sleeping downstairs and asked for an assessment by an occupational therapist (OT) with a view to adaptations being made to the property.
9. An OT carried out an assessment in 2020. This noted Mr X had a number of difficulties accessing the property, due to it being on different levels, with steps on the upper level to access the bathroom and Mr X’s former bedroom, and a steep ramp leading to the downstairs shower room, which was too small to allow carer access. The OT said Mr X needed level access to a ground floor bedroom, shower and living area.

Disabled facilities grant

10. Mr X applied for a disabled facilities grant (DFG) to fund the adaptations. Mr X lives in an area where there is a two-tier system. This means the DFG is administered by the district council. I have not investigated the actions of the district council.
11. A feasibility assessment determined the cost of the proposed extension would exceed the £30K limit for a DFG. The district council said the DFG application could not proceed until funding for the full works had been arranged.
12. One option was to make a hardship application to this Council for the shortfall. To consider the application, the Council needed to carry out a financial assessment. This was complicated because Mr X’s assets were in a family trust, and there was ongoing court action in relation to the property. After seeking legal advice, the Council set out the documents it needed to consider the hardship application, but the family did not provide them, and the application could not proceed. This meant the district council could not made its decision about the DFG.
13. The Council also considered a reduced scheme that it expected could be achieved within the £30k DFG limit, but this would involve Mr X having one room to use as both a bedroom and sitting room. Mr X declined this option as he wanted to have two separate rooms. The scheme would, however, have provided for the level access ground floor bedroom, shower and living area that the OT assessed he needed.

Hot water and heating

14. Separately, the district council had offered to facilitate works to the property’s hot water and heating system. This Council provided electric heaters in October 2020 as a temporary measure until that work was completed. It says it gave advice about which rooms the heaters were to be used in, and specifically said one room Mr X was using was not suitable for use as a bedroom. It has not been able to provide a record of this advice. It said this was because this was a small part of the work that was discussed with the family and the case notes only provide a summary of those discussions.
15. The district council wrote to Mr X in October 2020 about the proposed works to the heating system. A further letter was sent in January 2021, which said Mr X had to confirm his acceptance by mid February, otherwise the offer would be withdrawn. Mr X did not accept the offer. Ms Y said this was because there were errors on the forms he was asked to sign.
16. Mr X complained in December 2021 that he had been left with heaters but no access to funds to cover the additional electricity costs of using them. He asked the Council to collect the heaters and settle the debt caused by their use.
17. The Council responded in January 2022. It said the heaters had been provided as a temporary measure, whilst Mr X was considering the offer from the district council to upgrade the central heating at the property, because it recognised that not all rooms were adequately heated. Mr X had not responded to the district council’s offer by the deadline date so the offer had lapsed. The Council said Mr X could keep the heaters and suggested he contact the Citizens Advice Bureau for support with the arrears that had built up.
18. In further communications in April and May 2022, Mr X raised concerns the heaters had not been PAT tested and an incorrect plug was fitted, causing damage to a socket for which he had had to call an electrician. The Council responded the heaters were new so did not need PAT testing and would have been supplied with appropriate plugs and fuses. I have seen an invoice dated October 2020 confirming the heaters were new when provided to Mr X.
19. In June, the Council confirmed the OT had advised the room Mr X was using was not suitable as a bedroom and that he should use a different downstairs room, which would be more easily heated. It had provided the heaters as it was concerned that Mr X was using rooms that were too cold, but he had ignored the OT’s advice, which resulted in increased electricity costs. It proposed a meeting with the family to resolve the situation.
20. Following discussions with the family and further input from the OT and a heating engineer, the Council agreed to carry out work to the heating system, which was completed by November 2022.

Back to top

My findings

21. The Council carried out an assessment of Mr X’s needs when he became unable to use the stairs at his current home. The assessment said Mr X needed a level access ground floor bedroom, shower and living area. There is no complaint about the assessment.
22. Mr X applied for a DFG to fund the adaptations. Since the proposed extension would cost more than the DFG limit, the Council considered a hardship application to cover the shortfall. It was not able to decide that application because the family did not provide the documents it needed to do so. This meant the district council could not proceed with the DFG application.
23. In the circumstances, although from Mr X’s perspective, there has been a long delay in providing the extension he wanted, this was not due to fault by the Council. The Council also considered a reduced scheme, which would have met Mr X’s assessed needs. This was appropriate action by the Council. Mr X declined the reduced scheme, as he was entitled to do.
24. Separately, Mr X needed an upgrade to the hot water and heating at the property. The Council agreed to provide heaters as a temporary measure whilst that work was completed as it recognised some rooms were too cold for Mr X.
25. It would have been good practice to set out the advice given to Mr X about the heaters and which rooms they were intended for either in its case notes or in a letter to the family. However, I accept this was a small part of the discussions and that case notes will not provide a record of everything that is said. On that basis, I do not find the Council was at fault for not keeping a record of the specific advice given.
26. Although this means there is no record to confirm which rooms were and were not suitable for Mr X to use as bedrooms, the records do show that he needed a level access, which the room he decided to use as a bedroom did not provide. Further, the room he decided to use was not designed as a bedroom or intended to be used as such so it is likely the OT would have advised against using that room as a bedroom.
27. There is no indication the Council said it would offer any assistance with the costs of using the heaters, and the provision of heaters was sufficient to meet the assessed need for Mr X to have an adequately heated ground floor bedroom. The complaint correspondence indicates Mr X was aware when the heaters were provided that it would be more expensive to heat the room he decided to use as a bedroom than other ground floor rooms. Finally, the provision of heaters was intended as a short term measure, pending further works to the heating system, which were delayed for reasons outside the Council’s control.
28. On balance, taking all these factors into account, the Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I have completed my investigation. I have not found fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman