Summary: Mr F complained on behalf of his son about delay by the Council in considering his application for a Disabled Facilities Grant. We found fault which caused distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make payments to Mr F and his son to remedy this.

The complaint

1. Mr F complained on behalf of his son, Mr J, about delay in the Council considering his application for a Disabled Facilities Grant. Mr F says he has had to pay for the works privately due to the Council’s failings.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
4. 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.
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I spoke to Mr F about his complaint and considered the information he sent, the Council’s response to my enquiries and:
• The Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (“the Act”)
• Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) delivery: Guidance for local authorities in England (“the Guidance”)
7. Mr F 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

Disabled facilities grants

8. Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs) are provided under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Councils have a statutory duty to give grants to disabled people for certain adaptations. These include enabling the disabled person to access their home and essential facilities within the home, including the garden.
9. Before approving a grant, a council must be satisfied the work is necessary, appropriate for the disabled person’s needs, and is reasonable and practicable.
10. The Act says councils shall not approve an application for a grant if the relevant works have been begun before the application is approved. (Section 29, Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996)
11. The process of applying for a DFG usually requires:
• An assessment by an occupational therapist (OT) or other qualified assessor to identify the person’s needs;
• A schedule of works setting out the adaptations to meet the identified needs. Complex adaptations might also need plans or technical drawings;
• Quotes from at least two contractors for the cost of the works; and
• Certificates and approvals from both a tenant and a landlord, where the applicant is a tenant, or an owner's certificate if the applicant owns their own home.
12. When the council has all the necessary information, the formal grant application is complete. The Act says the council should decide a grant application as soon as possible and must do so within six months. Once the work is complete, the council must pay the grant in full within 12 months of the application date.
13. The statutory timescales do not begin until the council receives a complete application. However, the Guidance identifies five key stages in the process and sets out expected timescales that should be met in 95% of cases. The timescales depend on the urgency and complexity of the works required. In this case, the works were determined to be “non-urgent and complex”. The target timescales were therefore:
• Stage 0: First contact with the service. Councils should ensure the public has access to information and advice about the DFG process.
• Stage 1: First contact to assessment and identification of the relevant works. An OT will assess the person’s needs and potential solutions through home adaptations. – 35 working days
• Stage 2: 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). – 55 working days
• Stage 3: 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. – 20 working days
• Stage 4: Approval of grant to completion of works. The works are arranged and carried out and the necessary quality checks made. – 80 working days
14. The Guidance says 95% of non-urgent and complex works cases should be completed within 180 working days (about eight months) of the person’s first contact.
15. We expect councils to consider whether interim equipment or temporary works should be provided when it will take them a long time to secure a permanent solution.
16. The Council’s DFG process says that after an OT assessment the Council will sometimes conduct a “feasibility visit” to determine what is reasonable and practicable before the final recommendation can be made by the OT. There are no timescales set out for the feasibility visit in the Council’s process document or DFG policy.

What happened

17. Mr J has physical and learning disabilities and uses a wheelchair. He lives with his father, Mr F.
18. On 27 March 2023, Mr F contacted the occupational therapy (OT) service to request an assessment for adaptations. He said Mr J would need a larger wheelchair and therefore he would not be able to access all parts of his home as the new wheelchair would not fit through the internal doors or out into the garden.
19. There was a waiting list for OT assessments and Mr F chased a number of times over the next few months. In August he was told his case had been “moved up to urgent priority” and the current wait was approximately six months.
20. Mr F told the OT service in October that he had had to fund a ramp to be installed from his new conservatory into the garden as the works could not be delayed. This had cost him around £2,650.
21. The OT visited Mr J’s home on 1 November. The OT found he now had a larger wheelchair and was therefore unable to access some areas in his wheelchair. The OT completed their assessment in December and on 15 December asked the Council to carry out a feasibility visit to consider:
• Widening the front and porch doors and installing level threshold doors.
• Widening the doorway from hallway to lounge.
• Widening the doorway from hallway to kitchen.
22. I have not seen any case records of how the request for a feasibility visit was handled, but on 19 January 2024 the team advised the OT service that Mr J was on the waiting list and was number 65 of 129.
23. The OT spoke to Mr F on 1 February and apologised for the delay. Mr F said he had now had to pay for the door from the kitchen to the conservatory to be widened so that the conservatory could be completed. It was noted Mr J was unable to access the kitchen in his wheelchair. The OT considered that widening the front door and porch door to enable access in the future may not meet the DFG criteria.
24. The local councillor made a complaint on Mr F’s behalf on 2 February. The Council responded on 7 March. It said that although Mr J’s OT assessment request had been moved to the urgent list, cases were prioritised according to risk and due to other urgent cases with high-risk needs, the OT had not been able to assess until November. The Council could not pay for the works Mr F had carried out as a DFG could not be approved retrospectively. The Council did not say when the feasibility visit would be.
25. Mr F came to the Ombudsman. After we contacted the Council, it told us in May that the delay in completing the feasibility visit was due to a backlog of requests, ongoing demand for works, staff turnover and insufficient staff. It had a new DFG process since 1 April 2024 and had recruited three new members of staff since December 2023.
26. The feasibility visit was carried out on 13 June. On 15 July the OT submitted a referral for a DFG to widen the front, lounge and kitchen doors and install a wash and dry toilet. In August 2024, the Council said Mr J’s case was waiting to be allocated to an adaptations officer to complete the formal DFG application process. Due to the Council’s waiting list it anticipated it would be allocated during August.

My findings

27. Mr F’s first contact with the DFG service was on 27 March 2023. To be in line with the timescales in the Guidance, the OT assessment (Stage 1) should have been completed by 18 May 2023. It was not completed until December 2023. This delay is service failure.
28. Stage 2 of the DFG process includes the Council’s feasibility visit and the work of the adaptations officer in completing the DFG application. In 95% of non-urgent and complex cases it should take 55 working days to be completed.
29. If there had been no delay in the OT assessment Stage 2 should have been completed by 4 August 2023. If the timescale starts on 15 December 2023, after the delayed OT assessment, a grant application should have been made by 7 March 2024. But the feasibility visit was not carried out until June 2024 and no DFG application had been made by September 2024. This delay is service failure.
30. If there had been no fault, a grant application would have been made by 5 August 2023 and the Council would have had to make a decision on it by February 2024 to comply with the Act. Instead Mr J is still waiting for his application to be made and considered.
31. The delay causes Mr F frustration and distress. It also causes Mr J distress as he is having to crawl around his property to access his kitchen, lounge and garden. This is a significant injustice which is continuing as it is uncertain when the DFG application will be decided and when the works will be completed.
32. Mr F funded a ramp and wider door into his new conservatory to enable Mr J to access the garden. In response to my second draft decision statement, Mr F said the £2,650 cost was for both the ramp and the wider kitchen door and sent details of the costs of the door.
33. In response to my first draft decision statement, the Council sent evidence that it considered that the ramp as built was too steep. The ramp that Mr F had installed was a gradient of 1:6. The OT’s view was that there was enough space to install a longer ramp to achieve the minimum 1:12 gradient for a manual wheelchair or 1:10 gradient for a powered wheelchair, so a 1:6 gradient would not have been deemed necessary.
34. Whilst it was Mr F’s choice to do the works before a grant was approved as part of his new conservatory, if he had not done them Mr J would have had the injustice of no or difficult access into the garden. As access to a garden is one of the purposes for which a DFG may be approved, I consider it likely the Council would have approved such measures if the application had been made on time.
35. However it is not my role to say what measures and costs are suitable. The Council has sent evidence it would not have approved the ramp as built, Mr F did not obtain two quotes or have technical plans approved by the Council. I therefore cannot say on the balance of probabilities that the Council would have approved a grant for the costs of the door and ramp that were installed. Nonetheless, Mr F has been caused uncertainty about whether they might have been.
36. When we have evidence of fault causing injustice, we will seek a remedy for that injustice which aims to put the complainant back in the position they would have been in if nothing had gone wrong. When this is not possible, we will normally consider asking for a moderate, symbolic payment up to £500 to acknowledge the avoidable distress or uncertainty caused.
37. The Council has sent further information about the changes it is making to reduce delays, including a new process, new staff and strategic level meetings to analyse learning from complaints about adaptations. I have therefore not made any service improvement recommendations.

Back to top

Agreed action

38. Within a month of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Mr F and Mr J for the delay in processing their request for a DFG.
• Pay Mr F £750 to remedy the distress and uncertainty caused.
• Pay Mr J £500 to remedy the distress caused.
39. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

40. There was fault by the Council. The actions the Council has agreed to take remedy the injustice caused. I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman