Summary: Mr F complained the Council had refused to adapt his property and failed to provide sufficient respite care. We found no fault.

The complaint

1. Mr F complains the Council has:
• refused to adapt his property to enable his wife to leave the house.
• failed to provide sufficient respite care and support for him as a carer.
2. Mr F says as a result his wife is housebound and suicidal and he is exhausted.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
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

What I have and have not investigated

6. Mr F has been complaining to the Council about these matters since 2018. I have only investigated what has happened since 2022. This is because, as set out in paragraph 4, we cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. I consider it would have been reasonable for Mr F to complain to us sooner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I spoke to Mr F about his complaint and considered the information he sent, the Council’s response to my enquiries and:
• Care and Support statutory guidance 2015.
• Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) Delivery: Guidance for local authorities in England, non-statutory guidance 2022.
8. Mr F 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

Relevant law and guidance

Care and support

9. The Care Act 2014 requires local authorities to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. The assessment determines what the person's needs are and whether the person has any needs which are eligible for support from the council.
10. Where councils have determined that a person has any eligible needs, they must meet those needs. The person's needs and how they will be met must be set out in a care and support plan.
11. Local authorities are not required to meet any eligible needs which are being met by a carer, but those needs should be recognised and recorded as eligible during the assessment process. (Care and Support Statutory Guidance, para 6.115)

Support for carers

12. Where somebody provides care for another adult and it appears the carer may have any needs for support, the council must carry out a carer’s assessment. A carer’s assessment must seek to find out not only the carer’s needs for support, but also the sustainability of the caring role itself.
13. The Care Act 2014 says the council may meet the carer’s needs by providing a service directly to the adult needing care.

Disabled Facilities Grants

14. Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG) are provided to help towards the cost of adaptations to the home of a disabled person. The maximum grant payable by a council is £30,000. A council can award other discretionary help if it thinks it is necessary using discretionary powers under the Regulatory Reform (Housing Assistance) Order 2002. The grant amount is subject to a means test.
15. A council can only approve a grant if it considers the works are necessary and appropriate to meet a person’s needs and that it is reasonable and practicable to carry out the works, having regard to the age and condition of the property. (Section 23(3) Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996)
16. Before approving a grant, the council must assess the disabled person’s needs and recommend how these needs may be met by home adaptations. This assessment is usually done by an occupational therapist. There will then be a recommendation to the council as the housing authority, to determine the feasibility, practicality and reasonableness of the works. A council should decide a grant application as soon as reasonably practicable.
17. In cases where major adaptations are required and it is difficult to provide a cost-effective solution, councils may consider the possibility of supporting a person to move to a more suitable home.

What happened

Background

18. Mr and Mrs F live in their own home. Mrs F has care and support needs. Her care and support plan says she requires support with personal and continence care, meal preparation and laundry. She has a package of homecare arranged by the Council. This consists of two carers visiting four times a day.
19. Mrs F sleeps in the kitchen and uses a commode as she is unable to access the rest of the property. Mr F works full time but also cares for his wife. The Council pays Mr F a direct payment to enable him to commission support to help with domestic chores and shopping.
20. Mrs F requires a bariatric electric wheelchair, but one cannot be provided by the NHS as it would not fit through the doors of their home. Mr and Mrs F applied for a DFG in 2012 to make adaptations to their home to enable Mrs F to use the rest of the property and more easily go out. The Council determined that it was not reasonable or practicable to adapt their home as it would cost significantly more than £30,000 and there were structural difficulties. The Council said Mr and Mrs F should move to a different property.
21. Mr F has been complaining since about the DFG decision, lack of an electric wheelchair, lack of respite and quality of the homecare. I have seen that the Council responded to him each time he complained.

Mr F’s 2022 complaint

22. Mr F wrote to the Council on 20 March 2022, enclosing questions about the issues he has been complaining about. On 26 March he made a new complaint as the Council had not answered his questions. Mr F complained about the lack of an electric wheelchair and quality of homecare. He said it was very difficult for Mrs F to go outside, as only a manual wheelchair fitted through the door but it could not be pushed. Mr F said this was having a significant effect on Mrs F’s mental health and she was suicidal. In addition, he was exhausted as he had to do jobs the carers would not do, such as large amounts of laundry, and because of a lack of respite as no suitable residential placements could be found. This caused him to “crash” and was affecting his health.
23. The Council replied on 1 June. It said it was not responsible for provision of an electric wheelchair and would not correspond about issues which it had already addressed. The Council’s decision on the DFG, following a re-consideration in January 2022, was that it was not reasonable and practicable to adapt the property and that it would support Mr and Mrs F to move home. It would issue a new DFG decision letter to confirm this. The Council replied to Mr F’s concerns about the homecare and said agency carers were not expected to undertake duties which could otherwise be undertaken by partners or family members. It would review Mr F’s carer support.
24. The Council wrote to Mr and Mrs F on 12 July setting out the DFG decision. It reviewed Mr F’s needs as a carer in September. This determined that Mr F required direct payments to purchase support with cooking, domestic chores and shopping. In December, the Council reduced Mr F’s hours from eight to six, following a temporary increase in May 2022.
25. Mr F complained to the Ombudsman in August 2023.
26. In September 2023, the Council agreed to ask a surveyor to visit Mr and Mrs F’s home to consider the practicality of the adaptations. This visit took place on 2 November. The surveyor considered that all the adaptations requested would cost about £90,000 and were unlikely to be practicable for structural reasons. However, only adapting the back door to enable access for a bariatric electric wheelchair could be feasible. The Council wrote to Mr and Mrs F on 22 December. It said it could approve a DFG to adapt their back door but the other adaptations were not reasonable or practicable. The Council also sent them information about extra care housing.

My findings

27. The Ombudsman cannot approve a DFG or determine if the works are practicable. My role is to consider whether there was fault in the way the Council has made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, I cannot question the outcome.
28. The Council has visited Mr and Mrs F’s home in 2022 with a surveyor and has considered whether the adaptations are reasonable and practicable. It has determined that most of the adaptations are not, as the property is not suitable, but it has agreed to consider if adaptations could be made to allow rear access. I have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council has considered the matter. I therefore do not find any fault in its view that the adaptations are not practicable or reasonable.
29. As Mrs F is therefore unable to access most of her home or easily go outside, I have considered how the Council has assessed her care and reviewed her care and support needs. I have seen no evidence of fault in the way the care and support plan has been developed. I note that this includes support from the homecare agency with laundry and meal preparation.
30. The Council has sought residential respite care for Mrs F but has been unable to source a suitable placement. Instead, the Council has offered to find an overnight carer and to put additional care and support in place as respite for Mr F. I have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council has reviewed Mr F’s needs as a carer and determined the support he requires.

Back to top

Final decision

31. There was no fault by the Council. I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman