Summary: Ms X complains the about the way the Council dealt with her request for a Disabled Facilities Grant assessment to carry out adaptations at her property for her daughter causing distress and uncertainty. We found there was service failure by the Council due to the delay in carrying out an Occupational Therapy assessment. We have recommended a suitable remedy for the injustice caused in this case so are completing our investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains there were failings and delays in the way the Council dealt with her request for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) assessment for adaptations needed at her property for her daughter Y who has significant health issues. Ms X wants the Council to complete the assessment or move them to a more suitable property. Ms X says the delays have caused both her and Y distress.

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 an injustice, 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the documents provided by Ms X and spoken to her about the complaint;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• Ms 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

5. Disabled Facilities Grants 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.
6. 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.

The Council’s DFG Policy

7. The Council says its policy confirms DFGs are mandatory and carried out under the provisions of the Housing Grants, Construction & Regeneration Act 1996 (as amended) and are awarded to applicants who are registered or eligible for registration as a disabled person, to help them remain in their own home. DFGs are available to leaseholders, owner/occupiers and private sector tenants and Housing Association tenants.

What happened in this case

8. Ms X lives in a council property with her daughter Y, a young adult. Y has health conditions which can affect her mobility at times. The property has a toilet room on the first floor and a bathroom with no toilet on the ground floor. Ms X contacted the Council in May 2023 requesting the Council to move her bathroom to the first floor due to Y’s medical needs. Ms X said Y found it difficult to use the stairs to go to the bathroom when she felt unwell. Ms X said she had been advised the works were a repair job and a Council surveyor needed to visit to assess.
9. Ms X chased the Council for a response a few weeks later and in June 2023. The Council contacted Ms X in June 2023 for more information about her enquiry and asked her to complete a form to progress her request. Ms X completed and returned the form.
10. The Council requested a care act assessment by an occupational therapist (OT) in June 2023. Ms X contacted the Council in June and July 2023 as she had not heard anything further. The Council responded in July 2023 and asked Ms X to complete a new form as it had moved to a new electronic client recording system. Ms X complained as she was unhappy about filling in new form because she had already sent one in. Ms X also complained the Council had not acknowledged her enquiries or responded to her.
11. An officer replied to Ms X’s complaints in August 2023. The officer apologised Ms X had sent her first referral in May 2023, sent several reminders but received no response. The officer explained the Council had a lack of staff to support the increased demand for the adaptations service. And while it had recruited new staff, they were still working through the assessment referrals received. The officer said the Council placed Y on the waiting list for an OT assessment in July 2023 and for Ms X to allow up to three months for the assessment to take place. The officer gave Ms X a contact number to ring for updates.
12. Ms X complained to the Council in April 2024 as Y was still waiting for an OT assessment. Ms X asked for an update in May 2023 as she received no response. A few weeks later an OT was allocated to Ms X’s case.
13. Ms X complained to us in June 2024 about the Council’s delays in carrying out the OT assessment and progressing her request for adaptations. Following Ms X’s complaint to us an OT carried out a home visit to the property to undertake the assessment. The OT recommendation was for a major adaptation in a council property to provide an upstairs wet room via a DFG. A surveyor visited the property in August 2024. The Council’s records note the surveyor confirmed it possible to install a wet room at the property and advised Ms X of a waiting list for works to be done. Ms X was noted to be happy with the discussions.
14. The Council drew up plans and specifications for the proposal and sent them to Ms X in September 2024. It says once Ms X responds and confirms her agreement to the works the scheme will be formally sent to the adaptations team. It will be allocated to a surveyor to produce a schedule of works for contractors to quote as part of the tendering process.

The Council’s comments on the complaint

15. The Council explains it uses a ‘Front Door’ (FRT) process to deal with any referrals. Its Business Support team allocates any referrals to the Duty Team. The Duty Team triage it, assess the urgency, and needs of the referral before assigning it to the OT team for further triage and final allocation.
16. The OT team triaged Y’s case in August 2023. It did not consider the referral contained information that warranted the immediate allocation of the case. So added Y’s case to the standard waiting list as ‘normal for complexity and normal for priority’. The ratings given to cases are usually scaled between low, normal, or high for both complexity and priority.
17. During 2023 the Council says it did not have enough staff to deal with an extensive waiting list and backlog of 1000 cases. This overwhelmed the system and delayed response times. So, at the time the OT team prioritised only ‘high complexity and high priority’ cases such as end of life, hospital discharge and urgent moving and handling.
18. The Council recognised it needed to employ extra staff to support the increase in demand. This helped establish the Duty Team to respond more promptly to urgent cases and recruited four more OTs and two OT assistants. The Council confirms it has also streamlined workflows and better resource management which has reduced the backlog to 90 cases which it is still working through. The Council says the changes have led to quicker interventions and more manageable caseload so officers can provide timely care and support to individuals in needs. And it will continue to monitor its resource needs to ensure timely service delivery.
19. The Council says there was a communication error between the officer who sent the complaint response in August 2023 and the OT team. The OT team triaged the case and added it to the standard waiting list in August 2023. The officer advised in the response Y would be assessed in three months. But did not advise the OT team of this. So, the OT team did not prioritise the case to be seen within three months as Y was on the standard waiting list which was between a three to six month wait.
20. The Council confirms that while council tenants are eligible to apply for a DFG, the Council funds adaptations to its own properties from the housing revenue account (HRA). The application process for council tenants is dealt with in the same way as a DFG to ensure they are treated fairly. The Council says it aims to deal with the applications according to government guidance and aims to complete adaptations within 6 months depending on the complexity of the adaptations.
21. It will not be using a DFG for Ms X’s works but rather the HRA on this occasion. The Council has apologised the OT assessment used the wrong terminology and referred to ‘upstairs wet room via DFG’. The Council will correct this and replace it with ‘via HRA’. It confirms Ms X’s case will be processed by the grants team and then the surveying team to oversee installation.

My assessment

22. The Council says the adaptations in Y’s case are being funded by the HRA and not through a DFG. But it deals with the applications in the same way as a DFG. So, if the Council is treating it the same then the timescales for doing so according to government guidance are for it to decide it as soon as reasonably possible and within six months of the application. In this case Ms X made her application for adaptations in June 23 and Y placed on an OT waiting list for an assessment in July 2023.
23. The Council advised Ms X in August 2023 she was on a waiting list and to allow up to three months for an assessment. The Council accepts a communication error as the officer responding to the complaint said the OT assessment would take place within three months. But did not advise the OT of this and Y remained on standard waiting list. The communication error is fault by the Council. It caused an injustice to Ms X and Y as it misled them and raised their expectations of being assessed within the 3 months. Instead, the OT visited Ms X and Y in June 2024, which was 12 months after Ms X made her application in June 2023. So is beyond the recommended timescales set by government guidance.
24. The Council acknowledges it had an extensive waiting list in August 2023 and was only dealing with high complexity and high priority cases due to backlogs. It had not allocated Y’s case a high priority so there were delays in dealing with it. The Council says the delay was caused by the extensive waiting list and shortage of staff.
25. It is unfortunate these reasons affected the Council’s ability to carry out its duties and assess Y within the recommended timescales which I consider amount to service failure. The Council apologised to Ms X for the delays caused by this service failure when responding to her complaint in August 2023. But I have not seen any evidence of an apology for the delay after August 2023. I therefore recommend the Council makes Ms X and Y a further apology for the delays they experienced after August 2023.
26. We would normally make service improvement recommendations to the Council about its DFG/HRA process. However, the Council has already taken such action and recruited extra staff to ensure it improves its services in this area. It is also updating its DFG policy. These are appropriate actions for it to take.
27. But the delay in responding to Ms X about when it would carry out a needs assessment has caused an injustice to Ms X and Y. This is through distress and uncertainty over the outcome of the assessment and whether it would agree to carry out adaptations. Ms X has also been caused time and trouble in pursuing her complaint to the Council. Therefore, I recommend the Council makes Ms X a payment of £300, in line with our Guidance of Remedies. The payment is to acknowledge Ms X and Y’s raised expectations the OT assessment would be carried out within three months of August 2023 and for their distress and uncertainty caused by the delay in carrying out the OT assessment. The payment also includes recognition of the time and trouble Ms X has been put to in making her complaint as she had to chase the Council for responses to her communications.

Back to top

Agreed action

28. Within a month of my final decision the Council will:
• Send Mrs X and Y a written apology for the further delays they experienced in waiting for an OT assessment after August 2023.
• Make a payment of £300 to Ms X to acknowledge their raised expectations the OT assessment would be carried out within three months of August 2023 and for their distress and uncertainty caused by the delay in carrying out the OT assessment. The payment also includes recognition of the time and trouble Ms X has been put to in making her complaint to the Council.
29. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I am completing my investigation. I have found evidence of service failure by the Council. I have recommended a suitable remedy for the injustice caused in this case.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman