Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s failure to complete work to his home under a disabled facilities grant. The Council was at fault for withdrawing the offer to carry out the work in two stages to minimise the disruption to Mr X. It needs to reconsider that decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s failure to complete work to his home under a disabled facilities grant (DFG).

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. 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)
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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman in April 2024. I have exercised the Ombudsman’s discretion to investigate events back to the summer of 2022, when we made a decision on his previous complaint. I have not investigated events before July 2022, as they were the subject of our previous investigation. Nor have I investigated events since Mr X contacted us in April 2024, as Mr X would first need to complain to the Council about them.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
• considered the information the Council has provided;
• considered the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies; and
• invited comments on a draft of this statement from Mr X and the Council, for me to consider before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Reviews

7. Section 27 of the Care Act 2014 says councils should keep care and support plans under review. Government Care and Support Statutory Guidance says councils should review plans at least every 12 months. Councils should consider a light touch review six to eight weeks after agreeing and signing off the plan and personal budget. They should carry out reviews as quickly as is reasonably practicable in a timely manner proportionate to the needs to be met. Councils must also conduct a review if an adult or a person acting on the adult’s behalf makes a reasonable request for one.
8. The Care and support statutory guidance says:
• “13.16 Local authorities should have regard to ensuring the planned review is proportionate to the circumstances, the value of the personal budget and any risks identified. In a similar way to care and support or support planning, there should be a range of review options available, which may include self-review, peer-led review, reviews conducted remotely, or face to face reviews with a social worker or other relevant professional. For example, where the person has a stable, longstanding support package with fixed or long-term outcomes, they may wish to complete a self-review at the planned time which is then submitted to the local authority to sign-off, rather than have a face to face review with their social worker. This does not preclude their requesting a review at another time or a face to face review being needed if there is an unplanned change in needs or circumstances.”
• “13.17 In all instances, the method of review should, wherever reasonably possible, be agreed with the person and must involve the adult to whom the plan relates, any carer the adult has and any person the adult asks the authority to involve. The local authority should take all appropriate measures to ensure their involvement and the involvement of other people if appropriate, such as an independent advocate where this is required by the circumstances specified in the Act.”

Disabled Facilities Grants

9. DFGs are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Councils have a statutory duty to give grant aid 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.
10. The maximum grant payable by a council is £30,000. A council can award other discretionary help if it thinks it is necessary.
11. A council should decide a grant application as soon as reasonably practicable. This must be within six months of the application. If a council refuses a grant, it must explain why. Once the work is complete, the council must pay the grant in full within 12 months of the application date.
12. In March 2022 the government issued non-statutory guidance “Disabled facilities Grant (DFG) Delivery: Guidance for local authorities in England”. 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.
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
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.

What happened

16. Mr X is an adult with care and support needs resulting from a disability. He has a personal budget of £667.73 a week to meet his care needs, which he receives as a direct payment.
17. An Occupational Therapist referred Mr X for a DFG in August 2018. This said he needed:
• a new ramp for accessing his home
• repairs to the bathroom
• adaptations to the kitchen
• automated door entry system
18. In July 2022 we upheld a complaint from Mr X. We found fault with the Council over:
• the delay in progressing the DFG (it had taken 920 days to approve the work, which had not yet started)
• a delay in reviewing Mr X’s 2019 care and support plan.
19. We decided the delay in completing the DFG had caused significant injustice to Mr X. The Council agreed to apologise and to pay Mr X £3,000 (£100 a month for 30 months of delay. We decided the delay in reviewing Mr X’s 2019 care and support plan had not caused injustice to Mr X, as he had chosen not to engage with the process. We agreed the Council should focus on producing an up-to-date assessment, and care and support plan. We did not find fault with the Council over its decision not to work with Mr X’s preferred advocate.
20. The Council wrote to Mr X in July 2022 to apologise and to arrange the payment of £3,000. It said it understood he wanted it to fund a shortfall of £2,798 needed to enable his DFG to progress. It said it needed to review his care and support needs face-to-face. It noted a review done in November 2021 had not been face-to-face, so it had not been able to fully assess his functional skills and wider Care Act needs. It said a face-to face assessment was also needed to address his request for an increase in his direct payment of £667.73 a week. It invited Mr X to confirm that he agreed to this and said a social worker would then contact him to arrange a time to visit him. But Mr X did not respond.
21. Since July 2022 Mr X has had a lot of communications with the Council, which I summarise in this statement.
22. On 10 August the Council told Mr X it had agreed a DFG for £35,000. It said his landlord would contribute the remaining £25,237.36 needed to cover the cost of the work. On 11 August the Council told Mr X it was asking the contractors for start dates for the works and would send him documents to sign when it had them.
23. On 27 September the Council told Mr X the provisional start date for the work to his kitchen and bathroom was 21 November. It said the work would take around six weeks. It asked him if he wanted it to approach his landlord about finding alternative accommodation while the work was carried out (because of the disruption and lack of essential services). It said he may wish to stay with family or friends, if his landlord could not find alternative accommodation. It said another option was to remain in the property and have the bathroom work done in November and the work to the kitchen in the new year.
24. On 14 October Mr X complained about the ongoing delays in carrying out the works. He questioned why they would take six weeks to complete, suggesting they should take days instead.
25. On 20 October the Council asked Mr X to confirm by 24 October whether the work could go ahead on 21 November, otherwise the work would have to be postponed until the new year. Mr X did not respond.
26. On 25 October the Council told Mr X it was looking to order the ramp, but needed him to sign the contract with the contractor. It said it would take four weeks after placing the order.
27. On 31 October Mr X told the Council it should have found an alternative to him moving out of his home while the works were done. He said he would not be signing the contract for the inadequate proposals for a ramp. He said the plans did not reflect the structure of his home or the position of the existing ramp. He said he would provide written input for the review of his care and support plan by the end of the week.
28. On 24 January 2023 the Council e-mailed Mr X. It said it was waiting for the contractor to provide a new start date for the works to the kitchen and bathroom. It said it would pass this information onto his landlord so it could arrange alternative accommodation for him, while the work was carried out. It noted he had not returned a contract for the ramp works, sent to him on 19 December 2022. It said it needed the signed contract to order the ramp. It offered to send him another copy of the contract if he had not received it. Mr X did not respond.
29. In February the Council asked Mr X’s landlord to sign a contract for the ramp work “to fulfil their obligations as his landlord”.
30. On 7 April the Council told Mr X the existing ramp would not be removed as part of the DFG funded works, as this was not necessary to facilitate a new ramp.
31. On 11 April the Council again asked Mr X to sign a contract for the work. Mr X did not respond.
32. On 27 April the Council told Mr X it had increased his DFG by £7,672.64 to cover the cost of unforeseen works. The letter said: “Works can now start”.
33. On 30 June the Council told Mr X the ramp works would start on 6 July, and asked him to confirm the area would be clear. Mr X confirmed this on 3 July. He also complained about the delays in completing the DFG funded works. The ramp was installed in July. On 11 July the Council reminded Mr X it was not necessary to remove the old ramp to install the new ramp, but offered to extend the handrail, if he agreed to this. Mr X agreed to extending the rails but said he had not agreed to the layout of the ramp. He asked the Council to extend the ramp under his patio door.
34. On 21 August the Council told Mr X why there was not enough room to extend the ramp or install a platform, and said it would apply slip resistant paint to match the colour of the concrete, if he agreed to this. It also sent him a letter asking him to identify a date and time to review his needs. It said:
• “The legislation relating to Disabled Facilities Grants requires us to work with adult social Care to ensure that any proposed adaptations capture reasonable client needs and are cost effective. We must also ensure that adaptations have a positive impact on clients’ care packages, ideally reducing the need to access care services. To achieve this, we do require up to date in person assessments.”
35. Mr X did not respond to the request for a date, but questioned why the ramp did not fit. He also said has landlord had said they could not find temporary accommodation suitable for his needs.
36. In November Mr X complained to the Council about the continuing delay in completing the DFG funded works.
37. The Council wrote to Mr X on 8 December in response to his complaint. It said:
• The timescales in the government guidance (see paragraph 14 above) were for guidance. The timescales did not take account of external or unavoidable factors.
• It had contacted him twice to advise him that to progress the DFG funded adaptations it needed to arrange an up-to-date functional assessment, as the last assessment had been in July 2022.
• It had written to him in July 2022 and August 2023 about reviewing his care and support needs, but he had not agreed to a face-to-face home visit. It invited him to provide a suitable date for such a visit.
• It had been established that his medical conditions meant he could not remain in the property while the works were carried out. It understood he had asked to be provided with alternative accommodation.
• The timescale for completing the works was 10 working days, but time needed to be allowed to accommodate any unforeseen works or circumstances.
• The ramp had been completed in agreement with Mr X. There an outstanding issue over the need for additional rails and slip resistant paint to the concrete where the ramp terminated. But Mr X had not agreed to these work being carried out. It had not been necessary to remove the original ramp to meet Mr X’s access needs. There were no trip hazards in the new ramp. It could not install anti-slip mesh, as it would not lay flush with the existing concrete outside the patio doors, but had offered slip resistant paint, which he had not accepted. The contractors were not responsible for any problems with the outside light, having carried out no electrical works. The new ramp had a non-slip safety surface.
• It recommended Mr X have an advocate present for his review. He could not use his previous advocate because of their aggressive behaviour. It could arrange an advocate for him, or he could make his own arrangements.
• It understood Mr X’s landlord had agreed to pay the cost of moving him to temporary accommodation and temporary accommodation. The Council’s discretionary accommodation fees grant was for homeowners only.
• It accepted the need to review Mr X’s care and support needs and had twice asked him for a face-to-face meeting to do this. It had been unable to do face-to-face reviews during the COVID-19 pandemic but was now asking to do one.

Is there evidence of fault by the Council which caused injustice?

38. The Council was right to say the timescales in the government guidance (see paragraph 14 above) were for guidance and are not statutory timescales for completing works funded by DFGs. Nevertheless, the work to Mr X’s home is taking far too long. However, the issue for me to consider is whether this is due to fault by the Council or whether Mr X’s own actions have contributed to the delays.
39. The Council offered Mr X a start date of 21 November 2022 for the internal works and three options for carrying them out. But Mr X did not agree to this date or any of the options, instead asking further questions, including about the need for the work to take six weeks. This meant the work did not go ahead in November 2022. But that was not due to fault by the Council.
40. There is no dispute over the fact a review of Mr X’s needs is long overdue. The Council is insisting on a face-to-face review, but Mr X has not agreed to that. The Council has given four reasons for requesting a face-to-face review
• the last face-to-face review was in 2019;
• Mr X had asked it to fund a shortfall of £2,798 needed to progress his DFG;
• The need to make sure the grant funded works will have a positive impact on Mr X’s care package, ideally reducing the need to access care services;
• he had asked for an increase in his weekly direct payment.
41. There is no evidence to support the claim that there was a shortfall in the grant funding, as neither of the letters to Mr X about the funding identified a shortfall. The April 2023 letter referred to “unforeseen works”, which the Council had agreed to fund. However, given that the last face-to-face review was in 2019 and Mr X has asked for an increase in his personal budget, the Council is not at fault for insisting on a face-to-face review. It has agreed to provide an advocate to support him with the review. Also, give that over 12 months have passed since the grant funding was agreed, the Council is not at fault for asking for a face-to-face assessment before continuing with the grant funded works.
42. In 2022 the Council offered to carry out the internal works in two stages, so Mr X could remain in the property while the work was carried out with reduced impact on him. Mr X did not take up that offer. But he later questioned the need for the work to take six weeks and the need for him to move out of the property while it was done. That was understandable, as there can be no guarantee that his landlord will have a suitable property available for him to stay in while the work is carried out.
43. The Council acknowledged that the work may only take 10 working days. But it said his medical conditions meant he could not remain in the property while the work was carried out. The Council did not explain why Mr X’s medical conditions meant he could not remain in the property or what had changed since it offered to carry out the work in two stage so he could remain in the property. That was fault by the Council. The Council needs to reconsider its decision that Mr X must stay elsewhere while the work is carried out.

Back to top

Agreed action

44. I recommended the Council within four weeks reconsiders its decision that Mr X must stay elsewhere while the grant funded works are carried out. The Council has agreed to do this, and said it should be possible for Mr X to remain in the property, if that is what he wants. The Council needs to provided evidence it has complied with the agreed action above.

Back to top

Final decision

45. I have completed my investigation on the basis there has been fault by the Council, which means it needs to reconsider its decision that Mr X must stay elsewhere while the grant funded works are carried out.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman