Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed the progress of a Disabled Facilities Grant for work needed for the benefit of her son. The scheme was not completed within the maximum timeframes set out in government guidance causing significant distress to the family. There is evidence of periods of inaction and delay which is fault. A suitable remedy is agreed.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council delayed the progress of a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) for work needed for the benefit of her son. She also complains that the Council’s communication was poor, particularly about proposed changes to the specification agreed by an Occupational Therapist. They also complained the Council was not allowing them sufficient access to oversee the work while it was being done.
2. Mrs X says the delays in progressing the works have caused distress and ill health for the whole family as they struggle to meet their son’s needs.

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. 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. Mrs X also complained about the way the Council dealt with some housing repairs issue and about arrangements for moving the family to temporary accommodation while the works were being carried out. We are not investigating the housing repair issues or arrangements to move the family. This is because we do not have jurisdiction to investigate the actions the Council takes in its capacity as a registered social landlord. Those issues can be considered by the Housing Ombudsman.
6. This complaint will consider the Council’s actions from February 2023, when the application was submitted, to July 2024 when the works began.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and taken account of their comments in reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant 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. 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

10. 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..

Processing a DFG

11. In March 2022 the government issued non-statutory guidance “Disabled facilities Grant (DFG) Delivery: Guidance for local authorities in England.
12. 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.

DFG Process

13. 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 submits the application form together 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. The works are arranged and carried out and the necessary quality checks made.

14. 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 required. 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

Key facts

15. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
16. Mrs X’s son, Z, is disabled and requires 24-hour care. The family home is socially rented and was not suitable for Z’s needs as the bathroom and bedrooms are all upstairs. Mr and Mrs X applied for a disabled facilities grant (DFG) to build a ground floor extension which would provide suitable facilities for Z.
17. Mr X submitted the application in February 2023. The form stated they needed a rear extension to provide a bedroom, wet room and storage space for son’s mobility equipment including wheelchair and walker. It also stated a ramp was needed at the front of the property.
18. Runnymede Home Improvement Agency (RHIA), a team within the Council led the process. Along with an Occupational Therapist (OT) from the County Council, a home visit was carried out on 16 March 2023. The OT then forwarded the assessment report to the Council. Following this, the architects provided plans on 25 April and the party wall notice was approved on 20 July.
19. The family signed off the final plans on 31 May following which there was a slight amendment by the OT to the door width. By 20 June, the correct planning permissions had been received and Mrs X believed the next step was to appoint a builder.
20. In July a new surveyor was appointed by the Council. On 24 July he raised some concerns about the proposed works saying that some items would not normally be included within a DFG specification as they are additional costs and not clinically necessary. He raised the issue of the lack of ventilation in the room and the inclusion of bi-fold doors. He stated the proposed plans seemed to focus on the visual effect and not needs. RHIA confirmed that a DFG should only cover the most cost effective option which would be French doors and a window.
21. Mr and Mrs X say the bi-fold doors were not added for visual effect but so that their son, as he got older, would have level access outside and would enable him to do this independently. Mr and Mrs X contacted the Council about this situation. A senior Council officer decided that although the bi-fold doors were not required to meet needs that it would be authorised with an additional window to ensure adequate ventilation. Mr and Mrs X signed off the revised plans on 9 October.
22. After building control approval was received on 3 November, the surveyor gave notice to leave his post. As a result no further action was taken to progress this application until 11 December. The Council says the new surveyor prioritised this application and that it was finalised on 16 January and forwarded to its procurement department. It was noted the Council’s legal department had no capacity and so the Council asked an external legal company to act on 23 January 2024. It sent back the documents on 26 January and the tender was published on 29 January.
23. Mrs X then entered into discussions with the Council about the move to temporary accommodation while the works were being completed. This included issues about the costs, timescales and practicalities of the move. As explained above, these are actions by the Council as a landlord and so fall outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Therefore I will not consider this further.
24. Mrs X handed over the keys for the property in July 2024 and the works began.
25. Mr and Mrs X made a formal complaint about the delays in the progress of the DFG application. The Council responded on 12 March 2024 saying it had not found evidence of extended periods with no activity or failure to take necessary action. It said it did not have the internal capacity to ensure immediate progress so engaged a consultancy to do this. It said the decisions about the specification rested with it and the OT and not the architect. It acknowledged there was delay in August and September regarding the bi-fold doors and said they were agreed as a discretionary gesture. The response set out the arrangements for the move and said that it would arrange an accompanied site visit every two weeks to view the progress of the build but that there would not be access outside of this. It concluded the complaint was not upheld.
26. Mrs X escalated the complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaint process. She explained how stressful the situation was and the very detrimental effect it was having on the whole family. She said the bi-fold doors were discussed and agreed early in the process and it was not chosen for visual affect but so her son could be independent as he grew older. She said there had been delay by the Council as everything had been agreed by June and it only changed when a new surveyor was appointed.
27. The Council’s complaint response focussed on the actions following the appointment of the new surveyor in August 2023. The new surveyor first met Mr and Mrs X when he visited their property with a contractor without making a prior appointment. It was acknowledged that the new surveyor did not make contact with either Mr and Mrs X or the OT about the changes to the proposed works. The Council accepted the new surveyor did not communicate with Mr and Mrs X in a timely or effective manner. It upheld the complaint and made a payment of £400.

Analysis

28. Mrs X complains about delays in the DFG process, poor communication and lack of access while the works are undertaken. The Council has already accepted fault in respect of the lack of communication regarding changes to the proposed works and has provided a remedy. The Council has provided a suitable remedy for the injustice caused by this fault which included keeping the bi-fold doors and making a payment of £400. I will therefore not consider this aspect further.
29. I have considered whether there was delay by the Council. Government guidance for local authorities on the delivery of disabled facilities grants sets out timescales for completing projects. It notes that this will depend on the urgency and complexity of the adaptations required. The longest timescale in the guidance, for non-urgent and complex cases is 180 working days. From the application date of 9 February 2023 to the start of the works on 1 July 2024 was considerably more than 180 working days. To completion of the project was more than double the longest timescale set out in the guidance. It is noted this is only guidance and not a statutory timescale. So I have considered whether there was avoidable delay.
30. The law requires the Council to notify the applicant within six months whether the application is approved or refused. I am satisfied the Council promptly notified Mr and Mrs X it had approved the application.
31. The Council appointed external agencies to prepare the plans and manage the application. I am satisfied there was no delay in progressing the project initially and Mr and Mrs X were expecting the tender to be advertised in the summer of 2023. However, action stalled when a new surveyor was appointed in July 2023.
32. I am satisfied the new surveyor was entitled to revisit the plans and to raise concerns. His concern about the lack of ventilation was valid and resulted in a change that improved this which was beneficial but meant new plans had to be prepared and signed off. While his concern about the inclusion of bi-fold doors was also valid, it seems the way he raised this did cause avoidable delay. He did not consult with the OT or Mr and Mrs X to discuss why they had been included and signed off by all parties. I consider that doing this could have avoided the problems that arose and resulted in Mr and Mrs X having to make a formal complaint.
33. Case notes indicate the tender and start date moved several times. It was thought it would be September 2023 originally. In November 2023, the Council told Mr and Mrs X the expected date for the works to commence was April 2024. The new surveyor gave notice to the Council and no further action was taken until his replacement started work in December 2023. I note the Council says he then prioritised this project and the procurement team received them by 16 January 2024. The Council used an external legal company to prepare the tender and it did this within three days. This is likely a quicker timescale than if the work had been completed by the Council itself. The tender was published on 29 January.
34. The tenders were evaluated and ranked. The Council decided not to proceed with the top ranked tender due to concerns about the company being able to deliver a completed scheme. This required the Council to then evaluate the second ranked tender which again delayed the start date.
35. This was an expensive and complicated project. The evidence provided shows that while the Council tried to keep it moving forward, it struggled with a lack of resources particularly staff, to ensure it progressed quickly. There is evidence of inaction at times which resulted in the works not starting until more than 300 working days after the application was made. This is well outside the timescales detailed in the government guidance. I consider there was avoidable delay in this case which is fault.
36. Mr and Mrs X required the extension in order to properly care for their son. They had to carry him upstairs to the bathroom which became increasingly difficult over time as he grew bigger and heavier. The information provided shows that caring for their son and other children as well as dealing with the demands of applying for the DFG put enormous strain on the family. Inevitably any DFG works would be stressful to manage, however the avoidable delays in this case caused more stress and so I am recommending a symbolic payment to acknowledge this.
37. Mr and Mrs X also complained about a lack of access to their property while the works were ongoing to see progress. I note the Council offered an accompanied site visit every two weeks so they could see the build but said they could not allow access to the property outside of this because it will be a building site and will be secured. I am therefore satisfied the Council did offer Mr and Mrs X access to see progression of the works. While they may have wanted more regular access, this is a matter of judgement for the Council and I cannot say there was fault on this point.

Back to top

Agreed action

38. To recognise the injustice caused as a result of the fault identified above, the Council will, within one month of my final decision take the following action:
• Apologise to Mr and Mrs X for the avoidable delay; and
• Make a symbolic payment of £500 to acknowledge the distress caused.
39. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

40. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault for the reasons explained in this statement. The Council has agreed to implement the actions I have recommended. These appropriately remedy any injustice caused by fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman