Summary: Mrs F complained that both Councils failed to agree adaptations to the family home needed by her husband and children. We upheld the complaint, finding both Councils acted with fault contributing to an impasse where no application for grant funding had been made. This caused distress. The Councils accepted our findings and at this statement, we set out the action they have agreed to take to remedy this injustice and improve services.

The complaint

1. I have called the complainant ‘Mrs F’. She complains on her own behalf and that of her husband, ‘Mr F’. Her complaint is that both Councils have failed to agree adaptations needed to the family home because of Mr F’s disability and those of one of their children. Mrs F says as a result the family continue to live in housing unsuited to meet their needs.
2. Mrs F’s complaint was made to us as being against the County Council. However, we cannot consider the actions of the County Council alone, given the District Council’s involvement also, in the events complained about. We therefore began a second investigation into the District Council’s involvement. In doing so, we have waived our usual requirement that complaints go through the Council’s own complaint procedure to avoid unnecessary confusion and delay. Further, we noted while Mrs F had not complained to the District Council, it was still aware of her dissatisfaction that adaptations needed to the family home were not progressing.

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. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. We do not need to show any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by an organisation to say service failure (fault) has occurred. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), as amended)
5. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
6. 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

7. Before issuing this decision statement I considered:

• Mrs F’s complaint to the Ombudsman and supporting information provided;
• correspondence exchanged between Mrs F and the County Council about matters covered by her complaint, pre-dating our investigation;
• information provided by both Councils in response to my enquiries;
• relevant law, Government guidance, case law and policy as referred to below;
• relevant guidance published by the Ombudsman.

8. I also gave Mrs F and both Councils chance to comment on two draft decision statements, setting out our evolving thinking about the complaint. I took account of all the comments they made before finalising this decision statement.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law, guidance and case law

9. The Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 sets out circumstances where housing authorities (which include District Councils) can pay Disabled Facilities Grants. These provide for certain adaptations to property for disabled people, including for the following purposes (see Section 23 of the Act):

• making property safer;
• giving access to a room usable for sleeping;
• giving access to a toilet, bath, shower or wash-hand basin;
• preparation and cooking of food.

10. Before approving a grant, the housing authority must satisfy itself the work is necessary and appropriate to meet the disabled person’s needs. Works must also be reasonable and practicable taking account of the person’s property.
11. In practice, the housing authority will often rely on advice from social services authorities (which include County Councils) to decide what work is necessary and appropriate. An Occupational Therapist, or equivalent qualified professional, will assess this.
12. The maximum grant payable is £30,000. Housing authorities can award other discretionary help if considered necessary.
13. In March 2022 the government issued non-statutory guidance “Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) Delivery: Guidance for local authorities in England”. This guidance advises councils in England on how they can effectively and efficiently deliver DFG funded adaptations. It encourages co-operative working agreements between housing and social services authorities.
14. It contains guidance on adaptations for the “preparation and cooking of food”. It says that relevant works to enable a disabled person to cater independently could cover a wide range of adaptations. But “where most of the cooking and preparation of meals is done by another household member, it would not normally be appropriate to carry out full adaptations to the kitchen. However, it might be appropriate that certain adaptations be carried out to enable the disabled person to perform certain functions in the kitchen, such as preparing light meals or hot drinks”.
15. The March 2022 guidance identifies five key stages to delivering home adaptations:

• Stage 1: First contact with the service. Councils should ensure the public has access to information and advice about the DFG process.
• Stage 2: First contact to assessment and identification of the relevant works. An occupational therapist (OT) will assess the person’s needs and potential solutions through home adaptations.
• Stage 3: Identification of the relevant works to submission of the formal grant application. The person completes and presents the application form with designs and costing for the works (where necessary).
• Stage 4: Grant application to grant decision. The Council will check the application and issue a decision letter. If a council refuses a grant, it must explain why.
• Stage 5: Approval of grant to completion of works. This includes arranging for the works, their completion and the necessary quality checks.

16. A council should decide a grant application as soon as reasonably practicable. In addition, the timescales for moving through the stages will depend on the urgency and complexity of the works. The guidance gives the following timescales:

• Urgent and simple works – 55 working days
• Non-urgent and simple works – 130 working days
• Urgent and complex works – 130 days
• Non-urgent and complex works – 180 working days

17. Government guidance also encourages councils to follow nine ‘guiding principles’ throughout. These include giving disabled people “an element of choice” and following the “need for good communication”.
18. Case law has held that:

• assessing what is “necessary and appropriate” only covers the specific purpose for which the grant application is made. So, it is irrelevant to consider the suitability of the rest of the house if the application does not require consideration of that.
• A housing authority cannot refuse a grant for works costing more than £30,000 because the applicant has failed to confirm how they will fund the balance. That is the applicant’s responsibility. The council should set out clearly if they expect the applicant to fund any of the works. It should also explain it can only make the grant payment when the work completes satisfactorily.
• If a housing authority considers the value of works will exceed £30,000, it must provide a breakdown of costs (see McKeown, R (On the application of) v London Borough of Islington [2020]).

West Sussex Disabled Facilities Grant Policy

19. Both Councils are parties to this policy. I have consulted two versions, one covering the period 2020-2023 and one to cover the period 2024-2028. I consider the following extracts relevant, common to both versions:

• works funded by a DFG will be the simplest and most cost-effective adaptations that will meet the client’s assessed needs;
• the Councils prefer the re-ordering and / or change of use of existing rooms to constructing extensions;
• officers should ensure value for money. They do not act for applicants;
• consequently, the policy encourages, but does not require, that applicants use an agent to help with their application. For example, an architect, architectural technician or surveyor. A DFG can include the agent’s professional fees. The ‘relevant council’ will need assurances that works will follow professional recommendations, be of the right standard and quality, and comply with legal requirements (planning permission, building regulations etc);
• that councils can consider one discretionary grant for each property also;
• that councils may try using minor adaptations to meet needs before any application for a DFG;
• that Occupational Therapists will assess which works are “necessary and appropriate” to meet the client’s need;
• the relevant District Council will assess which works are “reasonable and practicable” to approve, following an assessment of the client’s property. For work to be reasonable means it must be the “most cost-effective way” to meet the assessed needs. For it to be practicable means the work can be done and “does not damage or stop you from using other parts of the building”.

20. The current maximum discretionary grant is £40,000. In the 2020-23 version of the policy it was £30,000.

County Council Occupational Therapy service

21. The Occupational Therapy service receives referrals to assess the need for disabled people to have adaptations to their home. It uses a traffic light priority– red for those cases appearing most urgent and green for those of the lowest priority. ‘Green’ cases include those where someone has their needs met at present. The Council aims to assess these cases within 28 days of a referral.

Chronology & Key Facts

22. Mr and Mrs F own their own home, a three-bedroom detached property. They have three dependent children, I have called X, Y and Z, with X being the oldest child and Z the youngest. Currently Y and Z share a bedroom.
23. Mr F has disabilities affecting his balance and co-ordination. He experiences chronic fatigue and pain. X and Y also have disabilities. X’s disability means they need their own room, while both Y and Z experience disturbed sleep because of Y’s disability.
24. Mr F first became known to County Council social services in May 2021. In July 2021 a social worker referred Mr F’s case to Occupational Therapy to assess what support they may need. Their notes did not refer to potential adaptations but possible equipment to support Mr F.
25. The Council assigned Mr F’s case to an Occupational Therapist (‘OT1’) in January 2022. They visited and assessed Mr F’s needs. Their notes recorded Mr F participating throughout. He explained his priority was to have more independence in the bathroom and kitchen.
26. In February 2022 Mrs F told OT1 of an accident Mr F had in the kitchen. Losing his balance, he grabbed a wall unit and pulled it from the wall. She also made OT1 aware that Mr F had a mobility scooter, stored in the garage. He could not access this independently because he could not operate the garage door.
27. Also in February 2022, a different Occupational Therapist working with Y, recommended they have their own bedroom. This would require an extension to the house at first floor level.
28. In March 2022, after consulting with Mrs F, OT1 produced outline recommendations for adaptations needed by Mr F. OT1 said the service would make final recommendations following a further visit to the home. The outline recommendations were for:

• a larger shower with suitable adaptations such as a wall mounted seat and accessible controls;
• adaptations to the kitchen including adjustable wall cupboards and work tops;
• an electronic garage opening;
• a through floor lift;
• low level / dimmable lighting;
• level access flooring / paving and rail support to enable easier access to the garden.

29. OT1 then left their role with the Council, replaced by a second occupational therapist (‘OT2’). A home visit took place at the end of April, where OT2 visited with OTs familiar with the planned DFG for Y. Also present was a District Council Grants Officer and a private surveyor instructed by Mr and Mrs F. During the visit the Council recorded that it discussed providing the most “cost effective” adaptations. Another note says officers from both Councils explained “there might have to be some compromises, as the DFG will only fund what is reasonable and practicable”.
30. In May 2022, Mr and Mrs F’s surveyor made a series of ‘rough sketches’ outlining proposed adaptations. Mr and Mrs F were unhappy with these. The surveyor suggested alternative proposals made by Mr and Mrs F would not fit within the likely budgetary constraints. An email he sent to the District Council said the cost of the works would likely exceed £110,000. The surveyor then withdrew, saying to Mrs F he could not “tie up your expectations, OT brief and budgetary constraints”.
31. Mrs F contacted the District Council asking what to do next. In response it sent her a copy of a leaflet explaining the DFG process. The leaflet explained that applicants may want to use an agent to help them.
32. In May 2022, a senior County Occupational Therapist became involved (OT3). They visited Mr and Mrs F at home and discussed the adaptations needed. OT3 recorded their view that provision of a through-floor lift and installing the shower would use most of the available budget. While Y’s DFG would require the single top-up grant available. Later, in July 2022, OT3 had further discussion with Mrs F. Their note says they reiterated their view there was “limited funding and the priority had been to ensure [Mr F] is able to access his bedroom and shower facilities”. OT3 noted there were no costings for any of the works.
33. In September 2022 there were discussions about whether a DFG could fund a stair-lift instead of a through-floor lift. The Council recorded Mr F as unwilling to demonstrate how he used the stairs (see paragraph 42 for Mrs F’s comments on this). Its notes recorded Mr F saying he felt unsteady. Continuing to have concerns about how much a DFG could pay for, the County Council recorded that it would speak to the District Council about getting “minor grant works” to undertake kitchen adaptations.
34. Another visit followed in November 2022, this time to consider positioning of the through-floor lift. The visit also considered how the larger shower could fit in the bathroom given constraints of existing plumbing including a bath needed by the children.
35. During discussions over the summer the Council arranged for a half-step to help Mr F access the garden more safely. Mrs F also sent details of a low-cost solution for the need for low-level lighting. The Council suggested she might want to buy this given the continuing delay in agreeing what the DFG would cover and limited funds. It suggested sources of charitable funding, but it understands Mrs F did not pursue this. Mrs F has explained to us that the family have gone on to fund some changes to the lighting, so it is now more suitable to Mr F’s needs.
36. In December 2022 the County Council wrote to Mr and Mrs F and produced proposed final recommendations for adaptations needed by Mr F. It said there was “no clear need” for kitchen adaptations. It noted Mr F received support from Mrs F in ensuring he met his nutritional needs. Further that he could use the dining room as an area to prepare food if needed or use a meal delivery service. At the same time the Council ruled out a stair-lift as unsuitable. OT3 revised OT1’s outline recommendations to provide a smaller shower than previously recommended. The proposed final recommendations also removed provision of an electronic garage opening, low level lighting and step to access the garden. I noted this letter followed a discussion with the District Council in November. Here, the County advised that Mr and Mrs F “have been requesting alterations to the kitchen however they are not considered essential and the grant is not sufficient to cover this work”.
37. The County Council asked Mr F to agree the proposed final recommendations. It says it did this, in common with all such cases, to ensure he was “aware of the recommendation being made [..] of the necessary and appropriate needs”. Mr F refused to agree. Mrs F said it was inappropriate to expect Mr F to prepare meals in the dining room and carry food to the kitchen. OT3 suggested in reply, that it could purchase a food trolley for Mr F’s use and review what walking aids he needed. Mrs F replied giving detailed reasons why she did not consider a trolley appropriate and why she and Mr F still considered he needed the full list of outline recommendations made by OT1.
38. In February 2023, the District Council, noting the impasse over agreeing the scope of potential works needed by Mr F, offered to progress a grant adaptation for the works needed by Y only. Mrs F replied saying she wanted the ‘original’ (outline) recommendations for Mr F’s adaptations agreed and this matter was with the County Council.
39. Mrs F’s complaint to the County Council, went to a manager in the OT service who wrote to Mrs F in March 2023. They said the Council could only agree adaptations which were “necessary and appropriate” and adaptations that were “proportionate”. They defended not supporting kitchen adaptations, noting the support Mr F received from Mrs F and wider family if she could not support him. It offered some minor changes to the kitchen including one lowered section of worktop. The Council said that Y’s DFG would include a top-up of £30,000 so there would be no further top-up for Mr F’s DFG. So, if the couple wanted more works, they would have to pay for these. However, the Council could offer a top-up loan, secured by a charge on the family home.
40. Mrs F continued to question why the County Council would not support the kitchen adaptations first proposed. She also raised a complaint the Council no longer supported fitting a shower of the size Mr F needed and that the Council specification said this would be electric. Mr and Mrs F’s existing shower is a pressure shower running off mains water with a boosting device to maintain satisfactory pressure installed at some expense several years ago. They consider fitting an electric shower likely to add unnecessary cost and provide a less satisfactory experience.
41. In November 2023 the County Council gave its final reply to the complaint. It said its initial recommendations depended on space and it did not know how a larger shower could fit in the bathroom due to its constraints. The reply said an electric shower “was standard” and there was “no functional reason” to consider alternatives. The Council maintained its position on kitchen adaptations. It said there “was a solution in place” that negated the need for electronic garage control and low-level lighting was “not proceeding” as Mr and Mrs F had declined options offered. In further comments sent to us, the Council said Mr F had been uncooperative in demonstrating how he currently meets his needs.
42. In pursuing her complaint, Mrs F has asked me to consider:

• that Mr F wants greater ability to use the kitchen to maintain his independence and contribute to family life;
• that in turn this would lessen the responsibility on Mrs F to meet the needs of the family, including meeting the needs of the disabled children;
• that it is wrong for the County Council to suggest Mr F has been unco-operative with assessments. The one time he did not demonstrate climbing the stairs, he felt dizzy and unsafe, and the Council had already agreed his need for a through-floor lift;
• that in the last twelve months Mr F has had another accident in the kitchen (of which the Council is aware) where he lost balance and suffered minor injury to his head.

43. In comments during the investigation the County Council has said:

• an electric shower would meet Mr F’s needs. However, it is for the District Council to give final approval to the works and it can agree to a different shower if this is ‘reasonable and practicable’;
• that the size of the shower provided by a DFG could change as it was only making recommendations; details could only be agreed once there were detailed plans;
• that as Mr F does not leave the home alone there is no need for an electronic opening garage;
• that Mr F had not joined in (or only in part), in visits made to the home by OTs in April, May and November 2022. The Council had advised in advance it wanted to assess his ability to use the stairs when it visited in September.

44. In its comments the District Council has said:

• that it was its responsibility to agree the specification of any shower installed. That it could consider an alternative to an electric shower if a mixer shower had the same safety features for similar cost;
• that it would be willing to administer a grant application made by Mr and Mrs F based on OT1’s original outline recommendations. But it could not guarantee funding until satisfied the works in the application were both necessary and appropriate, and reasonable and practicable to provide.

My findings

45. It is three years since the County Council became aware of Mr F’s case. In July 2021 it referred him to its Occupational Therapy service. It would not appear this referral asked for specific consideration of adaptations. So, the priority criteria used by the Council when it receives referrals to identify potential adaptations did not apply. However, it was still fault that Mr F had to wait so long for contact by that service. I consider a reasonable benchmark for when he could have expected contact to be around four weeks, equivalent to those cases where the Council receives a non-urgent referral to consider adaptations. Instead, he waited six months for a visit. That was a fault.
46. On that visit the Council identified a need for adaptations. I consider that overall, the works needed by Mr F, and Y, were “non-urgent and complex”. In which case, Government guidance suggests it should have taken around six months for the adaptations to complete – or by the end of July 2022. But two years later progress towards the adaptations has stalled, at ‘stage two’ of the five-stage process set out by Government.
47. It does not follow that just because there is delay, there is fault by either of the councils involved. However, in this case I consider there is evidence of fault for the reasons I explain below.
48. I find both Councils adopted the wrong approach when they doubted if the combined DFGs and discretionary grant would be enough to provide all the outline recommended adaptations for Mr F and Y. I make no criticism of anyone flagging this as an issue. Both the OTs and the District Officers will have wide experience of adaptations. They will have a ballpark idea of what different adaptations cost. So, I accept their concerns about budget constraints were both genuine and reasonably held. Mr and Mrs F’s surveyor had similar concerns. And all parties expressed these to Mr and Mrs F. So, they knew of this concern.
49. However, I find this concern went on to influence the approach taken by the County Council in making its proposed final recommendations to the District Council. I understand OT1’s recommendations were outline and so not final. So, the County Council could revisit those. But its focus had to be on meeting needs, not on ensuring recommendations met the DFG cost limit set by Government.
50. Different OTs will sometimes come to a different view on certain matters, as professionals will not always agree. For example, about the kitchen adaptations needed given the relevant Government guidance. But I find when the County Council finalised its recommendations, the driving force for the changes was cost. It is evident from May 2022 onward it formed the view the most important adaptations for Mr F were for the through-floor lift and shower. It then produced new assessments, excluding the kitchen and other adaptations. So it followed a flawed process to arrive at the final recommendations, not focusing solely on Mr F’s needs.
51. Further, the assessment (or re-assessment) process it followed between May and December 2022, did not adequately address potential areas of need for Mr F at all. Specifically, the garage opening, low level lighting and access to the garden. I find the explanation given for rejecting the first of these incompatible with the purpose of a DFG. Mrs F has said Mr F wants to use the garage independently precisely so he is not beholden to anyone else if he wants to leave the property. I accept the Council considered it had come up with alternatives to meet the other two needs – a low-cost solution with potential charitable funding for the lighting and a half-step for the garden. But it still should have addressed these matters in its assessment, knowing the items formed part of the outline recommendations. Mr and Mrs F have since found their own solution to the low-level lighting, but the Council should have identified this before finding no need for this adaptation.
52. I also do not find the evidence supports the view that Mr F refused to take part in assessments of his need. There is only one instance showing this. But the notes indicate Mr F felt too unsteady to show how he used the stairs. And his balance issues were one reason the Council had already assessed he needed a through-floor lift. So, I do not think it fair to regard this as a ‘refusal’ to co-operate in any event.
53. A further fault occurred when the County Council varied its recommendation of the size of shower Mr F needs. The final proposed recommendation reduced this because of concerns about the layout of the existing bathroom. Again, it is not unreasonable officers from either authority flag concerns about what is ‘practicable’ within the physical constraints of a building. But it is for the District Council to consider this, not the County, as the combined West Sussex policy makes clear. Both Councils say the final specification would depend on plans drawn up by or on behalf of Mr F. But this was not clear to Mr F when it asked him to ‘approve’ the final recommendations.
54. Another source of disagreement for Mr F concerns the type of shower recommended in OT3’s assessment. Both councils now agree the final decision on what type of shower will meet Mr F’s needs rests with the District Council. But again, this was not clear when the County asked Mr F to agree its final recommendations. So, the Council approached this issue with fault also.
55. More generally, this case highlights a difficulty where an applicant disagrees with the ‘final recommendations’ made by an OT. The County Council’s standard letter does not say what happens if the applicant disagrees with the assessment, whether on the scope of adaptations recommended or the specific solution proposed.
56. I do not consider disagreement should prevent an application progressing. In this case both Councils made comments showing the issues of shower size or specification should not have delayed this application. The crux of the matter is that these are the County’s recommendations. They inform an application to the District Council as it must be satisfied the works needed are necessary and appropriate. But they are not necessarily the same as the list of works approved for grant funding. Because the applicant can still request variations to the recommendations and the District Council can consider agreeing these.
57. Turning to the role of the District Council in this case, I do not consider it has been primarily responsible for the delays in agreeing final recommendations. It has said it was unaware of Mrs F’s concerns about the final recommended shower size and specification and I have no reason to doubt that. I also note that from February 2023 it was willing to progress an application for the adaptations needed by Y alone, for which I give credit.
58. But it was also aware from May 2022 of a delay in the County Council forwarding final recommendations. Further, it knew the cause of this was the concern over the cost of the outline recommendations. It did not question therefore the ‘direction of travel’ taken by the County Council set out above. As a partner in delivering grants, I consider the District Council can also learn lessons about what should have happened when concerns about the cost of the outline recommendations surfaced. Government guidance places the expectation that housing authorities help applicants to navigate the grant application process “in a timely matter” to help deliver outcomes. Its failure to intervene and to try and bring about a resolution to the impasse between Mr and Mrs F and the County Council was therefore a fault.
59. I find neither Council has put Mr and Mrs F at the centre of discussions around what Mr F’s DFG application will look like when finally made. I consider both Councils have not followed two guiding principles set out in Government guidance, underpinned by the case law I quoted above. Which is that client choice must be central to how adaptations will proceed and there must be meaningful communication with the applicant. I consider if both councils had adhered to these principles, then they would have looked to problem solve with Mr F as a partner, rather than simply trying to impose a cheaper scheme. Because the problems in this case are also his to solve (using the help of Mrs F and any agent he may instruct).
60. Mr F will also have his own view on what priority to accord to the various adaptations proposed at outline stage. But it is clear since the outset he puts a high priority on being able to use the kitchen safely. He is also the one who must obtain the necessary plans and quotes for building works which must take account of the practical constraints on the property such as the existing bathroom size and plumbing. He is the one that must decide how to pay for any works exceeding the grant ceiling. Such discussion could include consideration of matters raised by the County Council during events, but not later pursued. Specifically, the possibility of any additional minor home improvement grant to provide low-cost adaptations and / or a loan from the County to provide adaptations over the value of £100,000.
61. In considering the injustice caused by these faults, I consider they have contributed to impasse since around November 2022. But I cannot say as a result adaptations would have proceeded. Because while I do not support how the councils have approached this case, I cannot say what adaptations are all necessary and appropriate for Mr F. Nor can I say what adaptations are all reasonable and practicable.
62. And I note here that Mr and Mrs F know of the issue with the cost ceiling and about Mr F’s responsibility as the applicant. I have not seen evidence they have been in a position to progress an application by obtaining the necessary plans and quotes. I appreciate they want clarity on the scope of works agreed first, but I cannot say at this stage whether it is possible for them to have that include all they want.
63. I consider the injustice in this case is therefore that of distress. Because but for the Council faults there is uncertainty about whether the adaptations may have proceeded.

Agreed action

64. Both Councils accept the findings set out above and recommendations I have made to remedy Mr F and Mrs F’s personal injustice and make service improvements.

Personal remedy

65. Within 20 working days of a decision on this complaint the County Council will provide the following:
1. an apology to Mr and Mrs F accepting the findings of this investigation, and taking account of section 3.2 of our published guidance on remedies;
2. a symbolic payment to Mr and Mrs F of £750.
66. Also, within 20 working days of a decision on this complaint the District Council provide the following:
1. an apology to Mr and Mrs F accepting the findings of this investigation, and taking account of section 3.2 of our published guidance on remedies;
2. a symbolic payment to Mr and Mrs F of £250.
67. These symbolic payments take account that the County Council’s faults have caused the greater proportionate injustice.
68. In addition, both Councils have agreed a four-step plan to progress the adaptations.
69. The first step will be that within 20 working days of this decision the County Council convene a round-table meeting with Mr and Mrs F. Before doing so it will consider any reasonable adjustments needed to ensure that Mr F can participate should he want to. For example, by holding the meeting virtually if this is something he would prefer. The meeting should:
1. go through all OT1’s original outline recommendations; the County Council should indicate in each case whether it supports each of these as a final recommendation;
2. ascertain Mr F’s views on the priority he attaches to the various adaptations forming the original outline recommendations;
3. in any case where it does not support the original outline recommendation it should give its reasons; if it considers its position may depend on undertaking a further assessment of Mr F’s needs then it will explain its reasons and try to seek agreement for this and arrange this within 20 working days.
70. The second step will be that within 20 working days of this discussion or any further assessments agreed, the County Council should put in writing to Mr and Mrs F the following:
1. revised proposed final recommendations. It should indicate clearly if these ‘final recommendations’ could be subject to change dependent on final plans, quotes etc. For example, over the exact specification of items such as the shower;
2. if it considers any of the adaptations can be provided through minor grant funding. If so, it will explain how this will be progressed;
3. if it can offer any loan to potentially top-up any grant funding available from the District Council. If so, it will explain how Mr and Mrs F might access this and obtain full details of the terms and conditions offered.
71. The third step will run concurrent to the second. The County Council will also send its final recommendations to the District Council. And within 20 working days of receiving these, the District Council will seek a meeting with Mr and Mrs F, again looking to make any reasonable adjustments that Mr F may require. In advance of the meeting Mr and Mrs F may make written representations on the County’s final recommendations if they disagree with any of those. At the meeting with the District Council, it will clarify:
1. whether it is prepared to consider funding adaptations needed by Mr F based on the County Council’s final recommendations subject to considering any comments made on those by Mr and Mrs F and the extent to which it considers those adaptations ‘reasonable and practicable’ to achieve;
2. what funding it can access or provide for the adaptations using a DFG and its discretionary funding alongside any application needed to fund adaptations for Y’s separate bedroom;
3. what Mr and Mrs F need to do and provide, to complete the application process.
72. The fourth step will be that Mr and Mrs F will then need to complete those applications.

Service Improvements

73. This complaint has highlighted flaws in the approach taken by both councils when faced with disagreement by applicants with aspects of OT recommendations and when prospective works will probably exceed the maximum grant available. There are wider learning points here for the other district councils forming the West Sussex partnership.
74. So, to improve service in the future the County Council has agreed that within three months:
1. it will brief all members of the partnership on the findings of this investigation. That if in future there are concerns that it has recommended adaptations costing more than the grant limit the final decision on what the grant covers will rest with the District Council. We expect in turn that District Councils take account of the applicant’s views when deciding what to approve;
2. to revise the content of the letter it sends with final occupational therapy recommendations. This needs to reflect that while applicants should have opportunity to comment, there is no requirement that recommendations be ‘agreed’ and so this should not block progress on an application. Because the final decision on the scope or specification of any grant rests with the District Council.
75. Both Councils will provide us with evidence they have complied with all the above actions set out from paragraph 65 onward.

Back to top

Final decision

76. For reasons set out above I uphold these complaints finding fault by the County and District Council causing injustice to Mr F and his family. The Councils have accepted these findings and agreed action that I consider will remedy that injustice. Consequently, I can complete my investigation satisfied with their responses.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman