Summary: A council tenant complained about the Council’s refusal to install an upstairs toilet in her property in view of her disabilities. But we will not investigate the complaint as there is insufficient sign of fault in the way the Council considered this matter.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Miss B, complained that the Council had unreasonably refused her request for a toilet to be installed in her upstairs shower room in the light of her disability needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if, for example, we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way a council 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information the Housing Ombudsman Service provided in referring Miss B’s complaint to us. I also took account of the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

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. But 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 addition, sections 9 and 10 of the Care Act 2014 require councils to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support.
7. Miss B rents her property from the Council. The property has bedrooms and a shower room on the first floor, but the only toilet is on the ground floor.
8. Miss B suffers from physical conditions which restrict her mobility. Miss B said she needs to visit the toilet several times a night but using the stairs is difficult, and potentially dangerous, because of her disabilities. Miss B said she had suffered falls going downstairs.
9. In late 2020 Miss B asked the Council to install a toilet in her shower room. A Council Occupational Therapist (OT) carried out an assessment at Miss B’s home in 2021. But the Council decided an upstairs toilet was not required and that Miss B’s needs could be met by using a commode.
10. Miss B asked the Council to review this decision. As a result, a second OT did another assessment. The OT recommended a minor repair and adaptation to the stairs and made an adjustment to Miss B’s commode. But she also reached the view that there was no need for an upstairs toilet.
11. Miss B subsequently complained to the Council. However, the Council rejected her complaint saying that it was obliged to offer the most cost-effective option and the adaptations she wanted were not an appropriate or proportionate way of meeting her needs.
12. Our role is not to ask if a council could have done things differently, or if we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how a council made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in a council’s decision- making, we cannot ask it to change that decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
13. But I do not see we would have grounds to question the Council’s decisions in Miss B’s case. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way it made those decisions.
14. In particular, the Council’s OT’s clearly carried out detailed assessments in person in Miss B’s case as required by law. These assessments evidently took account of Miss B’s views and her health and mobility issues. They also considered other relevant factors such as the layout of the property and the availability of support for Miss B.
15. But at the end of the day it was for the OT’s to exercise their own professional judgement in deciding what provisions should be made to meet Miss B’s needs. I consider the OT’s reached reasoned views based on relevant information in her case, and I am not convinced there is sign of fault in the Council’s decision-making process in this respect. Therefore, I do not see we would be justified in starting an investigation in Miss B’s case.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to install an upstairs toilet in her property to cater for her disabilities. This is because there is insufficient sign of fault by the Council to justify our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman