Summary: Mr X complains the Council has delayed in dealing with the adaptations to his home, leaving him without accessible washing facilities. There is no evidence of fault by the Council which has caused injustice to Mr X.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains the Council has delayed in dealing with the adaptations to his home, leaving him without accessible washing facilities.

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 a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
• spoken to Mr X about the complaint;
• considered the comments and documents the Council has provided in response to my enquiries;
• considered the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies; and
• invited comments on a draft of this statement from Mr X and the Council, for me to consider before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

5. When Mr X left hospital in November 2022, the Council arranged for reablement care workers to visit twice a day to help with washing, dressing, nutrition and some household tasks.
6. The Council visited Mr X on 1 December to review his needs. It extended the free reablement support until 28 December. It agreed to provide a bed rail and a toilet frame. It also identified the need for a level access shower and referred Mr Y for a disabled facilities grant (DFG).
7. The bed rail and toilet frame were delivered on 6 December.
8. Mr X received a letter from the Council on 14 December which mentioned a waiting list for adaptations because of the high demand but said it could not say how long he would have to wait. Mr X sent an e-mail complaining about the waiting time. The Council told him it could not prioritise his case. It said the waiting time for completing the DFG application form was four to five months. It apologised and said it would contact him when he got to the top of the list.
9. On 20 December Mr X complained the waiting time was unacceptable.
10. Mr X decided not to continue with a package of care after 28 December when the Council invited him to complete a financial assessment to see how much he would have to contribute towards the cost of his care. Mr X says he did not complete the financial assessment because he cannot afford to pay anything.
11. When the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint on 27 January 2023, it:
• apologised for the delay in responding;
• said it had arranged a package of care to meet his needs when he left hospital;
• said there was a high demand for major adaptations, which meant there was a longer waiting time than it wanted.
12. Mr X said he was not satisfied with its response, as the Council had simply repeated what it had already told him.
13. When the Council replied on 3 March, it denied having been at fault. It said:
• a care worker was visiting twice a day to help him get in and out of the bath until the level access shower was installed;
• the waiting time to start the grant application process was now around five to six months;
• there was no statutory timescale for starting the application process;
• it would process his request for a communal stair rail separately to the level access shower, to speed up its installation, and was seeking consent from his landlord for the rail to be fitted.
14. The Council fitted the stair rail at the end of March.
15. In May the Council started preparing the grant application for the level access shower. After visiting Mr X, it put the work out to tender in June.
16. One contractor visited Mr X and provided a quote to the Council. Another contractor visited Mr X but was unable to gain entry. Mr X says he told the contractor to telephone when he arrived, as the door entry system was not working, but the contractor did not call him. After speaking to Mr X, the contractor pulled out of the tender process, saying Mr X had been rude to him.
17. On 12 June Mr X told the Council he no longer wanted the work agreed with its surveyor. He was concerned that the quality of the fittings would not match the quality of those already in his bathroom.
18. On 13 June Mr X accused the Council of playing dirty games and tricks. The Council denied this. It said it was unacceptable to say it was playing dirty tricks and to use foul language when speaking to staff who were clearly trying to help him. It asked him to refrain from using foul language and making unfounded accusations. Mr X said people in power were all the same, including the whole of the Council. He said he used the same language when speaking to me.
19. On 2 July the Council told Mr X it was withdrawing support from its Private Housing Services with the DFG process because it could not meet his expectations, and because of reports of abusive and insulting behaviour towards staff and a contractor. The Council said its support was discretionary. It told him what he would need to do to proceed with his own scheme using DFG funding, which would not exceed the funding for the Council’s proposed scheme. Mr X has given no indication of wanting to do this.

Is there evidence of fault by the Council which caused injustice?

20. There is no statutory timescale for starting the DFG application process. In March 2022 the government issued non-statutory guidance: Disabled facilities Grant (DFG) Delivery: Guidance for local authorities in England (the DFG Guidance). It advises councils in England how they can effectively and efficiently deliver DFG funded adaptations to best serve the needs of local older and disabled people. It brings together and sets out in one place existing policy frameworks, legislative duties and powers, together with recommended best practice, to help councils provide an adaptation service to disabled tenants and residents in their area.
21. The DFG Guidance includes best practice targets for completing the four stages of the process from first contact to completion of the works. It says non-urgent and simple works, such as Mr X’s, should be completed within 130 working days. There is no way of knowing whether the works to Mr X’s home would have been completed within that timescale, as he did not agree for them to go ahead. Besides, the Ombudsman holds councils to account against the standards of good practice, not best practice.
22. The Council warned Mr X there was a waiting list for DFG applications. He put himself in a worse position than he needed to be in by refusing to complete a financial assessment and ending the interim support available to him. That did not provide grounds for the Council to prioritise Mr X’s case. After the Council started processing his DFG application, on the basis Mr X had agreed to the proposed works, he started questioning the basis of the scheme. It appears Mr X does not want to accept the work the Council could have arranged for him and is still prepared to fund.
23. The Council was not at fault for withdrawing its support to Mr X over the DFG. I can see no reason to dispute what it has said about his behaviour towards its staff and a contractor, given my own experience of speaking with him.
24. All of this indicates Mr X has not been caused injustice through fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I have completed my investigation on the basis there has been no fault by the Council which has caused injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman