Summary: We found fault in the way the Council handled the complainant’s (Miss X) Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). This fault caused Miss X injustice. The Council agreed to apologise, make payments for the delays in carrying out remedial works and distress and review its process of supervising the quality of works carried out by its contractors.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the way the Council adapted her bathroom using her DFG. She complains about:

• The size of bath and its location;
• Incorrect hand wash basin and taps;
• The size of the water tank;
• Shower sited incorrectly;
• Wrong extractor fan;
• Blind set up back to front;
• No refund for heated towel rail/cupboard and shower screen.

2. Miss X says she cannot use her bath without discomfort. The way the Council dealt with her DFG, she says, affected her physical and mental health.

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. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
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 spoke with Miss X and considered the information she provided.
7. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information it provided.
8. I reviewed the Council’s ‘Disabled Facilities Adaptations Policy’ updated in September 2019 (the Policy).
9. I referred to our Focus Report ‘Making a house a home: Local Authorities and disabled adaptations’ of March 2016.
10. Miss 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

Legal and administrative background

11. 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.
12. Relevant councils must promote ‘wellbeing’ when carrying out care and support functions. Wellbeing includes the suitability of living accommodation. The Care Act 2014 recognises suitable accommodation as one way of meeting care and support needs. Prevention is critical to the Care Act and home adaptation is an example of secondary prevention.
13. The Policy clarifies DFG processes and criteria applied when considering applications:
• A joint visit involving Occupational Therapist (OT) and a council surveyor is needed where it is unclear how best to adapt the property to meet the disabled person’s needs (par. 5.3.1);
• The surveyor should at the time of the joint visit undertake a detailed survey of the property, discuss with the disabled person their circumstances and note their views and wishes;
• Before any scheme of adaptations is processed the council should be satisfied the adaptation works, in the opinion of the council, are reasonable and practicable, having regard to the age and the condition of the dwelling;
• In deciding whether any works are necessary and appropriate the council shall take into account:
1. the recommendations of OT;
2. whether the proposed works are the least expensive option or, if there are reasonable special circumstances to warrant a more expensive option;
3. whether the scheme is unduly influenced by the desires/aspiration of the disabled occupant rather than actual need;
• Every effort should be made to assist a disabled person, with the circumstances of each case being considered individually;
• The council has a duty to satisfy itself that any proposed adaptations are reasonable and that it is practicable to undertake those works;
• Disabled persons should be advised that if their desires/aspirations exceed what is considered to be reasonable, then they will be required to fund any additional costs themselves;
14. On conclusion of the adaptation scheme the Policy states:
• The council must satisfy themselves the works have been undertaken in a proper and workmanlike manner; any deviations from the original recommendations must be discussed and agreed with the OT before they proceed;
• The disabled person shall be consulted on whether they consider the works to be satisfactory;
• The council will have the overriding decision as to whether works have been completed to a satisfactory standard and therefore whether to release payment to the contractor;
• The OT should confirm in writing if the adaptation does not meet the disabled person needs due to the work not being carried out in accordance with their specification.

What happened

Events leading to DFG

15. In the beginning of January 2021 an Occupational Therapist (OT 1) carried out a remote assessment of Miss X’s needs for bathroom adaptations. Due to her medical needs she asked to replace her shower with a bath.
16. A few days later Miss X sent to the Council a letter from her general practitioner (GP) supporting her request.
17. In the second week of April a site visit in Miss X’s property took place. Technical officer (TO) from the Council could not attend but OT 1 discussed choices for the adaptations with Miss X. The Council recorded the bathroom was small and would not allow a bath of 1500mm which would be acceptable to meet Miss X's medical needs, unless the toilet and sink were moved and the bath placed under the window. During the meeting Miss X mentioned the toilet was too low and needed replacing.
18. During a telephone conversation a day later OT 1 discussed with Miss X the size of the bath she needed and how Miss X’s medical needs determined it. Miss X suggested to place the bath along the wall in place of the sink and the toilet. She explained she wished to copy the set-up of the bathroom in her neighbour’s flat, of which she provided the details. OT 1 responded she would liaise with the surveyor about Miss X’s request.
19. TO prepared altogether three plans of the adaptation works – all of them dated June 2021. In the first plan the bath was along the wall with the window, on two other ones the bath was located on the wall with the shower cubicle. In its comments to my draft decision the Council explained if the bath were to be installed along the wall with the window, the water tank would have to be moved from the bathroom. There was no space to move it to apart from a large storage cupboard next to the bathroom. Miss X did not want to lose the cupboard space.
20. In the beginning of July OT 1 and TO carried out a joint visit at Miss X’s property. They explained to Miss X the grant would only include installing a bath, raised toilet, hand basin and redecorating the bathroom. The Council would not provide a tiled floor. The Council could leave an existing shower in place. During the works the contractors found the shower was not safe and had to replace it.
21. A few days after the joint site visit Miss X called the Council’s OT Team Manager expressing her upset about:
• Not being listened to during the last visit;
• Not allowing her friend to be present during the visit; being on her own she felt she was bullied and dictated to;
• Lack of explanation for the change of previous plans;
• The effect of the visit on her mental health and mood as she had depression and anxiety;
• Not having an opportunity to explain she was willing to pay for extras she asked for;
22. The OT Team Manager explained the way any extras could be priced up by the contractor and funded by Miss X. She also agreed to the change of OT, asked by Miss X.
23. Following allocation of Miss X’s case to a new OT (OT 2) another site visit took place in mid-July. Miss X’s friend and neighbour took part in this meeting. Miss X showed OT 2 plans she received from OT 1 with the bath installed along the back wall and the water tank moved into the space above her flat. However OT 2 told Miss X the plans he received from TO planned for a direct swap of the shower cubicle with a bath. As OT 2 could not explain the reasons for the change in the plans, he said he would visit again with TO. Apart from the raised toilet due to her medical needs Miss X also asked for a new deeper sink with lever taps. During the visit, at the request of Miss X’s neighbour, OT 2 went to his flat placed on the top floor, where the water tank was moved to the loft space.
24. In the beginning of August OT 2 and TO tried to visit Miss X’s property, after pre-arranging this visit by phone. Miss X was at the surgery at the time and had no memory of the Council arranging this meeting. When contacting the OT Team Manager about the replacement visit, Miss X asked for a change of a technical officer.
25. At the end of August a feasibility visit in Miss X’s property took place with the Property Services Manager and OT 2 present. For a short time Miss X’s neighbour also took part in the meeting. The Property Services Manager explained to Miss X:
• It would not be possible to fit a water tank above the bathroom as this would impact on the flat above;
• The width of the bathroom can be increased by relocating the wall with the shower into the cupboard space behind, this would allow fitting a towel rail on the wall beside the bath;
• A larger sink could be installed after increasing the space;
• The height of the toilet which Miss X’s needed.
26. Although both plans sent to us in response to my enquiries by the Council have a date of June 2021, on balance of probabilities it seems TO revised his original plan at some point in September 2021 and in the end of September Miss X sent OT 2 the measurements of the towel rail she chose.
27. In the second week of October OT 2 and the contractor visited Miss X’s property. They discussed with Miss X details of the adaptations work, including non-slip flooring, following the plan prepared in the beginning of September.

DFG and completion of the works

28. In mid-November the Council approved DFG for adaptations in Miss X’s bathroom by replacing her shower with a bath.
29. The Council’s contractors completed Miss X’s bathroom adaptation works in the fourth week of January 2022. Miss X was upset when she saw the bath was shorter than discussed as she was not told about this.
30. At the end of February a home visit on completion of adaptation works took place with OT 2, contractor and Miss X attending. Miss X was unhappy with the size of the bath and found the back support and raised grips on the bottom of the bath uncomfortable. OT 2 did not consider fitting a 200mm longer bath would help in meeting Miss X’s needs. The contractor said it would not be possible to fit a bath along the wall with the window. Miss X experienced OT 2 and the contractor’s behaviour as bullying and she did not think they listened to her.

Communication after completion of the DFG works

31. In the second week of March Miss X contacted OT 2 and complained about the quality of some of the bathroom adaptation works.
32. Later in March Miss X had a visit from the contractor’s supervisor with the Council’s representative and a new contractor’s employee. Miss X only arranged to meet with the contractor’s supervisor. Although the new contractor’s employee did not actively take part in the meeting, Miss X felt overwhelmed by the visitors. In Miss X’s view OT 2 should have been aware of her individual needs as she communicated them previously. The contractor’s supervisor agreed to addressing some issues raised by Miss X.
33. OT 2 contacted Miss X in the beginning of July and found out that a few months back the Council’s representative visited with the contractor. They agreed to replace a cracked bathroom tile, adjust the blind and move the shower controls to the end of the wall beside the shower rail. Miss X was very unhappy as there was no follow up and OT 2 said the Council closed her case. She said she could not use the bathroom and wished to raise a complaint.
34. In mid-July Miss X formally complained about the DFG adaptation works claiming the bathroom was not suitable for her needs. Some of the issues she criticised the contractors for were:
• Reduced the size of the bath in relation to the plans without any consultation with her;
• Installed the bath with a tread pattern which made sitting in it uncomfortable;
• Failed to move the shower;
• Installed the water tank which was too small;
• Blocked the air vents and cracked some tiles;
• Installed a non-slip flooring, which was rough and difficult to clean.
35. At the end of July the Council assigned Miss X’s case to a new OT (OT 3).
36. In the beginning of August OT 3 and the Council’s representative visited Miss X’s property. Miss X’s sister supported her. The Council’s representative identified the outstanding works, undertook liaison with the contractor and agreed to carry out a reassessment once the works had been done.
37. At the reassessment visit in September Miss X denied she had not allowed the contractor access to her property at the end of August. She confirmed the contractor corrected the blind but could not move the shower unit as he did not have correct tiles. Miss X was distressed the contractor misrepresented her to the Council. OT 3 promised to explain the situation to the Council. Reassessing the bathroom OT 3 noted:
• Toilet was fitted properly and was at the right height;
• The sink was wrong and needed longer taps;
• Miss X asked to put a cap on the extractor fan from outside which would help to heat the bathroom;
• It would be useful to put an extra grab rail at the end of the bath to support Miss X’s transfers in and out of it;
• Miss X was not happy with the shower unit location;
• Miss X said the size of the bath was not big enough to allow necessary treatment – OT 3 watched Miss X’s transfers to and from the bath and her positioning when sitting in the bath;
• Miss X complained about the capacity of her water tank;
38. OT 3 noted Miss X had an injury recently which affected her transfers to and from the bath. She suggested using bath lifts.
39. After another home visit from OT 3 in the second week of October, OT 3 completed her assessment and sent it to Miss X. It stated:
• Bath position and size should remain;
• Shower unit should be moved from the back wall to the end wall;
• The contractor would explore an alternative extractor fan to reduce cold air coming in;
• The taps on the wash hand basin would be replaced by the longer ones and the plug would be changed;
• The trickle vents on the window would be changed;
40. In the second week of November Miss X asked OT 3 whether it would be possible to trial both bath lifts as she could not use the bath without pain and discomfort. OT 3 ordered these lifts.
41. The lifts did not help Miss X in the transfers.
42. Having not received a formal response to her complaint, Miss X asked to escalate it in the second week of December.
43. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint in the beginning of January 2023. It confirmed stage one response was sent to Miss X by post and re-sent by email a few days after Miss X’s communication in December. To address Miss X’s complaint the Council asked OT 3 to carry out an assessment of the adaptation works. OT 3 completed the assessment in October. The Council told Miss X the contractors would contact her to arrange a suitable time to undertake necessary works. Miss X was not satisfied with the Council’s response. She complained about the lack of funding for some bathroom equipment she bought herself. Miss X confirmed the contractor has already fixed the air vents in her bathroom. As she did not agree with the extent of works the Council found out as necessary, Miss X did not want the contractor to undertake any works until we resolve her complaint.
44. In the beginning of February the Council wrote to Miss X asking her to respond to the contractors who would carry out remedial works in Miss X’s bathroom.

Analysis

45. As explained under paragraph four when considering this complaint I did not examine the extent of works which Miss X’s DFG should have covered. This is for the Council to decide. We cannot criticise the Council’s decision provided it followed the right process.
46. After reviewing Miss X’s complaint and all the evidence I found when carrying out the DFG process the Council failed to:
• Tell Miss X of all the changes to the plan, including the size of the bath; although we have evidence the Council’s OTs and TO consulted Miss X about the extent of works needed and held a few site visits, she was unaware of the reduced bath size in relation to the ones described in the plans and the location of a shower and a towel rail. The Council also failed to consult Miss X about the type of the bath. This is fault which caused Miss X injustice. She was distressed as did not feel respected throughout the process. I do not consider, however, the lack of information on the change of the bath size and lack of consultation on the type affected the result of the adaptations as during the later visits and reassessments OTs advising the Council did not recommend a change of Miss X’s bath. The Council has already accepted it needed to move the shower.
• Supervise adaptation works to ensure good workmanship; in our Focus Report mentioned under paragraph nine of this decision we explain councils who carry out work on behalf of the DFG applicant should manage contractors and are responsible for the quality of works. There is no evidence the Council supervised works in Miss X’s bathroom when they were carried out. This is fault which caused Miss X injustice by delaying making her bathroom fully usable and meeting her needs;
• Carry out within the reasonable timescales the remedial works agreed at the meetings in February and March 2022 and then recommended in OT 3’s assessment finalised in October. This is fault and meant when using her bathroom Miss X had inconveniences affecting her health and well-being.
47. I do not find fault in the Council’s refusal to refund a cabinet, a towel rail and a shower screen which Miss X bought. These elements were not part of Miss X’s DFG and during the site visits before November 2021 the Council explained to Miss X she would be responsible for buying them. This is in line with the Policy.
48. On the existing evidence I cannot decide whether Miss X’s claims some members of the Council’s staff treated her without respect are justified. We have evidence the Council:
• Responded to Miss X’s correspondence and organised site visits before and after adaptation works to consult and discuss matters with her;
• Gave Miss X advance notice of any visits, even if on one occasion it failed to tell her there would be more than one person attending;
• Changed members of staff, such as OTs, when asked by Miss X;
49. Although Miss X complained about feeling overwhelmed by three members of staff coming to the meeting in March 2022, she also mentioned one person was not actively taking part in the meeting. When looking at the Council’s case notes recording meetings with Miss X, in some but not all of them Miss X had support of a family member or a friend. The lack of consistency might have confused members of the Council’s staff on the adaptations she might have needed.

Remedies

50. We have published the guidance to explain how we calculate remedies for people who have suffered injustice because of fault by a council. Our primary aim is to put people back in the position they would have been in if the fault by the Council had not occurred.
51. Where a complainant has been deprived of modifications which would have improved their daily life, we would usually recommend a remedy payment in the range of £150 to £350 a month. In deciding the right figure, we consider the impact on the complainant and take account of factors such as:
• the extent of the adaptations needed;
• the individual circumstances of the person needing adaptations; and
• the adequacy of current or interim arrangements.
52. The Council failed to ensure the contractor completed all the remedial works in Miss X’s bathroom from the end of March till the end of July 2022. After this time an OT assessment and some remedial works took place. From January 2023 the Council offered to complete all the works assessed as needed.
53. For the inconvenience caused by the delay of four months in carrying out remedial works in Miss X’s bathroom we consider a payment of £150 a month is appropriate.

Back to top

Agreed action

54. We recommend within four weeks the Council complete the following:
• Apologise to Miss X for the injustice caused to her by the faults identified;
• Pay Miss X £600 for the injustice caused by the delay in ensuring the remedial works were carried out in her bathroom;
• Pay Miss X £300 to recognise the distress caused to her by the faults identified.
55. We recommend within six weeks the Council complete the outstanding remedial works recommended at the meetings in February and March 2022 and by the Occupational Therapy assessment finalised in October 2022. The Council will keep records of any communication with Miss X about the remedial works and will submit them instead of the evidence of the works completion, if for the reasons outside the contractor’s and the Council’s control, the completion of these works proves impossible.
56. We also recommend within three months the Council review its Disabled Facilities Grant process to ensure it supervises the works carried out by its contractors and any remedial works are undertaken within reasonable timescales.

The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

57. I uphold this complaint. I found fault within the Council’s Disabled Facilities Grant process, which caused injustice to Miss X. The Council has accepted my recommendations, so this investigation is at an end.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman