Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed to properly complete works agreed to be carried out under a disabled facilities grant for his father, Mr Y. We found the Council failed to inform Mr X about changes to the agreed works, failed to install fencing on completion of the works and delayed in responding to his complaint. In recognition of the injustice caused the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and Mr Y and make a payment to them.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains on behalf of himself and his father, Mr Y, that the Council failed to properly complete works agreed to be carried out under a disabled facilities grant. In particular, it:
• Installed a zigzag ramp rather than a straight ramp;
• failed to install fencing, a gate, post and automatic gate opener to the rear boundary; and
• failed to tile the bathroom.
2. Mr X says the Council also failed to properly communicate with him even though he owns the property in which his father lives.
3. Mr X says the installation of the zigzag ramp has resulted in loss of garden space for Mr Y to sit in. He says the lack of secure fencing has led to people rough sleeping on the ramp causing Mr Y distress and the failure to install bathroom tiles has caused disappointment.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
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)
6. 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have considered all the information provided by Mr X, made enquiries of the Council and considered its comments and the documents it provided.
8. Mr X 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

Legal and administrative background

Disabled Facilities Grants

9. Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG’s) 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.
10. Relevant councils must promote ‘wellbeing’ when carrying out care and support functions. Wellbeing includes the suitability of living accommodation. The Care Act 2014 recognises suitable accommodation as one way of meeting care and support needs. Prevention is critical to the Care Act and home adaptation is an example of secondary prevention.

Amount of Grant and the Means Test

11. 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.

Processing a DFG

12. In March 2022 the government issued non-statutory guidance “Disabled facilities Grant Delivery: Guidance for local authorities in England”. This guidance advises councils in England on how they can effectively and efficiently deliver DFG funded adaptations to best serve the needs of local older and disabled people. It brings together and sets out in one place existing policy frameworks, legislative duties and powers, together with recommended best practice, to help councils provide an adaptation service to disabled tenants and residents in their area.

Key facts

2020

13. Mr Y lives in a house owned by his son, Mr X. In August 2020 Mr X contacted the Council’s adaptations service requesting adaptations to help Mr Y access the house with his wheelchair.
14. In September Officer A, an occupational therapist from the Council’s adaptations service, visited Mr Y and completed an assessment of his needs. She made a referral to the adaptations delivery team to see if he was eligible to apply for a Disabled Facilities Grant.

2021

15. In May 2021 Officer A and another officer from the adaptations service, Officer B, visited the property with an architect. They discussed kitchen, bathroom and access adaptations including a ground floor extension.
16. In July the architect drew up proposed plans for the adaptations. The Council sent these to Mr X and asked him to confirm whether he was happy with them.
17. Officer A discussed the plans with Mr X and then with Officer B. In August she sent revised plans to Mr X. He confirmed he was happy with them. Officer A’s notes of the conversation state that a semi-permanent ramp was discussed. Officer A sent an email to Officer B saying Mr X was happy with the plans. She said, “I have discussed us putting in one of our recycle ramps rather than a permanent ramp taking up half the garden.”
18. On 26 August Officer A sent an email to Officer B, the architect and Mr X saying “the ramp goes around the bathroom extension to link with the current path. By doing this there is no usable outside space. Is it possible for the ramp to go straight out to the rear street by knocking down the shed and creating a new gateway? This would then provide a usable outdoor space”.
19. The architect replied saying “the ramp is at its maximum gradient as shown now and needs the additional length going around the extension to achieve this. If it goes directly in a straight line to an opening where the existing outbuilding is it will exceed the required gradient and we will not be able to get Building Regulation approval”.
20. On 1 September Officer A’s notes show she spoke to Mr X and “discussed ramp direction and gradient. Agreed to ask if ramp could go straight forward then along the street boundary wall to the existing gate which would leave a usable outside space”.
21. On 21 September Officer A and the manager of the adaptations service visited the property and discussed the ramp and the gradients needed for wheelchair use.
22. On 5 October Officer A sent an email to the architect saying she had discussed the proposed plans with Mr X and asked for “the shortest possible ramp, ideally straight or L shaped to maximise the available outdoor space”.
23. On 7 October Officer A spoke to Mr X again. Mr X said he would prefer the ramp to go straight from the back door to the current gate then along the rear fence to a new opening creating an L-shaped ramp around the perimeter of the garden and not a ramp zigzagging across the garden. Officer A sent an email to the architect asking whether this was possible. The architect changed the ramp as requested and provided a revised plan. He said the ramp should ideally be a little longer to comply with building regulations.
24. On 11 October Mr X confirmed he was happy with the revised plan to be submitted for planning permission.

2022

25. The works were planned to start in spring 2022 but were delayed because of the COVID-19 pandemic and because of a lack of suitable contractors to carry out the work.
26. In October the architect sent the Council planning and building control approvals and it was agreed that the works would start in spring 2023.

2023

27. In February 2023 Officer A sent an email to Officer B saying she had discussed the plans with Mr X. He was pleased that the ramp would now go straight from the back door to the gate as this had always been his preferred option. But he was unhappy that the shed was to remain when it had been agreed that it would be removed. Officer A said that, if the shed remained, Mr Y would have no garden to sit in once the ramp was created. Officer B said he had spoken to Mr X and explained the agreed changes which included a straight ramped access from the rear door.
28. The works began in April.
29. In June Officer A visited the property while the works were continuing. Following the visit, she sent an email to Officer B saying “the ramp will take up the entire rear garden… The access will be left open as a gate would be an obstacle”.
30. On 9 August Officer A spoke to Mr X. He was unhappy that a zigzag ramp had been installed when a straight ramp had been agreed. Officer They explained that a zigzag ramp was needed to achieve the necessary gradient. Mr X said he should have been consulted. He also said bathroom tiles had not been fitted in accordance with the schedule of works.
31. The following day Officer A, Officer B and a building control officer visited the property. The building control officer agreed to sign off the works as they met building regulations. Following the visit, Officer A telephoned Mr X. He said he was unhappy about the ramp and lack of consultation. Officer A’s notes also state “boundary fencing discussed”.
32. Officers met to discuss the issues. Officer A’s notes state that the ramp had been signed off by building control and should provide Mr Y with wheelchair access to the property. The notes state “fencing to rear of property not essential”. The outcome of the meeting was that the ramp would not be altered and no fencing would be supplied. Officer A informed Mr X.
33. On 16 August Mr X complained that:
• He had not been told that the ramp would be a permanent structure;
• the ramp had been installed in a zigzag layout despite him being told in September 2022 that it would be an L shape and it had taken up all the garden.
• the porch area had been incorporated into the property which made the available area for the ramp shorter;
• the new ramp specification was never agreed with him or Mr Y;
• to accommodate the large ramp, a shed had been removed which left the garden open with no boundary fence. Homeless people were sleeping on the ramp and Mr Y was vulnerable because of this; and
• communication with him had been poor throughout the process and he had heard nothing since April.
34. Officer A explained that:
• the porch area had been extended to improve wheelchair circulation space;
• a straight ramp would no longer have met building regulations because the gradient would be too steep; and
• fencing was not an essential medical need so the Council would not be providing this.
35. On 14 September 2023 the manager of the adaptation service responded to Mr X’s complaint at stage 1 of the Council’s complaints procedure. She accepted the original plans did indicate that a straight ramp would be installed. But explained that changes had to be made because, when the porch was demolished, officers found that a raft foundation was required to meet building regulations. This was not known until the porch was removed. The manager explained that the only way to obtain the necessary gradient was to install a zigzag ramp. She accepted the revised plans did not show the new ramp layout and said that, although this had been agreed with Mr Y, the new layout should have been approved by Mr X as the owner of the property. The manager also accepted there was no evidence to indicate the materials that would be used to build the ramp and it could be assumed that it may be of a semi-permanent nature. However, it had not been possible to provide a semi-permanent structure. She apologised to Mr X.

2024

36. In January 2024, following further correspondence, the Council agreed to install fencing and a gate at the rear of the property. However, it declined to install an automatic gate opener as this was not medically required.
37. The fencing and gate were installed in February 2024.

Analysis

Ramp

38. It is clear from the evidence that, following discussions with Mr X, Officer A asked the architect for plans showing “the shortest possible ramp, ideally straight or L shaped to maximise the available outdoor space”. The architect sent revised plans showing an L-shaped ramp which Mr X approved. However, when works began, officers decided a zigzag ramp was required. The Council accepts Mr X was not informed and he was unaware of the change in the plan.
39. There is also no evidence that Mr X was informed that the ramp would be a permanent structure. He was under the impression that it would be a temporary structure following discussions with Officer A in August 2021.
40. I find the Council was at fault in failing to consult Mr X about proposed changes to the ramp and obtain his agreement before proceeding to construct it. The lack of communication caused Mr X distress and frustration. However, on a balance of probabilities, I do not consider the outcome would have been any different if the Council had consulted Mr X. This is because officers were satisfied, following removal of the porch, that a zigzag ramp was the only way to obtain the necessary gradient and obtain building control approval. They also considered that temporary ramp would not be strong enough for Mr X’s powered wheelchair. The team has a duty to address Mr Y’s assessed needs and the decision on how best to do this was a matter for their professional judgement.

Rear boundary fence and gate

41. Mr X says the Council failed to install fencing, a gate and an automatic gate opener as set out in the schedule of works. When he raised this issue Officer A said fencing was not an essential medical need and so the Council would not provide it.
42. The original works schedule stated, “demolish the existing lobby, rear storeroom, timber boundary fence and rear boundary wall… and make good to yard surfaces, existing boundaries, etc”. However, officers removed this from later versions of the works schedule and it was not included in the final approved schedule.
43. Officers were entitled to revise the schedule as they saw fit. However, to allow installation of the ramp, a brick outhouse and fence were removed leaving the entire rear of the property open to the public. So, I consider the Council should have replaced the boundary. It has now installed fencing and a gate. But the delay in doing so caused Mr X and Mr Y an injustice. Homeless people began sleeping on the ramp making Mr Y feel vulnerable. This also caused Mr X distress. I have recommended a remedy for this.
44. The Council has explained to Mr X that it will not install an automatic gate opener because this is not an essential medical need.
45. Disabled facilities grants are provided via public funds and are only approved if the Council accepts the work is necessary and appropriate to meet the disabled person’s needs. Whether something is an essential medical need is a matter for officers’ professional judgement. So, there are no grounds to criticise the Council’s decision to remove the automatic gate opener from the schedule of works given officers’ view that it is not an essential medical need.

Bathroom tiles

46. Mr X says that bathroom tiles included in the schedule of works have not been installed.
47. The schedule of works dated 27 July 2022 stated, “provide and fit using tile spacers glazed ceramic tiles to the new bathroom”. Mr X says he therefore expected tiles to be fitted to the walls.
48. The Council has explained that the initial shower specification indicated that the whole bathroom would be tiled. However, Mr Y requested shower sheeting in the direct shower area instead as this is easier to clean and manage. The Council says the shower sheeting was installed instead even though this was a more expensive option, and the amended schedule of works was sent to Mr X after the installation. The Council accepts this change to the schedule should have been discussed with Mr X, as the owner of the property, before it was implemented.
49. The Council’s failure to consult Mr X about the change was fault. As a result, he lost the opportunity to be involved in the decision-making.

Communication

50. The Council accepts that communication with Mr X was not as good as it could have been. It accepted it should have kept him updated. It also accepted that communications were not always recorded.
51. I find the Council was at fault in failing to keep Mr X informed. As the owner of the property, he should have been consulted before any major changes were made to the proposed works.
52. In addition, I find the Council delayed in responding to Mr X’s complaint. He complained on 16 August 2023, but the Council did not issue a stage 1 response until 14 September 2023. The Council’s complaints policy states that a stage 1 response will be issued within 10 working days. This delay was further fault and caused Mr X additional frustration.
53. The Council says that learning has been taken from Mr X’s complaint. It has made changes to the process so that works schedules are now issued to the landlord and prompt a response.

Back to top

Agreed action

54. The Council has agreed that, within one month, it will:
• apologise to Mr X for failing to communicate with him about the proposed changes to the ramp and bathroom tiles and for the delay in installing fencing and in responding to his complaint;
• pay Mr X £300 in recognition of the injustice caused;
• apologise to Mr Y for the distress caused by the delay in installing fencing and pay him £300 in recognition of the injustice caused; and
• issue a reminder to relevant staff that all substantive communication should be recorded on the case file.
55. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

56. I find fault causing injustice.
57. I have completed my investigation on the basis that the Council has agreed to implement the recommended remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman