Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council decided what to include in a Disabled Facilities Grant to adapt his father, Mr Y’s, home to meet his needs. The Council was at fault for not including making two doorways wider in its list of works. We cannot investigate much of the rest of the complaint because Mr X complained to us too late.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council decided what to include in a Disabled Facilities Grant to adapt his father, Mr Y’s, home to meet his needs. Specifically, Mr X said:
• a Council Occupational Therapist (OT) did not visit Mr Y’s home before recommending adaptations;
• the OT’s recommendation of a lift was unsuitable;
• he feels Mr Y needs a more complex set of adaptations, including an extension, than the Council has assessed Mr Y as needing. Mr X has agreed the scope of the expanded adaptations with the Council but is unhappy it has not sent him an updated specification of the works;
• he is unhappy a Council building surveyor had suggested some adult members of Mr Y’s family moved out of his home;
• the surveyor had said in a home visit that all internal doors needed to be widened to allow Mr Y’s wheelchair access. However, the Council had since said it would only widen the front and back door;
• the Council had not included the cost of a dropped kerb in the adaptation grant; and
• Mr Y’s boiler was beyond repair but the Council had not fixed it.

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. 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)
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered:
• all the information Mr X provided and discussed the complaint with him;
• the Council’s comments about the complaint and the supporting documents it provided; and
• the relevant law and guidance and the Ombudsman's guidance on remedies.
7. 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

Relevant law and guidance

8. Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG’s) are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. DFG’s are not designed to make every part of the disabled person’s home accessible by them. Councils have a statutory duty to give grants to disabled people for certain adaptations. These include:
• access to and from the home;
• access to a garden;
• having easier access to a living room; and
• to make and cook food.
9. Before approving a grant, a council must be satisfied the work is necessary, meets the disabled person’s needs, and is reasonable and practicable.

What happened

10. Mr Y has disabilities which mean it is hard for him to access his home. In 2020, a Council Occupational Therapist (OT) carried out an assessment of Mr Y’s need for adaptations on the phone. Following the assessment, the OT recommended:
• wheelchair access into Mr Y’s home including widening the front door;
• a dropped kerb at the front of the property;
• a lift from the lounge to master bedroom;
• creation of a wet room; and
• a wheelchair counter in the kitchen.
11. Mr X, Mr Y’s son, had a copy of the assessment outcome.
12. In March 2021, a Council building surveyor attended Mr Y’s property to decided what adaptations it would fund through a DFG. During the visit, Mr X said he felt Mr Y needed more extensive works to meet his needs.
13. A case record created after the survey lists the approximate costs of the adaptations. It included an amount for widening the internal kitchen and lounge doors.
14. The surveyor sent a letter setting out their decision in late March. The letter noted that the Council would fund:
• wheelchair access into Mr Y’s home, including a wider front door;
• changes to the door at the back of the property to improve access;
• a lift from the lounge to master bedroom;
• creation of a wet room; and
• a wheelchair counter in the kitchen.
15. It did not make reference to widening of internal doors. The letter noted the works would cost around £24,000, which would be covered by the DFG. It said if Mr X wanted to pursue more extensive works, Mr Y would have to pay the extra costs on top of the grant amount.
16. Mr X told the surveyor he wanted to pursue the more extensive works for Mr Y.
17. At the end of March 2021, the surveyor sent an email to Mr X about extended works which said “as I mentioned during my initial visit, [the DFG service] does not provide dropped kerbs…so we would not be able to grant fund those”.
18. Mr X continued to work with the Council to develop plans for the extended works. In late August 2022, the Council sent Mr X a decision letter stating his recent proposed plans met Mr Y’s needs and advising him of the next steps to obtain the DFG.
19. Mr X began to arrange the extended works while talking to the Council and in May 2023, it sent a decision letter confirming the total DFG it would pay. Mr X was unhappy with the amount and complained to the Council.
20. In a response sent outside of the complaint process in June 2023, the Council explained how it had decided the DFG amount. It set out the costs to complete the works agreed by the surveyor in March 2021. This included widening of the internal lounge and kitchen doors.
21. In a further response, the Council explained the surveyor had said that during the March 2021 visit, she did not say all internal doors needed widening, just those Mr Y needed to access; the lounge and kitchen.
22. In September 2023, Mr X told the Council Mr Y’s boiler was not working properly. He later sent a report from a heating engineer which recommended the boiler be replaced. The Council assessed the boiler’s condition in late October and decided it could be repaired. It told Mr X it would include the repair costs in the DFG.

Findings

23. As set out above, we cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. The Council OT completed their assessment and made their recommendations in 2020. The building surveyor visited in March 2021 where they suggested Mr Y’s adult family move out and explained the DFG would not cover the cost of the dropped kerb. However, Mr X did not complain to the Ombudsman until May 2024. I have seen no good reason to investigate that far back, particularly given Mr X was able to be in frequent contact with the Council between 2020 and May 2024. Therefore, I cannot investigate Mr X’s complaints that:
• a Council Occupational Therapist (OT) did not visit Mr Y’s home before recommending adaptations;
• the OT’s recommendation of a lift was unsuitable;
• the Council had not included the cost of a dropped kerb in the adaptation grant; and
• the building surveyor suggested adult members of Mr Y’s family moved out of his home.
24. Similarly, Mr X complained the Council did not send an updated specification of the adaptation works after it agreed his plans met Mr Y’s needs. However, the Council agreed Mr X’s plans were suitable in August 2022. If Mr X felt he should have had a new specification, he should have complained to the Ombudsman about its absence sooner. I have seen no good reason why he did not so I cannot investigate this matter.
25. It is evident there was some kind of discussion about the need to widen some of Mr Y’s internal doors at the surveyor’s visit in March 2021. Mr X says the surveyor said the Council would widen all internal doors, which the surveyor disputes. The Council’s records show that it held the view that it would only need to widen the kitchen and lounge doors. However, this was not included in the specification of works the Council sent to Mr X in March 2021. This was fault, the specification should have set out all key works the Council had decided were necessary. This meant Mr X only received confirmation the Council would widen just the lounge and kitchen doors in June 2023. This caused Mr X avoidable frustration.
26. The Council has since explained its rationale; that Mr X only needs access to the lounge and kitchen. The Ombudsman cannot question a council’s decision if there was no fault in how it came to that decision. The Council considered Mr Y’s needs and the requirement that DFG’s are only for certain adaptations, including access to lounges and to facilitate preparing and cooking food, in deciding to only widen the two internal door thresholds. There was no fault in how the Council came to that decision so I cannot question it.
27. Mr X told the Council of the issues with Mr Y’s boiler in September 2023. The Council visited and concluded the boiler could be fixed. It therefore would not replace it. That was a decision the Council was entitled to take, based on its professional assessment of the condition of the boiler. It was not at fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

28. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council will apologise to Mr X for the frustration he experienced because of its failure to include widening of the lounge and kitchen thresholds in the specification of works in March 2021. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council will consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.
29. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to personal injustice. I have recommended action to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman