Summary: Ms D complains about the time the Council has taken to deal with a Disabled Facilities Grant application. Ms D says the Council’s delay has impacted the whole family physically and mentally. We found the Council is at fault due to the time it has taken. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms D, make a recognition payment, provide her with a plan and timescale going forward, and make service improvements.

The complaint

1. Ms D complained the Council delayed in carrying out the recommendations of Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) assessments from May 2023, for two of her children. She says the Council has failed to consider the impact of its delays on her children and the family as a whole.
2. Ms D says the Council has left her children without the provision they need, which impacts their hygiene, dignity and their sleep. She says being without the provision has also impacted her and her husband’s mental and physical health.
3. Ms D also complains about the way the Council has dealt with her complaint.
4. Ms D is seeking an apology, compensation, a disability impact assessment and for the Council to make a decision on what it will do now.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. 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

7. This matter has been ongoing for some time, and we have carried out an investigation previously which looked at the issues prior to this investigation. I have therefore only considered the matter from May 2023 – where our last investigation ended – to July 2024, when Ms D contacted this office.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Ms D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Ms D and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on a draft decision. I have considered all comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

Disabled Facilities Grants/Adaptations

10. Disabled Facilities Grants are provided under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Councils have a statutory duty to give grants to disabled people for certain adaptations to their home.
11. 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 applied to the disabled person.
12. Once a grant has been approved, works should be completed within 80 working days. The council must pay the grant in full within 12 months of the application date. 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.

Complaint procedures

13. The Council has a two-stage complaint procedure. It aims to respond at stage one within 10 working days and at stage two within 20 working days.
14. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services, that is services which are provided under Part 3 of the Children Act 1989.

What happened

15. Ms D lives with her husband and children. The family have a number of issues which cause each of them to have additional needs. Ms D’s children have a genetic condition causing issues affecting bathing, continence and sleep.
16. Ms D applied to the Council for a DFG for adaptations to their home. Following delays to the Council’s process, Ms D complained to the Council in November 2023. She did not receive a response to the complaint when she escalated it to stage two of the Council’s complaints handling process.
17. The Council completed its assessment in May 2023. The assessment concluded a recommendation that adaptations be made.
18. In July 2023, Ms D applied to the Tribunal, and this application included the issues around her children’s needs and the support needed.
19. The Council met with Ms D in September 2023 to see how feasible the recommendations were.
20. The Council carried out a panel discussion about the feasibility of the recommendations in October 2023. It was established the recommended adaptations would cost in excess of the maximum grant available.
21. The Council met with Ms D again in May 2024 to discuss five adaptations options it considered feasible.
22. Between May 2024 and July 2024, the Council met with Ms D and her husband, then met with them and their children, then contacted the school for more information about the children and sought medical information about them.
23. Ms D contacted this office in July 2024 as the DFG remained outstanding at that point.

Analysis and findings

24. The Council did not take any substantive action to proceed with this matter from May 2023 until September 2023. This is a delay of four months, although the Council was working on improving its service at the time. This is a service failure, which amounts to fault.
25. Once the Council established the adaptations would cost more than the maximum grant allowance in October 2023, it took no further substantive action until May 2024.
26. During this time, Ms D’s application to the Tribunal was ongoing. The Council is not at fault for awaiting the outcome of the Tribunal appeal before taking further substantive action.
27. The Tribunal hearing concluded the Council should assess the issues and consider it again. This lends validity to the Council’s attempts to look at the matter again informally preceding the Tribunal hearing.
28. On this basis, the Council is responsible for a delay from March to September 2023. The delays following this can be justified on the basis that there was an appeal to the Tribunal pending and the Council were entitled to await the outcome. The Council did not know what the Tribunal would direct, so it is fair for it not to make any further decisions until it did.
29. With regard to the Council’s complaints handling. I can see the Council did not follow its complaints process. It is not sufficient to simply say it would not provide a stage two response as there was a DFG assessment pending. Further, the Council did not provide a response once this was complete.
30. The Council’s failure to provide Ms D with a stage two response when she had requested it, served to aggravate the frustration and distress she already had due to the Council’s handling of her family’s matter. However, this must be balanced against the fact that the stage two response would not have changed the circumstances in any meaningful way.
31. On this basis, I have recommended the Council make a payment of £350 for its delays and its failure to respond to Ms D’s stage two complaint.

Back to top

Agreed Action

32. Within one month of the decision, the Council will:
• apologise to Ms D. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Make a payment of £350 to Ms D in recognition of the impact of the fault identified on Ms D and on her family.
33. Within three months of the decision, the Council will:
• Review its process for implementing adaptations recommended by a DFG assessment, against the timeframes in which it should be delivering those adaptations. Ensure it has a process which complies with the timeframes in which it should be acting.
• Remind all relevant staff of the timeframe within which this process should be completed.
34. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

35. I found fault causing injustice. The Council agreed to carry out actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman