Summary: Ms X complained there were failings in the way the Council dealt with her request for a Disabled Facilities Grant for works at her property. We found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters so have completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains there were failings in the way the Council has dealt with her request for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) to provide a downstairs toilet at her property causing distress. Ms X says the Council did not offer her any help, did not respond to her request for assistance and complaint and then closed the case.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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

5. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Disabled facilities grant (DFG)

7. 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.

The Council’s DFG procedure

8. The Council delivers the mandatory DFGs and offers range of discretionary grants to help older and disabled people to live as independently and safely as possible in their homes. When offering a DFG an applicant is subject to a financial means test and must remain in the property as only or main residence for five years.
9. As the DFG process is a statutory process the Council follows mandatory procedures. So, the Council makes an assessment by the OT that details the need for the applicant. The Council’s technical staff produce a schedule of works to meet the need at the dwelling, for builders to price against. The schedule will be based on the most efficient use of public funds to meet the need and takes into account whether it is reasonable or practical to achieve the adaptations at the property.

What happened

10. What follows is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain all the information I reviewed during my investigation.
11. The Council received a request to assess Ms X’s mobility and bathing needs in November 2022. Ms X requested help with a downstairs toilet and a utility room due to her health needs at her privately owned property. The Council booked the assessment for 1 December 2022, but it needed to be rebooked for 3 January 2023 as Ms X was unable to attend. Ms X did not attend the appointment on 3 January 2023.
12. The Council followed up the missed appointment with a telephone call. Ms X said she could manage stairs and planned to move home shortly. The Council advised it was unlikely to make a referral for a stairlift to access bathing facilities if a client can manage stairs. And it could not make a DFG referral if a person was unclear if they intended to stay in the property for 5 years. The Council told Ms X to contact it again if her situation, needs or position changed.
13. The Council received a further request for assessment in April 2023. An OT triaged Ms X’s request for the OT allocation waiting list. The Council contacted Ms X in July 2023 and arranged for an OT to visit her at home a week later. Following the assessment the OT referred Ms X to the Council for installation of a stair lift and level access shower facilities under a DFG. The OT also referred Ms X for minor works to install access grab rails. The OT did not consider Ms X needed a downstairs toilet as her needs could be met via a stairlift. The Council says it does not routinely assess for a utility room under a DFG.
14. Ms X complained to us in August 2023 the Council had not considered her request to provide her with a downstairs toilet. We decided Ms X’s complaint to us was premature because the Council had not had the opportunity to consider Ms X’s concerns first. We asked the Council to consider the complaint, and we closed Ms X’s case. We told Ms X of our decision and the Council’s complaints procedure should take about 12 weeks to complete. We told Ms X if she remained unhappy with the Council’s response to her complaint she could contact us again. We would then consider whether we should investigate the complaint.
15. The Council were advised by the stairlift company in November 2023 Ms X indicated she planned to move in the new year and no longer needed the stairlift. So, the Council placed the referral for a level access shower on hold as Ms X’s intention to move meant she was no longer eligible for a DFG. The Council telephoned Ms X to confirm the position. When Ms X did not answer an officer left a message and asked Ms X to make contact if required.
16. Ms X complained to us again in August 2024 the Council had not respond to her complaint from August 2023 and closed her case. We contacted the Council about the complaint to confirm it had completed the Council’s complaints procedure and responded to our premature referral in August 2023. The Council confirmed it had not received a formal complaint from Ms X and would respond to her now. We noted the Council had not responded to our request to consider Ms X’s complaint in August 2023.
17. The Council contacted Ms X about the assessment for a DFG for adaptations. It noted she had been assessed for a stairlift to be installed and a level access shower. But the referral suspended when Ms X advised she would be selling the property to move in early 2024. The Council asked Ms X to confirm if she had moved. Ms X replied she had intended to move but did not do so for financial reasons.
18. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint. It explained the action taken to deal with her requests and referrals in November 2022 and July 2023. The Council considered it had responded to Ms X’s request for assessments in a timely way and offered a home visit in 2023. When told by the stairlift company in November 2023 Ms X intended to move so no longer required the stairlift, the Council had correctly suspended the referral for a level access shower. It said Ms X then became ineligible for DFG funding.
19. The Council confirmed when it makes a follow up call after being advised by a third party a client’s position/intentions have changed, and this will impact on a client’s eligibility for funding, it will now follow up with a letter of confirmation when there is no response to the call.
20. The Council told Ms X it could reactivate her original DFG referral for a stairlift and level access shower. But if her needs had changed it could arrange for a reassessment. However, for the referral Ms X needed to confirm an intention to remain in her home for the next five years.
21. Ms X responded and requested a walk-in shower room and new driveway rather than a downstairs toilet. The Council added Ms X to its OT allocation list in November 2024 for a review of the DFG referral.

My assessment

22. Ms X has raised concerns about the Council’s response to her requests for a DFG from 2022 onwards. As paragraph three explains we cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. However, I have decided there are good reasons to exercise discretion in this case to consider matters which are over 12 months old. This is because the Council does not appear to have received our request to consider Ms X’s complaint in August 2023. The Council says it has as has no record of a formal complaint being made before August 2024. This is unfortunate although it was open to Ms X to have complained to us sooner when she did not receive a response from the Council.
23. The Council has explained and provided evidence about the referral received in November 2022 and appointments booked for assessment which Ms X did not attend. The Council contacted Ms X who confirmed she could manage the stairs and planned to move. The Council did not pursue the referral further according to DFG legislation and its policy as Ms X expressed an intention to move. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with Ms X’s referral in 2022.
24. The Council explained how it dealt with Ms X’s second request in April 2023. The evidence shows it carried out a home visit and an OT assessed Ms X as needing a stairlift and level bathing facilities. It did not consider Ms X needed a downstairs toilet. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council has made the decision as it considered the OT assessment when deciding how to meet Ms X’s needs.
25. The Council was advised again Ms X intended to move and Ms X subsequently confirmed this in her contact with the Council in 2024. The Council placed a hold on the referral and contacted Ms X to confirm her position. It left a message when Ms X did not answer the telephone call. The Council confirms it will now follow up with a letter when advised by a third party a client’s position or intentions have changed. This is suitable action for it to take.

Back to top

Decision

26. I find no evidence of fault by the Council when dealing with Ms X’s request for a DFG.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman