Summary: We have found fault as there was a delay in the Council’s assessment of Mr B’s eligibility for adaptations to his property. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B and pay him £250.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains about the delay in providing him with an assessment to determine whether he was eligible for adaptations to his property.

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 have discussed the complaint with Mr B’s representative. I have considered the evidence that he and the Council have sent and the relevant law, guidance and policies.

Back to top

What I found

Disabled Facilities Grant

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

DFG Guidance

7. In March 2022 the government issued non-statutory guidance: ‘Disabled facilities Grant (DFG) Delivery: Guidance for local authorities in England’.
8. This Guidance advises councils in England on how they can effectively and efficiently deliver DFG funded adaptations. It brings together in one place existing policy frameworks, legislative duties and powers, together with recommended best practice.
9. The Guidance and the Act say:
• A grant cannot be approved if the works have already been completed.
• A grant cannot be approved if the works have already started unless there is a good reason why. 
10. The guidance identifies four key stages in delivering home adaptations. The relevant stage for Mr B’s complaint is stage 1:
• Stage 1: First contact to assessment of eligibility. An occupational therapist (OT) will assess the person’s needs and potential solutions through home adaptations.
11. The timescales for moving through the stages will depend on the urgency and complexity of the works required. The guidance gives the following timescales for complex works which are urgent/non-urgent:
• Stage 1: 20/35 working days, (4/7 weeks).

What happened

12. Mr B is an adult man who has a physical disability and lives in a bungalow.
13. Mr B contacted the Council on 28 October 2020 and asked for an assessment of eligibility for adaptations to his property. He said he had built an extension which housed a bedroom and wanted the Council to fund adaptations to his home. The works to the extension had not been fully completed and Mr B had run out of funds.
14. The Council employed an agency to carry out the OT assessments. The Council noted that Mr B and his property had been assessed in 2018 and that the Council had recommended adaptations to his property at that time, without the need for an extension. Mr B disagreed that the recommendations would meet his needs and so the works were not progressed.
15. The Council explained to Mr B that funding could not be agreed for works that had already been carried out or works that were needed to complete the extension. It agreed to treat his application as a new application.
16. An OT (OT 1) visited Mr B on 26 November 2020 and carried out the assessment.
17. The Council contacted Mr B on 6 January 2021. It said it was transferring the OT assessment service from the agency back in house. The new in-house service would contact him but there was a backlog so it may take some time.
18. The new OT (OT 2) tried to obtain the photos that OT 1 took of Mr B’s property when she visited him, but was unable to do so.
19. OT 2 carried out an assessment over the telephone on 8 February 2021 but could not complete the assessment without visiting the property. OT 2 visited the property on 18 February 2021 and completed the assessment. OT 2 contacted a different council (which is responsible for providing the DFG funding) to discuss the case. The relevant officer at the other council was not available during the first week of March. OT 2 discussed the case with the officer from the different council on 8 March 2021 and sent the final report to this council on 30 March 2021.

Further information

20. I asked the Council why it did not progress the matter after the first OT assessment in November 2020. The Council said: ‘regrettably, the department do not have a substantive explanation for the delay which occurred in the outcome of OT assessment being referred on’. It said it had addressed the performance and practice of the OT.

Analysis

21. Mr B asked the Council for an assessment in October 2020 and the assessment was not fully completed until February/March 2021 so that was outside of the guidelines set in the DFG guidance.
22. Of course, that does not mean necessarily that the delay was fault by the Council. I note that this was a complex case as Mr B had started works on the bungalow which he had not completed. I have taken that into consideration when deciding whether there was fault.
23. OT1 assessed Mr B on 26 November 2020 so there was no fault at this stage.
24. I am of the view that there was fault in the delay between 26 November 2020 and January/February 2021. I appreciate that the Council was bringing its OT service back in-house but that is not a justification for the delay. In addition, the Council cannot explain why the OT did not progress the matter in November 2020 after she visited Mr B. In essence, OT 2 had to start again when they visited Mr B on 18 February 2021 which contributed to the delay.

Back to top

Agreed action

25. The Council has agreed to the following actions within one month of the final decision. It will:
• Apologise in writing to Mr B.
• Pay Mr B £250 to reflect the distress and delay caused by the fault.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed the remedy to address the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman