Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to follow its complaints procedure when dealing with his complaints about a disabled facilities grant for his parents or make reasonable adjustments for his dyslexia and autism. Mr X says he suffered avoidable stress and could not engage properly in the processes to resolve his complaint. We have found fault by the Council in some of its communication but consider the agreed action of an apology provides a suitable outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council failed to follow its complaints procedure when dealing with his complaints about a disabled facilities grant for his parents. Mr X says the Council did not provide a review by an independent manager or consolidated response at the second stage of the procedure. Mr X also complains the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments for his dyslexia and autism. 
2. Mr X says because of the Council's fault he suffers avoidable stress and could not engage properly in the processes to resolve his complaint.    

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
4. 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)
5. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
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. I read the papers provided by Mr X. I have also considered information from the Council. I have explained my draft decision to Mr X and the Council and considered the comments received before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background and legislation

8. 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.
9. The maximum grant payable by a council is £30,000. A council can award other discretionary help if it thinks it is necessary. The council grant amount is subject to a means test. The test does not apply to applications from landlords, or from parents for grants for their disabled children. Regardless of who makes the application, the means test applies to the disabled person (the ‘relevant person’). If the relevant person has a partner, their finances are assessed jointly.
10. The council does a means test to work out how much it can award. The means test is applied to the disabled occupant or the partner of the disabled person; this person is called the relevant person. If the relevant person has a partner their finances are assessed jointly. If the relevant person receives certain means tested benefits they will automatically pass the means test.
11. The Equality Act 2010 requires public authorities to consider making adjustments if people with disabilities have problems using a service. If those adjustments are reasonable, the body must make them.

Key events

12. The following is a summary of key events. It does not include everything that happened.
13. The Council received an occupational therapy (OT) referral towards the end of June 2022 for a ground floor shower room, toilet and ramped access for Mr X’s father. The completed referral noted Mr X’s father was blind and deaf and contact should be with Mr X.
14. The Council sent an email seeking information from Mr X in early August to complete a means test. Mr X responded to the Council to confirm he understood the grant was means tested but they were private people and sought further information about the means test process. Mr X apologised for the amount of questions he had asked and asked the Council to excuse his dyslexia and autism. The Council provided Mr X with further information about the means test in August. This included an explanation that if Mr X’s father received pension guarantee credit there would be no requirement for a means test and how to check this position.
15. Mr X responded to say the information provided by the Council was not detailed enough for his father to proceed with the process. Mr X asked how the means test was calculated. The Council explained it had provided general information about the means test but needed the income details previously sought to provide a detailed explanation about how it would apply to his parents’ case.
16. The Council issued a reminder to Mr X for the outstanding information in early November. The Council stated if it did not receive a response within 14 days it would assume Mr X’s father did not wish to proceed and would close the case. Mr X responded to say they wished to proceed but were waiting for the Council to respond to his questions.
17. The Council provided more detailed information to Mr X in early November. The Council asked for the financial information it had previously sought to be provided by 23 November or it would close the case. Mr X replied to the Council to say the information it had provided was not still enough and to challenge the time limit for providing information. The Council responded to say it considered it had provided enough information for Mr X to decide if he wanted to proceed on his father’s behalf and that as the financial information had been sought some considerable time ago the time limit would remain. Mr X’s local councillor offered to arrange a face to face meeting to resolve any outstanding queries.
18. The OT contacted Mr X at the end of January 2023 to arrange a home visit for a feasibility assessment. The OT email to Mr X of 31 January provided information about a self-assessment tool to see if Mr X would be eligible for a DFG. This was provided to help Mr X decide if he wished to proceed with this option. The email also suggested that Mr X could confirm if he wanted “a specification for works to enable you to explore the work privately/with support from other agencies such as SAFFA” (the armed forces charity).
19. The Council received another referral for an adaptation at the end of April 2023. This was a joint DFG application as both of Mr X’s parents now required a level access shower. This noted Mr X may require support with understanding the means test process and it may be appropriate to do this face to face. It was noted Mr X responded positively to telephone contact or face to face discussions. It was further noted the family were private people and were reluctant to share personal information and needed to understand how their information would be used and shared. The assessment noted various options but that the family had raised privacy and dignity concerns with the proposed solutions. It was noted these were not reasons to decline the adaptations or consider the property could not be adapted as technical surveys may offer alternative solutions that met the OT requirements and provided acceptable compromises for the family. This noted contact should be with Mr X by telephone or email.
20. The OT wrote to Mr X at the end of April to confirm their recommendation had been sent to the Council’s housing team who would be in touch about the next stage of the process which was the means test. Once eligibility for the DFG had been established the application would move to the next stage which was the technical survey which would explore options to achieve the recommendations.
21. The Council wrote to Mr X’s parents at the end of April to explain the DFG was means tested and sought information. The Council explained the matter could not proceed without the financial information which must be provided by 19 May.
22. The Council emailed Mr X in early July to say it had sent a letter to his parents in April seeking financial information and explaining this was required to assess eligibility for the DFG. The Council suggested a home visit or telephone call if Mr X needed help with providing the information.

23. Mr X complained at the end of August about the handling of the DFG application. Mr X raised issues about the 14 day deadline he had been given to provide financial information; whether the Council had due regard under the Armed Forces Act 2022; a failure to provide the promised adaptation specification; lack of response about dignity concerns and the Council sending a letter to his father who was deaf and blind. Mr X asked for a prompt and comprehensive reply.
24. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint at the end of September. The Council confirmed it would fast track any application under the Armed Forces Covenant but a means test was still required. The Council reiterated the information required.
25. Mr X responded to the Council in early October to dispute the date the Council became aware of his father’s military service and to chase a reply on other complaints he had made. Mr X further contacted the Council in early October as he was unhappy his complaint had not been addressed within the 20 working days set out in its complaint policy. Mr X said he found it challenging to navigate the Council’s communication due to his dyslexia.
26. Mr X also contacted the Council in early October to confirm it was unlikely they would proceed with the DFG process as his mother did not want to provide her financial information, the recommendations did not address dignity concerns and the Council had failed to answer correspondence and complaints. Mr X explained they would pursue the matter via veteran charities. Mr X noted the OT had promised an adaptation specification following the home visit but this had not been provided. Mr X wanted the specification if it had been completed to engage with other agencies.
27. Mr X subsequently confirmed he still required the promised adaptation plan and a response to the issue he had raised about the Council’s obligation to give due regard to veterans under the Armed Forces Act 2022.
28. The Council’s Chief Executive provided a detailed response to Mr X on 10 November and apologised it had taken longer to provide than advised. The Council provided its assessment of how it had due regard to the Armed Forces Act and would consider amending its DFG forms to ask if an applicant had veteran status as suggested. The Council reiterated the Armed Forces Act and Covenant did not remove the requirement for a means test. The Council noted the required information to complete the means test had not been provided by Mr X. The Council addressed Mr X’s concerns about data security and the current recommendations and apologised that Mr X did not consider it had specifically addressed dignity. The Council confirmed it had not produced any plans for the adaptation and apologised if there had been a misunderstanding. The Council confirmed there had been an OT assessment to determine the nature of the adaptations and a subsequent feasibility assessment to determine the works were possible to the property. The next stage was the means test. The Council would not produce plans and specifications for disabled facilities applications that did not progress to full grant application status. For Mr X to engage with other organisations as he suggested he wished to do would require those organisations to produce any plans. The Council confirmed the current position and what information was required from Mr X to progress the DFG. The Council confirmed there was no 14 day deadline as highlighted by Mr X to provide this information and this was simply to try and ensure cases progressed promptly. The Council apologised for any offence the deadline had caused and confirmed the matter remained open.
29. Mr X responded to the Council to say he rejected the reply as it had falsified information. Mr X subsequently clarified that this related to what the Council had described as a misunderstanding about plans being provided after the home visit which he said was not the case and they had clearly been told they would receive plans.
30. Mr X asked the Council for information about who had been asked to provide the Stage 2 response and noted that it took considerable effort to write to anyone given his dyslexia and autism. The Council wrote to Mr X at the end of November to apologise for the delay in providing a Stage 2 response and noted there had been some confusion caused by Mr X’s various contacts. However, a Stage 2 response would be sent in due course. Mr X subsequently also raised an issue about being told to leave the hot water system faulty as it may be included in the adaptation works. Mr X asked for a structured response in a timeline format to aid his understanding due to his dyslexia and autism. The Council provided details of how it had allocated the complaints at both Stage 1 and Stage 2 of its complaint procedure to Mr X on 28 November.
31. The Council provided a response at Stage 2 of its complaint procedure on 29 November. The Council apologised for the delay and reiterated it had understood the earlier reply from the Chief Executive was a response to his Stage 2 complaint. The Council also confirmed its response had been reviewed by the current Director given the concerns Mr X had raised about the professional relationship between the authors of the Stage 1 and Stage 2 responses. This letter provided a response to the issues raised by Mr X in chronological order. The letter also referred to and repeated information contained in the Chief Executive’s previous detailed response.

My consideration

32. Based on the information provided, I am satisfied the Council has tried to engage with Mr X and offered alternative ways he may wish to communicate including through face to face meetings. Mr X has not made any specific requests to the Council for reasonable adjustments for his dyslexia and autism. The Council has confirmed to the Ombudsman it would consider and respond to any such request. The only request Mr X put to the Council was for a comprehensive response to his concerns and towards the end of the complaint procedure for a structured response in a timeline format to aid his understanding due to his dyslexia and autism. I consider the Chief Executive’s response of 10 November broadly provided such a response and this was followed up by a response at Stage 2 of the Council’s complaint procedure. I have seen no evidence Mr X was unable to fully engage with the complaints procedure.
33. The Council has already apologised for the confusion in believing Mr X’s complaint had received a Stage 2 response as the Chief Executive had replied. I consider this apology provides a suitable remedy for any injustice given the similar content of both letters.
34. Mr X says the Council has not complied with its complaint policy by ensuing an independent senior manager investigated his Stage 2 complaint. The Council’s policy explains this would be a person not previously involved in the matter. The policy also explains if the matter was complex the process may take longer than the expected 20 working days. The Council appointed a senior manager who had not previously been involved in the complaint. I do not consider the Council acted with fault here. In any event, the Council has already provided an apology for the delay in its complaints procedure and explained the confusion over the Chief Executive’s reply.
35. The Council did write directly to Mr X’s parents in April 2023 when it had agreed all contact should be with Mr X. This was fault. However, I have noted all other contact had been with Mr X as requested and the Council followed up its letter with Mr X in July. The Council should apologise to Mr X for this oversight and I make a recommendation below.
36. The OT email of 31 January 2023 stated Mr X could decide if he wished to proceed with the DFG or if he wanted a specification for works to allow him to explore having the work done privately with support from other agencies. This implies Mr X could have a plan and/or specification at this stage. Following this email there continued to be contact about the DFG process rather than pursuing the matter privately with other agencies. However, it is clear Mr X was left with the understanding that such plans would be provided. It was not until November that the Council confirmed it would not produce plans and specifications for disabled facilities applications that did not progress to full grant application status following a means test. On balance, I consider information was provided to Mr X about the possibility of providing a plan and/or specification for the works which unreasonably raised his expectations and caused him avoidable frustration when this did not happen. The Council should apologise for its poor communication around this issue and I make a recommendation below.
37. The Council failed to address the issue raised by Mr X about being told to leave the hot water system faulty as it may be included in the adaptation works. The Council has confirmed to the Ombudsman it has no record of providing advice about not making repairs to the hot water system pending the outcome of the DFG process. The Council says it would not provide such advice particularly in the knowledge that there were vulnerable people at the property. In the absence of further details or evidence, I am unable to reach a view on this matter even on the basis of a balance of probabilities. However, the Council should apologise for not addressing this issue when raised by Mr X and I make a recommendation below.
38. Mr X has not provided the information the Council requires in order to progress the DFG process. The Council has provided detailed explanations of what is required to Mr X and has reasonably told him until he does it cannot progress the matter. I see no evidence to suggest there has been fault by the Council here. It remains open to Mr X to engage further with the Council and to provide the requested details if he wishes to proceed with the DFG.

Back to top

Agreed action

39. The Council has agreed to take the following action within one month of my final decision to provide a suitable remedy to Mr X:
1. apologise to Mr X for the raised expectations and avoidable frustration caused by its communication failings identified in my statement above.
40. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
41. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

42. I have completed my investigation as I have found fault but consider the agreed action above provides a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman