Summary: Mrs X complains the Council was at fault in the way it dealt with her application for a disabled facilities grant causing distress. We found fault because the Council delayed carrying out an assessment by an occupational therapist on Mrs X for her application. The Council has accepted it was at fault and already apologised to Mrs X for the delay which is suitable action for it to take. There is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it has assessed Mrs X’s needs and drawn up proposals for adaptations at her property. So we have completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains there were failings in the way the Council dealt with her application for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) causing her distress and uncertainty. In particular Mrs X says:
• The Council delayed referring her to a social services Occupational Therapist (OT) for an assessment from January to April 2023. The OT assessment was then not carried out until September 2023.
• A Council technical officer ignored the OT’s recommendations and produced proposals that were not fit for purpose. Mrs X says under the Council’s proposals she will lose the only available space she has to carry out craft activities to improve her mental health. And it has failed to take account of both Mrs X’s needs and those of her family as her husband is her carer, and they have a child with health needs.
• The Council is unfairly pressurising her to use its proposals which Mrs X says are unsuitable and will not work. And it will only pay grant money up to the amount it has calculated for its proposals even if she submits her own proposal for adaptations which may cost more.
• The Council failed to resolve Mrs X’s concerns through the complaints procedure, and it has failed to followed policy legislation when deciding her grant.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. The Ombudsman’s view, based on caselaw, is that ‘service failure’ is an objective, factual question about what happened. A finding of service failure does not imply blame, intent or bad faith on the part of the council involved. There may be circumstances where we conclude service failure has occurred and caused an injustice to the complainant despite the best efforts of the council. This still amounts to fault. We may recommend a remedy for the injustice caused and/or that the council makes service improvements. (R (on the application of ER) v CLA (LGO) [2014] EWCA civ 1407)
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

How I considered this complaint

5. I spoke to Mrs X and considered the information she provided with her complaint. I considered information from the Council and the supporting documents it provided along with the relevant law and guidance.
6. Mrs 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

Disabled Facilities Grants

7. Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG) 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.
8. In March 2022 the government issued non-statutory guidance “Disabled facilities Grant (DFG) Delivery: Guidance for local authorities in England. The 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.
9. 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.

The Council’s DFG procedure

10. The Council participates in the Integrated Housing Adaptations Teams (IHAT) introduced in the Council’s area by Norfolk County Council who employs the OTs. The OTs provide the triage and assessment service of the DFG. The Council also uses its Home Improvement Agency to increase capacity for DFG assessments to enable assessments by officers know as a Trusted Assessor. The officer will carry out an assessment and consultation with an OT to ensure compliance with the relevant legislation.
11. As the DFG process is a statutory process the Council follows mandatory procedures. So, the Council makes an assessment by the OT that details the need for the applicant. The Council’s technical staff produce a schedule of works to meet the need at the dwelling, for builders to price against. The schedule will be based on the most efficient use of public funds to meet the need and takes into account whether it is reasonable or practical to achieve the adaptations at the property.

What happened

12. What follows is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain all the information I reviewed during my investigation.
13. Mrs X lives at a private rented property with her husband and child. In January 2023 the Council received contact about Mrs X due to her difficulties in using her bathroom and kitchen because of mobility issues. The Council agreed to assess Mrs X for a DFG to carry out adaptations to the property and referred her for an OT assessment. The Council advised Mrs X there would be a wait for a social services OT and apologised for the delay.
14. The OT’s triaged Mrs X’s referral on 4 April 2023 and categorised her as non-urgent and complex works. An OT carried out an first home visit in September 2023 and a second home visit in October 2023.
15. The OT issue an assessment report in October 2023. The report noted Mrs X’s mobility, health needs and adaptations need to help Mrs X. This included a low access shower to help her bathe and a high WC in the bathroom. And kitchen adaptations to enable her to make meals for her family and do laundry. This included raising the height of a washing machine and providing a seating space for Mrs X while preparing meals. It noted the medical needs of her child and they preferred to bathe rather than shower for pain relief.
16. A Council technical officer visited Mrs X’s property several times in November 2023 after receiving the OT assessment to develop proposals for the kitchen and bathroom. The officer discussed the proposed drawings with Mrs X. Mrs X expressed concerns about the bathroom plans saying she would lose storage space, some of the spare room used as an office and raising the toilet would be too high for her child. Mrs X said the proposals did not meet her family’s needs. The officer explained the Council considered the proposed drawings were reasonable and practical and would meet her needs in the footprint of property.
17. Mrs X advised while the landlord gave permission for adaptations, they did not want any internal alterations of rooms. Mrs X asked the officer to look at other options for adaptations to meet her needs rather than changing the size of rooms.
18. The officer drew up further plans and offered Mrs X several options for her bathroom in December 2023. In January 2024 the Council proposed to make a new bathroom in the spare room including a level access shower and bath. And turn the bathroom into the spare room. The Council confirmed the proposal was approved by the OT to meet Mrs X’s bathing needs.
19. The Council also put forward some designs to meet Mrs X’s needs in her kitchen. Mrs X remained unhappy with the proposals and instructed an independent specialist kitchen designer to draw up a kitchen plan. The kitchen designer produced several designs which the OT approved as able to meet Mrs X’s needs.
20. Mrs X told the Council she intended to make a new DFG application with her own designs for the kitchen and bathroom. So, the Council costed a new kitchen at £8,000 and works to produce a new bathroom and office in the old bathroom based at £14,885 on the Council’s proposals. The total cost came to £22,885. The Council put forward an offer to Mrs X it would contribute that amount as grant funding to her providing the plans she drew up met her needs as confirmed by an OT. The Council capped the funding at that amount because it considered it could adapt the property to meet Mrs X’s need within those costs.
21. Mrs X asked the Council to go ahead with the grant application for the kitchen only but requested a further design. The Council told Mrs X in March 2024 it does not intend to do any further designs. It has said Mrs X can either proceed with her own her designs and application and it will approve £22,885 towards the works. Or Mrs X can proceed with the current proposals for both bathing and cooking put forward by the Council. Once Mrs X agrees a proposal the Council will provide her with applications forms to move the process forward.

The Council’s response to Mrs X’s complaints

22. The Council confirms Mrs X case was categorised by the OTs as non-urgent and complex works. The guidance recommends the Council take 180 working days from first contact to completion of works in such cases. The Council says it tries to adhere to the guidance. But the delays in Mrs X’s case were due to shortage of social services OTs through sick leave who are required to assess applicants. To try and resolve the matter the Council sought additional support from social services. The OT provided the assessment in Mrs X’s case as part of the extra support. The Council apologised to Mrs X and explained it was making a considerable effort to reduce the time for assessments.
23. The action being taken by the Council includes using its Home Improvement Agency which has reduced waiting times for an assessment. This meant in August 2024 there were no more than 30 cases waiting for an OT assessment.
24. The Council acknowledges Mrs X considers the proposals it has drawn up so far are not fit for purpose, do not meet her needs and it has not addressed her concerns. But it says the original proposals were just proposals to be agreed before it sought financial costings with builders. There would then be further discussions between the builders and applicant about the fine details of the proposals.
25. Mrs X has questioned the dimensions and positioning on the drawings at various times. The Council confirms it has responded to the concerns raised and consulted with the OT about the proposals. The consultation also involved OT management through the responsible Principal OT at the County Council.
26. While meeting the Mrs X’s need the Council says the proposals have rarely met with her ideal. As such the Council has put forward various options to her. To access bathing Mrs X can choose between having two bathrooms which totally meet need, including that of her family and child, and her aspiration. Although the proposal reduces the living rooms for the three occupants from three to two leaving a lounge and dining room. Or Mrs X can have one larger bathroom that meets the assessed need while failing to meet her aspirations.
27. The Council considered the proposal for the kitchen meets Mrs X’s assessed need after consultation with the OT. But, although providing ample practical worktop facilities, there is a small reduction to the work top surface area. The Council accepts this does not meet Mrs X’s aspirations and acknowledges some kitchen options limited access. However, for example the independent specialist’s proposals allowed full access to the kitchen as accepted by the Council and OT when the seat for Mrs X is in use. The Council confirms all the designs it put forward have been drawn up in consultation with the OT’s.
28. The Council is satisfied through correspondence with statutory professionals, its various proposals have met the need of the assessment. The Council considers they are reasonable and practicable and necessary and appropriate. But none have satisfied Mrs X’s requirements. To help Mrs X progress the adaptations the Council has priced its most expensive options (going beyond the scope of the legislation) for Mrs X to use the value £22,895.14 to initiate her own works to the property. But this will be if the proposals meet the need as confirmed by a Social Services OT.

My assessment

29. The Council has accepted it has taken longer than it should for Mrs X to have the OT assessment due to a shortage of OTs through staff illness. So, it did not meet the recommended timescale of 180 days from point of contact to completion in the non-statutory guidance. Mrs X was subject to nine months of delays between January to September 2023 before an OT assessment.
30. It is unfortunate staff illness affected the Council’s ability to carry out the assessment sooner which I consider amounts to service failure by the Council. Although the guidance is non- statutory, we would expect a council to comply with the recommended timescales. The Council’s service failure has caused Mrs X frustration and uncertainty about whether she would be assessed as having needs and requiring adaptations. The Council has already apologised to Mrs X for the delay which I consider is suitable action for it to take and I do not recommend any further remedy in this case. This is because even if the OT assessment had taken place any sooner, I do not consider, on the balance of probability, there would have been a completed scheme of adaptations carried out to the property. This is because Mrs X has been unable to agree to the proposals put forward so far and so the Council has not been able to progress her DGF application.
31. The Council has assured us of actions it is has taken to address delays in the OT assessments, and it has reported signs of improvement. This has been demonstrated as the OT waiting list has reduced by August 2024. I am therefore satisfied the Council has a plan to address the delays and is taking steps to address the issue. So, I do not consider there is a need to make service improvements recommendations in this case.
32. Mrs X may disagree with the proposals put forward, but these have been produced by the OT and technical officer using their professional judgement. It is not our role to intervene to offer a different view, nor can we criticise a decision made properly. I consider the decisions about Mrs X’s proposals have been made properly in this case. This is because the documents show the Council followed the DFG procedures. The OT and technical officer visited Mrs X’s property before assessing her need and drawing up proposals. The Council also took into account the needs of her family including her child. The evidence provided shows officers have considered Mrs X’s concerns and drawn up different options for her. There is no evidence of fault by the Council.
33. It is unfortunate the plans do not meet Mrs X’s aspirations for adaptations, but they are considered to meet the requirements of the DFG legislation. This is where a council must be satisfied the work is necessary, meets the disabled person’s needs, and is reasonable and practicable.
34. The documents provided show the Council has thoroughly considered Mrs X’s concerns about the proposals following her complaints. It carried out a further assessment and produced new drawings. The Council has now made Mrs X a suitable offer to either use the Council’s proposals or to progress with her own designs with some grant funding from the Council. This will enable Mrs X to produce her own designs subject to approval by a social services OT.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I have completed my investigation. There is evidence of fault by the Council as it delayed carrying out an OT assessment on Mrs X for her DFG application. The Council has apologised to Mrs X for the delay which is suitable action for it to take. There is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it has assessed Mrs X’s needs and drawn up proposals for adaptations at her property.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman