Summary: Miss B complains about how the Council handled adaptations to her property under a Disabled Facilities Grant. There was no fault in how the Council ensured this met her child’s needs. The Council took too long to deal with her complaint about the adaptations. This caused Miss B frustration. I cannot investigate Miss B’s complaint that the work was not supervised properly as this is the housing authority’s responsibility and this investigation is about the social care authority.

The complaint

1. The Council failed to make sure that the adaptations made under a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) met Miss B’s son’s needs, and is future proofed for his future needs, and failed to put the defects right.
2. Miss B says that as a result of the Council’s failings, she has been caused distress and frustration; there are access issues with her back yard; her son won’t use the facilities; and she lost income as she had to support her family through the building work.

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. 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

5. This complaint is against the social care authority, the County Council. The local housing authority is the Borough Council. The County Council and the Borough Council have a shared protocol for dealing with DFGs. This says the County Council’s OT will make sure the applicant consents to the proposed design. The County Council will manage the project on site and issue instructions as necessary.
6. In March 2022 the government issued non-statutory guidance “Disabled facilities Grant (DFG) Delivery: Guidance for local authorities in England (the Guidance).
7. The Guidance sets out how DFG’s will be handled where the Borough Council is the housing authority and the County Council has duties towards a disabled child. The Guidance makes it clear that the Borough Council as housing authority has the statutory duty to provide adaptations and administer DFGs through all stages from the initial enquiry to post-completion. The Borough Council as housing authority remains responsible for the work.
8. So in this case, the Borough Council is responsible for deciding the scope of the works, the cost of the adaptations and for technical decisions about what adaptations are feasible. It has agreed that the County Council will handle the works done under the DFG, but the Borough Council remains responsible for these.
9. The County Council is responsible for meeting the needs of the disabled child and for the Occupational Therapist’s (OT’s) role in making sure the adaptations are necessary and appropriate. The Guidance says that the social care authority should consider the wider social care needs of the applicant, including and beyond any adaptation required.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered the information provided by Miss B and discussed the issues with her. I considered the information provided by the Council including its file documents and the case files. I also considered the law and guidance set out below. Both parties had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this statement. I have taken the comments of all parties into consideration before issuing this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The law and guidance

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. Section 23 of the Care Act explains the boundary in law between care and support and general housing. Where housing legislation requires councils to provide housing services, they must provide them under housing legislation. However, this should not prevent housing and social care councils working together. The guidance states:
13. ”... community equipment, along with telecare, aids and adaptations can support reablement, promote independence contributing to preventing the needs for care and support. A local [social care] authority may wish to draw on the assistance of the housing authority and local housing services.”
14. The maximum grant payable by a council is £30,000. A council can award other discretionary help if it thinks it is necessary.

What happened

15. Miss B’s child, K, has a disability. He was finding it difficult to access the family bathroom upstairs and to get in and out of the bath, even with assistance. K needed to increase his independence with mobility and toileting. In July 2017, the County Council’s OT assessed K’s needs. The OT supported the application for a DFG to fund an extension to the family home so that K had access to a ground floor toilet; a safe shower; safe access to his bedroom and to the house.
16. Miss B lives in a housing association property and the Borough Council, as housing authority, approved the funding as a major adaptation.
17. In 2018, the County Council drafted plans for the adaptations, and Miss B signed her consent to these. The County Council agreed to pay an additional grant on top of the DFG to meet the cost of the work. The housing association granted permission for the work in July 2018. The County Council sought a contractor to do the work.
18. Later that year, Miss B raised that a bath would be more suitable than a shower due to her son’s significant sensory issues and ongoing pain. The County Council’s OT visited Miss B again to discuss this and consulted other health professionals involved with K’s care. On their advice, the Council changed the extension plans to include a bath instead of a shower. In early 2019, Miss B signed her consent to the new plans.
19. In 2019, the Council’s case notes show that Miss B was becoming worried about how her son would cope with the building work. She also told the Council she was not happy with the design. This involves a side extension that will block side access to her rear garden and means she will need to take garden waste through the house for collection.
20. The County Council’s OT visited the house again and consulted its architect on possible ways to remodel the ground floor to provide the bedroom and bathroom for K, but also keep the side access to the garden. The architect could not recommend a rear extension as it would block light to the other parts of the ground floor. The housing association gave permission for the side extension. The County Council told Miss B it had decided that the side extension would best meet K’s needs and so it would go ahead with this option.
21. The work started on the side extension in February 2020. The work took longer than expected and had to sometimes be suspended due to COVID-19 restrictions.
22. During the build, the County Council liaised with Miss B about how K would transition to using the new facilities. It identified that he would need help and support from a psychologist and continence support.
23. In June 2020, Miss B reported a gas leak from the newly installed boiler. The Council contacted the architect and the housing association that day. The Housing Association sent an engineer who resolved the problem.
24. Miss B complained to the Council about the gas leak. She again raised that she was unhappy with the side access to the garden being blocked off by the extension. Miss B also raised complaints about the contractors carrying out the work: they were unprofessional, used bad language, made mess, and damaged her carpet. Miss B said that overall, she felt the contractor and the work was not properly supervised.
25. The County Council responded. It said that it had raised the gas leak with the contractor and would ensure that the sub-contractor was no longer used on Council funded work. The Council accepted that it had not supervised the work as much as it usually would, mainly due to COVID-19 restrictions, but it would ensure that all defects were put right and it was working on new procedures to improve site supervision.
26. In a later complaint response on the same issues, the Council and the contractor apologised that the workers’ conduct had not been professional. The Council said it would closely monitor to make sure all defects were rectified, and it would liaise with the Borough Council’s Building Control section regarding the workmanship.
27. However, in June 2023, Miss B made a further complaint to the County Council. She had raised that sewage was backing up to the house on several occasions. The Council eventually discovered this was due to faulty plumbing done as part of the DFG work. This was extremely unpleasant, unhygienic, and caused a stench. Miss B said it had eventually been resolved, but the Council took several years to deal with this and did not investigate properly when she raised it.
28. The Council responded in August 2023. It again apologised that the contractors had not always been appropriate. It recognised that K was not using the extension because he had found the build so stressful. However, the Council said that the building can support his independence. The Council said it would refer K to the continence service to look at how he could use the new toilet and it would support him to use the adapted space. Miss B has asked the Council to consider compensation for the work taking so long and being so disruptive, but it said it would not pay compensation.
29. The Council also sent a second response in August 2023. It said that the drainage had been defective and the contractor, the County Council’s clerk of works, and the Borough Council’s building control service had not detected this as work progressed. The foul and water drainage had been wrongly combined and inspection chamber incorrectly installed. The County Council paid for the additional work to be done to rectify this.
30. Miss B asked the Council to consider this at stage two of its process. The Council took nearly 12 weeks to respond. The Council said that it cannot pay compensation as it has to consider its resources across the whole of the service. It supported the earlier finding that the contractors had not behaved properly and that its inspection regime was not good enough. The Council acknowledged that it had been a very challenging time for Miss B’s family and that its responses had not always been supportive. The Council also recognised that she had received separate responses to her complaint from different departments and it will ensure that in future, communication is shared for full and complete complaint responses.
31. Miss B complained to the Ombudsman. She added that the extension is not being used, and her son is too big for it because the Council failed to consider his future needs. She says the extension would not be big enough for her growing son as he goes through adolescence into adulthood.

Was there fault by the County Council impacting on Miss B and her family?

32. As already mentioned, the County Council was managing the DFG works on behalf of the Borough Council. But the Borough Council remains responsible for this. This means that I cannot reach a finding on this investigation about whether the Council supervised the work properly, or whether it dealt properly with the gas leak and the defective drainage. That would need an investigation of the Borough Council.
33. I have investigated the County Council’s responsibilities. These are to make sure that the OT properly assessed K’s needs and made recommendations based on this; that it considered Miss B’s views in assessing these needs; that it considered K’s wider needs; and that it responded to her complaints to it properly.
34. Miss B was unhappy with the design of the extension. She says that it blocked access to her rear garden, and it failed to take into account K’s future needs as he approached adulthood. There is no fault in the OT’s assessment. They met with Miss B and K at home and the case notes and assessment show that the OTs properly considered his needs for a ground floor and accessible bathroom and bedroom, and for a bath instead of a shower. Although Miss B was unhappy at losing side access to her garden, and this would inconvenience her, it does not impact on meeting K’s needs. The Council properly considered Miss B’s views and changed the shower for a bath. It was not wrong when it decided to stay with the original extension.
35. I appreciate Miss B’s concerns that the extension does not meet K’s needs as a growing adolescent. The bedroom area is relatively small but will house a standard sized single bed and so again, would appear to meet K’s needs. Again, there was no fault by the Council.
36. The Council took nearly 12 weeks to deal with Miss B’s stage two complaint and this is too long. It is likely to have caused Miss B frustration.

Back to top

Agreed action

37. Within one month of the date of this decision, the Council will apologise to Miss B for the delay in responding to her stage two complaint.
38. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

39. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council causing injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman