Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that she has received no support from the community occupational therapy team and that the Council has prevented her from moving to a more suitable property.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains she received no support from the community occupational therapy team with regards to her child’s physical needs and home circumstances. She says her property is not practical for her child’s needs. She also complains the Council has prevented her from moving to a more suitable property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X’s child is disabled and a full-time wheelchair user.
6. In February 2023, the community occupational therapy team (COTT) received a referral from Miss X. It screened this and the case was placed on the waiting list. The Council said the waiting time for routine referrals at the time was around 17 weeks.
7. In March 2023, Miss X asked the COTT to assess her child urgently as there was no equipment in place and she was struggling to carry them up and down the stairs. A paediatric occupational therapist (OT) assessed and offered Miss X a mobile hoist. However, Miss X declined this as she considered it would be too difficult to manage and because it did not address the issue of carrying her child up and down the stairs. No other temporary adaptations were identified by the paediatric OT.
8. Near the end of March 2023, Miss X contacted the COTT again as she was unhappy with the length of the waiting list. Miss X advised the service she had fallen down the stairs while carrying her child. As a result, the COTT agreed to reprioritise her case.
9. In April 2023, an OT assessment was completed which identified the child’s needs. A referral was made to the Council’s equipment and adaptations team, in May 2023, to determine if Miss X’s property was suitable for adaptations to meet the child’s needs. The OT was unable to progress the case any further until this feasibility report was completed.
10. In June 2023, a technical officer visited Miss X’s property to assess the feasibility. They identified there was insufficient internal space within the ground floor to provide either a single bedroom or level access shower with the required turning space for the child’s wheelchair. This left the only option being an extension. However, this was found not to be feasible because:
• The kitchen window would need to be blocked up which would reduce the light into the room and a form of mechanical ventilation would need to be added that may not satisfy building regulations.
• The size of extension required to meet child’s assessed needs would take up a consider part of the rear garden. Due to the incline of the rear garden, this would increase the amount of excavation required and so a retaining wall needed to be constructed. The garden was totally enclosed, with no external access so this would prevent any mechanical equipment accessing the area. The labour costs of digging the required area by hand would increase the total cost of the works beyond the maximum limit for a disabled facilities grant.
• All material wastage and deliveries would have to be carried through the property by hand which could not be done while the property was occupied. Therefore, all occupants would need to leave the property, as well as all ground floor furniture needing to be stored at Miss X’s expense.
11. The technical officer advised the OT of the feasibility outcome and confirmed adapting Miss X’s property was not reasonable and practicable. A letter was also sent to Miss X setting out this decision. The decision was reviewed by the service in July 2023, the outcome of which was agreement with the initial feasibility assessment.
12. The option of rehousing to a more adaptable property was discussed with Miss X. The COTT told Miss X it could support with a report regarding housing need if Miss X decided to apply for rehousing.
13. In November 2023, Miss X was advised she could apply for a discretionary relocation grant (DRG) to help her with the associated cost of moving to an adapted, or more adaptable, property.
14. In March 2024, the Council told Miss X she could not use a DRG to purchase an additional property as the grant was to help people who could not afford to move to relocate to an adapted, or more adaptable property. It was not for the purposes of financial betterment or gain.
15. The Council asked Miss X to get her property valued for both sale and rent and to send it the valuations. The Council would then consider the information and decide Miss X’s eligibility for the DRG. The Council said Miss X had not provided this information.
16. An investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault with the Council’s actions. The evidence shows the COTT completed all actions expected as it completed the OT assessment and obtained a decision on whether it was feasible to adapt Miss X’s property to meet her child’s needs. It has been confirmed no further support can be provided due to adaptations to Miss X’s property not being feasible.
17. Further, the Council has advised Miss X of the option of her moving to an adapted, or more adaptable, property. There is no evidence the Council has refused or prevented Miss X from moving. Instead, the Council has demonstrated its willingness to consider this option, including consideration of Miss X’s eligibility for a DRG to achieve this.
18. I am satisfied the delays in consideration of rehousing Miss X is due to her not providing the Council with the information it needs to assess her eligibility for a DRG. It remains open to Miss X to engage with the Council and to provide the information it requires to progress the matter.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman