Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to take appropriate action when she requested disability adaptations to her home. The Council is not at fault as it did not receive a referral for a disabled facilities grant for Ms X. The Council is at fault for the delay in responding to Ms X’s stage two complaint but this did not cause significant injustice to warrant a remedy from the Council.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains that the Council failed to take appropriate action when she asked with help with disability adaptations to her home. As a result, she had to arrange and pay for adaptations to allow her to use her bathroom.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

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 have:

• considered the complaint and the information provided by Ms X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the information provided;
• invited Ms X and the Council to comment on the draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

5. 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.
6. In March 2022 the government issued non-statutory guidance “Disabled facilities Grant (DFG) Delivery: Guidance for local authorities in England. The guidance identifies five key stages to delivering home adaptations:

• Stage 1: First contact with the service. Councils should ensure the public has access to information and advice about the DFG process.
• Stage 2: 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 3: 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 4: 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 5: Approval of grant to completion of works. The works are arranged and carried out and the necessary quality checks made.

What happened

7. The following is a summary of the key events relevant to my consideration of the complaint. It does not include everything that happened. In this summary I refer to Tewkesbury Borough Council as the Council.
8. Ms X has health conditions which affect her mobility. In autumn 2021, Ms X moved into a new property. Ms X has said that prior to moving in she contacted the Council to enquire about disabled adaptations to allow her to use the bathroom in her new property. An occupational therapist contacted Ms X a few days later. Ms X has said the occupational therapist was unhelpful and said she would need to see how she got on in her new home.
9. The Council has said it believes Ms X contacted the county council to ask about disabled adaptations and she did not contact it. The Council has said this as it does not have an receptionist with the name quoted by Ms X. The Council also believes the occupational therapist who contacted Ms X was from the county council. Ms X has also said the occupational therapist was from adult social care.
10. Ms X commissioned her own adaptations as she was unable to use the bathroom and had to travel to her previous property to shower. Ms X has also said she suffered injuries as a result of not being able to use the bathroom. The works commenced in early 2022.
11. In March 2022, Ms X made a complaint to the Council about a number of issues including that the Council had not considered her needs as a person with disabilities. The Council responded at stage one of its two stage complaints process. It advised that in order for the Council to consider a disabled facilities grant, it must receive a referral from an occupational therapist to recommend what works are necessary. Occupational therapy is a function of the county council. The Council acknowledged failings in responding to Ms X’s correspondence and offered its apologies for this.
12. Ms X requested her complaint be escalated to stage two in August 2022. The Council responded in November 2022. The responding officer said they believed from Ms X’s letter than an occupational therapist had visited their property in relation to a disabled facilities grant application. The Council’s records show the officer’s visit to Ms X in March 2022 was in relation to a council tax matter.
13. The Council’s procedures show it takes action to deal with a disabled facilities grant once it receives a referral from an occupational therapist which explains why adaptations are needed. On receipt of the referral it will arrange a visit to the property to be adapted to assess whether the property is fit for the adaptation and to complete the application for a disabled facilities grant.

Analysis

14. Ms X’s key complaint is about the occupational therapist refusing to assess her for a disabled facilities grant. But I do not consider the actions of the occupational therapist amount to fault by the Council. This is because the occupational therapist was acting on behalf of the county council.
15. I understand Ms X considers the Council should have referred her to its environmental health department to progress her application for adaptations when she first contacted it. However, the Council believes Ms X contacted the county council’s reception rather than its own. But even if Ms X did contact the Council, there would be no evidence of fault as the Council’s role commences on receipt of an occupational therapist’s referral. There is no evidence to show the occupational therapist made a referral to the Council for a disabled facilities grant for Ms X.
16. Ms X considers the Council should have contacted her to help with disability adaptations in response to an email she sent in late December 2021. On balance, I do not consider the Council to be at fault. The email covered a range of issues, and it is not clear if Ms X was requesting help with adaptations. But even if the Council should have acted on Ms X’s email, there is no significant injustice to Ms X. This is because Ms X had commissioned her own works which were due to start a few days after she sent the email.
17. The Council’s response to Ms X’s stage two complaint lacked clarity as it referred to the officer’s visit as a visit from an occupational therapist. The Council could have established this visit was from a visiting officer in relation to Ms X’s Council Tax. The Council also delayed in responding to Ms X’s stage two complaint which is fault and will have caused some frustration to Ms X. However, I recognise Ms X’s complaint about her request for adaptations was only a small part of the wider issues she raised. So, it is not proportionate for me to seek a remedy for any frustration this caused to Ms X.

Back to top

Final decision

18. The Council is not at fault as it did not receive a referral from an occupational therapist. The Council is at fault for the delay in responding to Ms X’s stage two complaint but this did not cause significant injustice to Ms X to warrant a remedy from the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman