Summary: Mrs B complains about the Council’s actions after agreeing to build an extension to meet the needs of her son who has disabilities. We have found fault as there were delays, poor communication and the Council refused to carry out minor adaptations to meet her son’s needs while the family waited for the works to be completed. This meant that Mrs B’s son lived in a house that did not fully meet his needs and this also affected the family. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy, provide an updated care plan, organise a meeting between relevant departments and carry out a service improvement.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complains on behalf of her adult son, Mr D who has disabilities. She says the family’s current home does not meet his needs. She says there have been delays in the Council providing adaptations to the house, poor communication and a delay in providing Mr D with suitable accommodation. She says this has meant that Mr D’s needs for care and support and for suitable housing have not been met for many years and this has affected him and the family.

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 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)
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 have discussed the complaint with Mrs B. I have considered information provided by Mrs B and the Council, the relevant law, policy and guidance and both sides’ comments on the draft decision.
6. I have exercised discretion to investigate complaints which are more than a year old. I asked Mrs B why she did not complain to the Council earlier about the delays. Mrs B said she was always told (and always hoped) that the adaptations would be carried out very soon so she waited in the hope that this would happen. I accept this explanation and am of the view that it is a good reason to exercise discretion to consider events going back to the time when the Council decided to build the extension.

Back to top

What I found

Law, policies and guidance

7. The Care Act 2014 and the Care and Support Statutory (CASS) Guidance set out the Council’s duties towards adults who require care and support.

Duty to meet needs

8. The Council has a duty to assess adults who have a need for care and support. If the needs assessment identifies eligible needs, the Council will provide a support plan which outlines what services are required to meet the needs.
9. Care and support can include care in a care home, home care, personal assistants, day services, or the provision of aids and adaptations.
10. The CASS Guidance says councils should review the care plan at least every 12 months and when there is a change of circumstances or a valid request for a review.

Integration and partnership working

11. The CASS Guidance says councils must carry out their care and support responsibilities with the aim of joining up the services provided.
12. The CASS Guidance says:
• ‘Local authorities must make arrangements to ensure co-operation between its officers responsible for adult care and support, housing, public health and children’s services…’
• ‘It is important that local authority officers responsible for housing work in co-operation with adult care and support, given that housing and suitability of living accommodation play a significant role in supporting a person to meet their needs and can help to delay that person’s deterioration.
• ‘Similarly, the transition from children’s social care to adult care and support will require local authority officers in the respective departments to co-operate to share information, prepare for transition, and ensure the young person’s needs are met on reaching the age of 18.’

Adaptations to properties

13. 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 that the work are:
• necessary and appropriate to meet the disabled person’s needs, and
• are reasonable and practicable.

Amount of Grant and the Means Test

14. 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.

Processing a DFG

15. In March 2022 the government issued non-statutory guidance “Disabled facilities Grant (DFG) Delivery: Guidance for local authorities in England”.
16. This guidance advises councils in England on how they can effectively and efficiently deliver DFG funded adaptations. It brings together and sets out in one place existing policy frameworks, legislative duties and powers, together with recommended best practice.
17. The DFG Guidance says a disabled person should have access to a toilet, wash hand basin and a shower or bath (or if more appropriate, both a shower and a bath). The provision of facilities for ‘strip washing’ is not an acceptable alternative to an appropriate bathroom.

DFG Process

18. The DFG guidance identifies five key stages to delivering home adaptations:
• 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 occupational therapist (OT) will assess the person’s needs and potential solutions through home adaptations.
• 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).
• 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.
• Stage 4: Approval of grant to completion of works. The works are arranged and carried out and the necessary quality checks made.
19. 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 working days
• Non-urgent and complex works – 180 working days
20. Non-urgent and complex cases should complete the stages as follows:
• Stage 1: 35 days (7 weeks)
• Stage 2: 55 days (11 weeks)
• Stage 3: 20 days (4 weeks)
• Stage 4: 80 weeks (16 weeks)
21. Authorities are recommended to treat cases as urgent in the following circumstances:
• Coming out of hospital and at risk
• Living alone and at risk
• Severe cognitive dysfunction and at risk
• Living with a carer who is elderly or disabled
• Living without heating or hot water and at risk
• Limited life expectancy
22. 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.

What happened

23. Mr D is an adult who has physical and learning disabilities. He lives at home with his parents and five siblings. Mr D’s parents provide all the care and support that Mr D needs and he also receives four weeks of respite care a year, funded by the Council.

Chronology

24. I have set out a chronology of the relevant communications and actions regarding the progression of the adaptations. Mr D was living in a properly which did not meet his needs (2021).
25. September 2021: A possible property was identified for the family to move into. The house had a living room, dining room, kitchen and toilet downstairs and had 4 bedrooms and a bathroom upstairs.
26. The occupational therapist (OT) asked Agency K, an agency which provides equipment and adaptations on behalf of the Council, to carry out a visit to advise her on the suitability of the property.
27. 6 October 2021. The technical officer (TO) and OT visited the property. The OT advised that the property was suitable to meet Mr D’s needs subject to some simple adaptations:
• The dining room could become Mr D’s ground floor bedroom.
• Access to the house would be created via new French doors at the rear into Mr D’s ground floor bedroom.
• Creation of a small shower room downstairs or adapting the upstairs bathroom and the provision of a stairlift.
28. 8 October 2021. The OT updated the family about the visit with the TO. She said she would visit again once the family had moved in.
29. November 2021. The family moved into the property.
30. November 2021. A schedule of works for the proposed adaptations was completed and the TO visited the family to go through the plans. The plan was:
• Creation of ground floor shower room downstairs over the existing wc.
• Access to be created via French doors to Mr D’s bedroom at the rear.
31. 17 November 2021. The OT visited the family at the new home.
32. 18 November 2021. The OT sent an email to the TO and said she had completely changed her recommendations for the works. She said:
• In terms of access, the family wanted Mr D’s main access to be at the front of the house as this was the door they mainly used. There were issues with the side access as this was used by the neighbours and the family did not want to impose on the neighbours. So the OT recommended a platform at the front door and a gradual ramped path to the pavement to the front of the property.
• The OT said the shower room should not be constructed in the existing layout as there was no space for Mr D to sit and dress himself after the shower. He would be able to use the shower but ideally should be able to sit on his profiling bed to dress himself. (Note: the proposed ground floor shower room was not next to Mr D’s ground floor bedroom). The shower room would not give him the privacy and independence that he required. This also ruled out accessing upstairs with a stairlift. So an extension was required.
33. 10 January 2022. The Council completed a transitions assessment as Mr D was turning 18 and would transfer from the Children to the Adult team.
34. 25 January 2022. The OT updated the family and said she had approved the provisional plan for the works which the TO had prepared. Mr B replied and queried how long all this would take. He said Mr D could only wash himself using a bowl of water downstairs as he was not able to use the upstairs bathroom as he could not use the stairs. Mr D had not been able to wash properly since he moved to the property and he had been neglected since he moved in. Mr B wanted an urgent update.
35. A sewer ran behind the house in the space where the extension would be built so the TO started to work with the water company to establish where the drain was and to obtain permission to move it or build over it.
36. 17 March 2022. The Council was granted conditional approval to build over the public sewer. This was subject to the Council obtaining a structural engineer’s report to finalise the design for the foundations of the extension. The TO had already commissioned a structural engineer to complete the report.
37. 21 March 2022. Mr B contacted the Council and threatened legal action because of the lack of progress. He said Mr D had not been able to have a shower or wash since he moved in and this was a basic human right.
38. 21 March 2022. The TO explained the problem with the public sewer. He said that now that the water company had granted the relevant permission, he would prepare the schedule of works, client’s approval, party wall approval, landlord approval and building regulations approval. He hoped to submit the grant approval by the end of May 2022.
39. 23 March 2022. The OT agreed to apply for approval for a temporary stairlift for Mr D so that he could access the upstairs bathroom until the works were completed. This was made more difficult because the stairs were curved which meant the Council could not use a rented straight stairlift.
40. 24 March 2022. The Council approved a discretionary DFG grant for the stairlift. The OT informed Mr B. As the stairlift could not be rented, the Council would require a survey and two quotes.
41. 21 April 2022. The OT assessed Mr D for the use of the stairlift. Mrs B asked whether the works to the front of the property could be carried out while they waited for the extension to be built as the family had significant difficulty in supporting Mr D to go in and out of the house.
42. 18 May 2022. The OT emailed the TO about the plans and asked whether the works to allow Mr D access to the house at the front could be split off and completed earlier than the extension as Mr D and the family were really struggling with this aspect.
43. 30 May 2022. The structural engineer emailed the TO to organise a visit to prepare her report.
44. 6 June 2022. The TO updated the family. He said the schedule of works for the extension was sent to the OT for her approval. Once this had been approved, he would need to obtain approvals from the client, the water company, building control, the neighbours (party wall agreement) and planning permission. Then he would start the tender process with three contractors.
45. 9 June 2022. The OT approved the updated plans.
46. 6 July 2022. Mr B asked when the stairlift would be installed as it had still not been completed and should have been completed in November.
47. 19 July 2022. The stairlift was installed.
48. 5 August 2022. The housing association’s neighbourhood officer contacted the TO and said Mr B had advised him the family was waiting for an extension which should have been completed in November 2021.
49. The TO said that was incorrect. He explained the Council started to consider the extension in November. It had obtained approval to build over the sewer, OT approval for the plan, landlord approvals and had emailed the family twice seeking their approval. The TO said he was waiting for the family to return the signed consent forms. Once he had received those forms, the Council still had to obtain planning permission, building regulation approval, grant approval and go through the tendering process. The grant approval would have to go through the Major Adaptations Panel (MAP) if the cost was higher than £30,000. The TO thought that works would not start until the new year.
50. 5 August 2022. Mrs B said they had not received any emails requesting their consent. It then transpired the OT was using an old email address and had not been provided with the new address.
51. 26 August 2022. The TO resent the plans and schedule of works to Mr and Mrs B’s new email address for their approval.
52. 6 September 2022. The family had a meeting with the OT and the allocated social worker from the Adults team. The current position was that Mr D had a bedroom on the ground floor and access to a toilet. He was able to access the upstairs bathroom via a stairlift. The works may not start until the new year.
53. 17 September 2022. The family approved the schedule of works and plans for the extension.
54. 20 October 2022. The TO submitted the planning application. He emailed Mr and Mrs B and asked them to send him the details of their neighbours as they would have to sign a party wall agreement.
55. 15 November 2022. The TO chased Mr and Mrs B for the details of the neighbours.
56. 21 November 2022: Mr D turned 18.
57. 23 November 2022. The OT handed over Mr D’s case to the Adult OT team. The OT chased Mr and Mrs B for the details of the neighbours. (I have not seen the documents but I understand Mrs B sent the details for the neighbours in November 2022).
58. 28 November 2022: Planning permission was granted.
59. 29 November 2022: The TO submitted an application for building regulations approval.
60. 19 December 2022: Building regulations approval was granted for the proposed plans.
61. 7 February 2023. The OT emailed Mrs B and provided an update. He said he would start the tendering process with 3 contractors. He said the party wall agreement documents were ready to be sent to the neighbours.
62. 9 February 2023. Mrs B said the neighbour’s property had been sold but the move would not happen until April so she was worried that this would delay matters again. Mrs B said Mr D was now sleeping in one of the upstairs bedrooms as it meant he had easier access to the upstairs bathroom. She asked again whether the Council could go ahead with the works for the access to the front as soon as possible. She questioned whether the extension should be built at all as there had been such a long delay.
63. The TO replied and said that the works to the front access could not be undertaken separately as they formed part of the schedule of works. If the family felt that they did not need the extension, then the works to the front could be done quite quickly. Mr and Mrs B said they wanted the extension to go ahead.
64. 10 February 2023. Mr D was on the waiting list to be allocated to the Adults OT team as he was transitioning from the Children to the Adults team. However, the Council decided that there was no need for any OT involvement and closed the case. The Council noted that there was agreement on what adaptations were needed and the schedule of works had been completed by the previous OT.
65. 28 February 2023: Mr and Mrs B signed the schedule of works.
66. 27 March 2023. The TO emailed Mr and Mrs B and said tenders had been obtained but, as the works would cost more than £45,000, approval was needed by the Major Adaptation Panel (MAP).
67. 16 April 2023. The social worker completed Mr D’s care plan and the plan was for him to remain living at home, with four weeks respite care a year.
68. 28 April 2023: The TO updated Mr and Mrs B and said the next stage was the application to the MAP.
69. 2 May 2023. The Council sent the financial assessment form to Mr and Mrs B.
70. 22 May 2023. The Council received the financial assessment form from Mr and Mrs B.
71. 6 June 2023. The OT assessed Mr D and said he either strip-washed downstairs with a bowl of water or used the upstairs bathroom. He was able to wash himself but needed the support of both parents to get in and out of the bath. The assessment noted that Mr D was waiting for a downstairs extension with a level access shower and ‘substantial ramping to front access of property.’
72. 21 June 2023. The MAP held a meeting and considered Mr D’s application but said it needed a report from the new OT from the Adult team in support of the application before it could approve the application.
73. 22 June 2023: The TO emailed Mrs B and informed her of the outcome of the MAP.
74. 19 July 2023. The case was discussed again at MAP but the MAP could not make a decision as the financial assessment had not been completed yet.
75. 27 July 2023. The Council completed the financial assessment.
76. 5 September 2023: The TO spoke to Mrs B and sent an email with the proposals for MAP.
77. 20 September 2023. The MAP approved the additional grant of £38,000.
78. 22 September 2023. The TO updated Mrs B and applied for DFG of £45,000.
79. 8 November 2023: The TO tried to set up a meeting with Mr and Mrs B to sign the contract to start the works, but did not receive a reply.
80. 7 December 2023: The Council approved the DFG of £45,000 and the works could start.
81. In the following weeks and months the TO sent emails and letters to Mr and Mrs B and tried to speak to them to organise a meeting to enable the works to start but did not receive a reply.
82. 10 January 2024. Mrs B contacted the Council and said the adaptations were taking too long and Mr D wanted to move into assisted living. Mrs B wanted advice on how to progress this.
83. 20 March 2024. The family confirmed it no longer wanted to go ahead with the extension. Mr D had turned 19 and wanted to move out of the home. The family still wanted the Council to build the front ramp and widen the front door.
84. 10 April 2024: The TO asked the OT whether the works to the front of the property could go ahead as the cost was less than £5,000.
85. 16 April 2024. The OT said she could not advise on the works as Mr D’s case would have to be allocated to a member of the Learning Disabilities team and a new full assessment undertaken of his needs.
86. 20 June 2024. The OT from the Adults team assessed Mr D and the assessment came to the same conclusions as before, but noted that Mr D was considering moving out of the home.
87. 6 August 2024. The Council reviewed Mr D’s needs for care and support. The social worker noted that Mr D wanted to move out. Mr D had eligible needs for care and support which were met by his family. The assessment did not say how these would be met if he moved out. Mrs B said she had been applying for social housing for Mr D but had not been successful.
88. The social worker said a care plan had to be written (the Council has not sent me a copy of the plan).
89. 6 September 2024: As Mr D wanted to move out, the Council decided that it would not carry out any further adaptations to the house where he was living and closed the case.

Complaint – April 2024

90. Mrs B complained to the Council on 17 April 2024 and said:
• The family had been waiting for three years and the extension had still not been built.
• Some of the delay was caused by the fact that Mr D transitioned from Children’s Social Services to the Adult Social Care Occupational Therapy team and the process had to start again from the beginning.
• The family had to constantly chase the Council for updates.
• The family asked for a ramp access to the front of the house to be installed while Mr D waited for the works to be completed. Mr D was a full-time wheelchair user and could not access the house without support. The Council refused to install the ramp access as it would not separate the funding.
• She wanted to know what the options were for Mr D now that he had decided he wanted to move out of the family home.
91. The Council replied and said:
• The transition from Children’s Social Services to the Adult Social Care Occupational Therapy team had potentially added to the delay. There were also technical difficulties with the project such as the public drain and obtaining the party wall agreements from the neighbours. However, the Council said that overall the process had been followed in a timely manner.
• In terms of communication, the Council’s response was not clear on whether it upheld the complaint but the Council said it was reviewing its communication streams from the OT’s perspective to ensure that it provided appropriate contact information from the outset of the adaptation process. It was also liaising with Agency K to ensure that more robust and satisfactory communication channels were available.
• In terms of the ramp access the Council said Mrs B ‘had raised a valid concern’ and could not comment on why the Council did not agree to this request as the Children’s Team made that decision.
• The transition from Children’s Social Services to the Adult Social Care Occupational Therapy team did not mean that the process had to start again. However, the process took a long time as funding had to be approved by MAP.
• In terms of Mr D moving out, the Council said the OT and the Community Learning Disabilities Team would ensure Mr D’s ‘voice is heard’ and that ‘appropriate provisions are considered.'
92. The Council said, as a result to Mrs B’s complaint, it would improve its adaptations process and had agreed on the following actions:
• The OT was reviewing the DFG processes and the communication methods between Agency K and the Council’s OTs. The aim was to improve the communication between the customer, Agency K and the Council’s staff.
• The OT was reviewing the Major Adaptations Panel process.
• The OT was working with Children’s services to set out a process when someone transitions between Children and Adult Services.

Further information

93. I asked the Council what action it had taken since January 2024 when it was informed that Mr D wished to move out of the family home and to send me all the relevant documents.
94. The Council said Mr D’s social worker nominated him for a supported housing project on 7 August 2024. Mr D’s application was heard on 12 August 2024 at the Extraordinary Nomination Panel. The Panel was of the view that the project was 'over-provision’ for Mr D as Mr D did not need the level of support that was offered at the supported housing project. The Panel’s advice was that ‘a general needs bungalow, through Housing, with an Out-Reach package would be more suitable’ for Mr D.
95. A second supported housing placement was considered in December 2024. Mrs B viewed the placement but said it was too rural and there were issues with access.
96. A third supported housing placement was identified in March 2025 at charity 1 and Mr D and his parents are keen for Mr D to move to this property. This is subject to an OT assessment and funding approval. The Council said the proposed move would be at the end of June 2025.
97. I asked Mrs B what progress had been made in obtaining general needs housing for Mr D. Mrs B said she had been bidding on behalf of Mr D, but had not had any success. Mr D had been allocated band B – medical priority. Mrs B said the bidding was difficult as the Council’s housing website did not say whether properties were wheelchair accessible. So she was bidding on any property which was on the ground floor or had a lift but then would find out that the property was not wheelchair accessible.

Analysis

98. Mrs B’s first complaint is delay. The Council identified the need for the DFG works (the extension) in November 2021 but it was not until December 2023, more than two years later, that the Council approved the grant.
99. According to the DFG Guidance, the proposed works would be classed as complex, but not urgent so the Council should have proceeded from stage 1 (identification of the works) to stage 3 (approval of the grant) in 110 days (22 weeks). Clearly, the Council did not meet this target, but that does not mean that I can say that the delay was fault.
100. The DFG Guidance is non-statutory so it is not legally binding. I have treated it as such and am of the view that the timescales are a good measuring tool to compare a council’s performance with, particularly in a case such as this one where the Council’s own policies do not include any time targets for completing adaptation works.
101. I appreciate that the passage of time is, in itself, not fault. It would only be fault if the Council was not progressing the application. If the Council is doing everything it can to progress the application, and the delay is outside of the Council’s control, then I would not find fault.

Complaint about delay - stages 1 and 2

102. In terms of the initial stage, it took a long time for the final schedule of works and the plans to be completed, but I cannot say that the delay was fault. The works were complex and every detail had to be agreed by the family, the TO and the OT so there were quite a few re-writes and amendments to the plans.
103. Also, some of the delay was caused by the sewer at the back of the house. The TO had to obtain the water company’s approval to build over it and then, once that conditional approval was obtained, there then had to be a separate survey and report to decide how to build over the sewer. Unfortunately this external report was delayed. The report also affected the plans and the schedule of works as they had to be amended to reflect the requirements identified by the external expert. Overall, the Council progressed matters in the early stage although I accept the progress was slow.
104. The Council then obtained the approval from Mr and Mrs B, approval from the landlord, building regulations approval, party wall agreement from the neighbours, planning permission and went to tender and obtained three quotes. All of this was completed by March 2023 and, looking at the chronology and the evidence provided, I cannot see any substantial gaps where the Council did not progress the matter.
105. I also could not find evidence that the slow progress at this stage was caused by the fact that Mr D became an adult and his case was handed over to the Adults team.

Complaint about delay – stage 3

106. There was, however, unnecessary delay in the next stage which was the grant approval (stage 3).
107. The Council was in a position to apply for the grants (additional grant and DFG) in March 2023 but the approvals were not made until December 2023. The grant approval stage (stage 3) should have taken four weeks according to the DFG Guidance but clearly took a lot longer. I note that the Council has stated in its complaints response that it is reviewing its DFG and MAP process because of Mr D’s complaint. This is not an admission of fault by the Council but at least the Council admits that things could have been done better.
108. I am of the view that some of the delay at the grant approval stage could have been avoided and was fault.
109. The MAP considered the case initially on 21 June 2023. I do not know why it took three months for the case to be heard if all the information was ready for the application to be submitted in March 2023, but in my view three months is too long.
110. The MAP said on 21 June 2023 that it could not decide as it needed a new report by the OT from the Adults team and could not rely on the report from the OT from the Children’s team. So at this stage Mr D’s transition from the Children team to the Adults team did cause a delay. The Adults OT team had closed the case as it thought that the MAP would rely on the previous OT report from the Children’s team.
111. Better communication of the information needed by MAP or clearer policies on what information MAP requires when a child has transitioned from the Children’s OT team to the Adults OT team could have avoided this delay and this was fault.
112. Mr D’s case was considered again at the next MAP on 19 July 2023 but the MAP then said it could not decide as it had not received the financial assessment decision. Mr and Mrs B had sent the completed financial assessment form to the Council in May 2023 so this should have been processed and a decision made before the MAP meeting. And, in any event, I question why the lack of financial assessment was not mentioned at the first MAP meeting in June 2023 so that the officers could have obtained it for the next MAP. This was further unnecessary delay and fault.
113. There was no MAP meeting scheduled in August so this meant that the additional grant was not approved until 20 September 2023. The DFG was not approved until 7 December 2023 which was partly related to an individual officer being off sick.
114. So I am overall of the view that the Council progressed matters slowly in stages 1 and 2 (but not to the point of fault) but there was fault in some of the delay encountered in stage 3 which could have been avoided.

Meeting needs – temporary adaptations

115. The Council had a legal duty to provide the adaptations, but it also had a duty to meet Mr D’s needs for care and support under the Care Act. We would always expect councils to provide a temporary solution to meet basic needs while the DFG application process is underway.
116. Mr D had access to a bedroom and a toilet when he moved in in November 2021 but the Council knew that Mr D was unable to access the upstairs bathroom or the house itself (there were steps to the front door). The Council also knew that the preparation, application and works to complete an extension would take a long time. Therefore, I would have expected the Council to ensure that Mr D was able to access the bathroom and the house while he waited for the works to be completed.
117. I note the Council installed a stairlift to allow Mr D access to the bathroom upstairs. However, this did not happen until July 2022 after Mr B threatened legal action in March 2022. The Council should have considered a temporary measure for access to the bathroom earlier.
118. And the family asked the Council several times to carry out the access works to the front (installation of a ramp and widening of the door) so that Mr D could enter the house without support. The Council did not respond to that request.
119. The Council said in its complaint response that the family had ‘raised a valid concern’ about the access to the house and it could not comment on why it made the decision to refuse this request. I cannot see a good reason why the Council refused to carry out these works. The works could have been separated from the works to build the extension and could have been done quickly and easily. The Council’s failure to properly consider this was fault.

Mr D’s request for assistance to move out

120. Mrs B also complained about the Council’s delay and inaction since the family informed the Council of Mr D’s request to move out of the family home.
121. I note that Mrs B told the Council in January 2024 that Mr D wanted to move into assisted living and wanted advice on how to do this. Certainly, by March 2024 the Council was aware of Mr D’s desire to move out. This was a substantial change in Mr D’s circumstances and should have triggered an immediate review of his needs assessment and care plan. The Council took no action in this respect until August 2024 and this delay was fault.
122. Even after the assessment in August 2024, the Council did not send Mr D a care plan so it is not clear whether it completed a care plan. The Council’s position on how Mr D’s needs will be met when he moves out is not clear. It is unclear whether the Council’s position is that only extra care/supported housing can meet his needs or whether general needs housing with a package of support is sufficient. I note that when Mr D’s social worker applied for extra care housing in August 2024, the Panel rejected the application and advised Mr D to go down the general needs housing route.
123. Mrs B has been applying for general needs housing on behalf of Mr D, but the Council’s Community Learning Disabilities Team (CLDT) has not, from the documents I have seen, provided assistance in these applications.
124. The CASS Guidance stresses the importance of cooperation between the different council departments in a situation such as this one. I would have expected at least a meeting between the Housing department and CLDT to decide how to work together to ensure Mr D’s needs for care and support and for housing are met, but could not find evidence of this. Mrs B has been bidding on her own for general needs housing without success and it is not clear whether this pursuit will ever come to any success.

Communication

125. Although there was good communication at times when either the OT or TO provided updates to the family, there were also times when there was little communication unless the family asked for an update or complained. I appreciate that a lot of the time this was linked to the times when the progress was slow.
126. It was not clear from the documents I have seen whether it was OT’s or the TO’s duty to keep the family informed. I note the Council has said, in response to the complaint, that is it reviewing its communication streams to ensure appropriate updates are provided.

Fault and Injustice

127. To summarise, the fault I have found is as follows:
• Avoidable delay in the grant approval in stage 3 of the process.
• Delay in the consideration of a stairlift to access the bathroom.
• Refusal to properly consider the adaptations to the front of the house.
• Delay in the review of Mr D’s needs assessment after Mrs B informed the Council Mr D wanted to move out.
• Failure to provide an updated care plan following the review of the assessment of Mr D’s needs in August 2024.
• Not enough evidence of cooperation between the Housing Department and the CLDT in how they will work together to meet Mr D’s needs.
128. I asked Mrs B what impact the situation had on Mr D and the family. Mrs B said Mr D was unable to use the bathroom for months when he first moved in unless Mr B helped him upstairs. Most of the time, Mr D used a bowl of water to strip wash. Since the stairlift was installed, Mr D can use the upstairs shower but the shower is above a bath and it is sometimes difficult for Mr D to access the bath independently. It is also difficult for the large family to share the bathroom with Mr D.
129. Mrs B said that, as the Council refused to address the front access, the family bought a temporary metal ramp to the front of the house, but it is flimsy and frequently blows away (they live close to the coast where it is windy). Mr D cannot use the ramp when it has been raining as it is too slippery. Mr D often has difficulty getting in through the front door so most of the time someone has to be at the house to let Mr D in.
130. Mrs B said the garden was overgrown when they moved in but the family knew that there was little point in landscaping the garden until the extension had been built. This meant the children could not properly use the garden.
131. Mrs B said that she accepted that, once Mr D had decided he wanted to move out, the Council would not carry out the adaptations to the house. However, she feels the continued delay in offering Mr D housing was putting pressure on Mr D and the whole family. Mrs B says Mr D and the family truly hope that Mr D is approved for the supported housing project at charity 1 as this would be ideal. It would meet his needs, was next to Mr D’s respite facility and he has friends in the neighbourhood.

Back to top

Action

132. I do not know, at the time of writing, whether Mr D’s application for a place at charity 1 was successful. If it was successful, then Mr D’s needs for appropriate housing and care and support will be met. However, if no decision has been made yet, or if the application was unsuccessful, I recommend the Council organises a meeting between the representatives of the Housing Department and the CLDT to discuss how to progress Mr D’s application for housing and to provide a timetable of what further actions it will take.
133. In complaints such as this one, where there has been no direct financial loss as a result of the fault, the Ombudsman can sometimes recommend a small symbolic financial remedy for the distress suffered resulting from the fault. I have considered the delay and the impact the delay had on Mr D and the family in deciding to recommend a financial remedy.
134. The Council has agreed to take the following actions within one month of the final decision. It will:
• Apologise in writing to Mr D and Mr and Mrs B for the fault I have identified.
• Pay Mr D £750 for the distress he suffered because of the fault.
• Pay Mr and Mrs B £500 (total, not each) for the distress they suffered because of the fault.
• Send an updated care plan to Mr D which sets out how his needs would be met if he moved out of the home and whether he needs supported housing/extra care housing to meet his needs.
• Organises a meeting between the Council’s Housing department and CLDT to discuss how to progress Mr D’s application for housing and provides a timetable of what further actions it will take. (see Paragraph 132).
• Remind relevant officers of the time targets within the DFG Guidance and the importance of keeping families updated in the process of a DFG application.

Back to top

Decision

135. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed the remedy to address the injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman