Summary: We upheld a complaint about adaptations to Mr Y’s property. The Council was at fault. It has taken some action to remedy the injustice by arranging an independent reassessment and apologising. The Council should ensure the works are completed and make a symbolic payment of £500 to reflect Mr Y’s avoidable distress.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained on behalf of her relative Mr Y who has physical disabilities. She complained about how the Council dealt with a number of adaptations to Mr Y’s home. Ms X said the Council did not consider medical issues or listen to Mr Y.
2. Ms X said the Council’s fault led to avoidable distress for her and Mr Y and meant Mr Y could not bathe.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of the NHS. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34(1), as amended)
5. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
6. We provide a free service and use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

7. 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

What I have and have not investigated

8. I have investigated one of the adaptations Ms X is complaining about: the bath. I have not investigated other adaptations or matters connected to those adaptations. I explain why in the next two paragraphs.
9. Mr Y’s care is funded by the NHS. I have not investigated complaints about delay in providing bath slings and a recliner chair as these are complaints about items which the Integrated Care Board (an NHS body) is providing/funding. We have no remit to investigate the NHS.
10. I have also not investigated the following points:
1. The OT not being present when the company providing the specialist toilet visited Mr Y. This is because the Council apologised for the two-month delay in ordering the toilet and obtained an extended warrantee to reflect the avoidable inconvenience. This is an appropriate remedy and there is no outstanding injustice requiring a further remedy.
2. Provision of pull-down baskets in the kitchen. This is because the Council confirmed in its complaint response that it had removed the baskets and replaced them with shelves in line with Mr Y’s request. This is an appropriate remedy and there is no outstanding injustice.
3. Concerns about warranties and who is responsible for the upkeep and repair of adaptations. The Council provided the dates the warranties expire in its complaint response. The Council has already taken appropriate action and an investigation by the LGSCO could achieve nothing further. The Council also explained Mr Y owns the adaptations and all DFG recipients are in the same position in that they are responsible for repairs, servicing and upkeep after the initial warranty period expires. This is not fault by the Council. It is acting in line with its policy.
4. Not listening to Mr Y properly. The Council accepted in the complaint response that it was at fault because its officers should have met with Mr Y to discuss the complaint before sending the written response. The Council apologized. Nothing further could be achieved by the LGSCO investigating this complaint.
5. Plans/drawings were incorrect. The Council upheld this complaint as the scale was incorrect. It apologized for the inconvenience and frustration. Nothing further could be achieved by us investigating.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered the complaint to us, the Council’s second stage response and information and documents from the Council summarised later in this statement.
12. 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

Relevant law and guidance

13. The Council’s Adult Social Care policy is called Connected Lives. It says the person who needs support should be involved as an equal partner in designing the services they receive.
14. The Council’s adaptations policy says the assessment should explore the person’s wishes and preferences and pay attention to their sense of identity and belonging and how it may play a part in prescribing suitable adaptations for them.

What happened

15. Mr X lives in a two-bedroom property. At the time of the matters Ms X has complained about, there was a bathroom with a shower and a bath installed in one of the bedrooms. The Council’s second stage complaint response upheld Ms X’s complaint about the bath and said:
• Mr Y wanted the bath put back in the bathroom because he did not want or need a shower. He did not use a shower as it caused him to have spasms.
• The OT’s opinion was the bathroom was too small to accommodate a bath, shower, toilet and washbasin because there was not enough space to transfer on and off the toilet with a full-size bath in the room.
• Long-term needs were considered, including an assessment of safety as well as the wishes of Mr Y. A level access shower was recommended.
• An area within the bedroom was identified for a bath as a way of meeting Mr Y’s preference for a bath.
• The bath installed in the bedroom was too small and Mr Y could clearly not fit into it when hoisted. And the tracking for the hoist was sited in a way that means Mr Y had to have two transfers from the bed to the bath (so four transfers in total). This was tiring for Mr Y and his carers.
• The current view is the larger bath Mr Y needed cannot be installed within the existing shower room due to space.
• There was a disconnect between what the family and Mr Y see as his needs and the professional view.
• There should be a reassessment by an independent OT.
16. We asked the Council if it had arranged for an independent OT reassessment. The Council confirmed there had been a reassessment. The Council provided a Schedule of Works for a contractor to remove the bath in the bedroom and install a new bath in the bathroom.

Findings

17. The Council upheld Ms X’s complaint about the bath. The Council’s response said the wrong size bath was ordered and installed in the bedroom and the hoisting track was a burden for Mr Y and his carers. The adaptation therefore did not meet his needs. This was fault and was not in line with the Council’s policy and practice guidance as I have set out in paragraphs 14 and 15. It meant Mr Y could not use the bath. The Council has already taken some action: a re-assessment and an apology. This goes some way to remedying the avoidable distress to Mr Y.

Back to top

Agreed action

18. The Council has now re-assessed Mr Y and works are underway to install a bath. This is a partial remedy. The Council will, within one month:
• Make a payment of £500 to reflect Mr Y’s avoidable distress of not having his preferred bathing option.
• Completion of the works, if this is not already done. This will be subject to the housing authority’s co-operation and timescales.
19. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the actions in paragraph 19.

Back to top

Final decision

20. We upheld a complaint about adaptations to Mr Y’s property. The Council was at fault. It has taken some action to remedy the injustice by arranging an independent reassessment and apologising. The Council will ensure the works are completed and make a symbolic payment of £500 to reflect Mr Y’s avoidable distress.
21. I completed the investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman