Summary: The Council has already accepted fault for delay and poor communication in its handling of Mr X’s application for a Disabled Facilities Grant. The Council’s actions in response to Mr X’s complaint are a suitable remedy for the injustice caused. We have not, therefore, made any recommendations.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his application for a Disabled Facilities Grant to adapt his home. He says the Council took too long to progress his application and communicated poorly, meaning the resulting works take up more space than planned within his home.
2. As a result, Mr X experienced avoidable distress, lived without access to bathing facilities he could use for almost two years and has less living space than he should.

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. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
5. 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 not investigated

6. Mr X complained that because of poor communication between the building surveyor and the lift surveyor, the through-floor lift could not be located as planned. He says this means the resulting works take up more space in his home than planned. This happened after the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint. The Council has not had an opportunity to investigate this and reply and so the restriction in paragraph four applies.
7. The Council has agreed to investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered the complaint and the information Mr X provided.
9. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
10. I referred to the Ombudsman's Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
11. Mr X and the organisation 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 (DFGs)

12. Disabled facilities grants (DFG) 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. These include enabling the disabled person to access their home and essential facilities within the home, like bathrooms, bedrooms, and kitchens.
13. The maximum grant is £30,000. Council’s may have housing assistance policies which set out additional discretionary funding. Such funding might be a grant or a loan, and could be conditional on a charge against the property.

What happened

14. Mr X is Disabled. His condition affects his mobility and he uses a wheelchair.
15. In August 2022, an Occupational Therapist (OT) from the NHS specialist team working with Mr X made a referral to the Council for an assessment for adaptations.
16. In September, an OT and a surveyor from the adaptations service visited Mr X at home. At that time, Mr X used a wheelchair outside. He needed support to get up the stairs to the bathroom and descended the stairs on his bottom. The Council identified that Mr X needed adaptations to be able to use the property safely. This included:
• a through floor lift so Mr X could get to the only bathroom;
• a level access shower in the bathroom; and
• widened doorways for wheelchair access.
17. The OT sent the referral to the Council’s Accessible Accommodation Service. The Council sent Mr X a letter with a form to complete agreeing to using this service as the agent to manage the DFG. Mr X completed and returned the forms.
18. The records show no action or progress on the case until January 2023. In January, Mr X called the Council. He said his condition had deteriorated and he was now unable to use the stairs at all. He was therefore without access to washing facilities. The OT visited Mr X again. The note of this visit says the works previously recommended remained suitable for Mr X.
19. The OT and a surveyor visited in early February. Following this visit, the proposed works changed to enable Mr X to live fully on the ground floor by building an extension. The records say the Council explained to Mr X that this meant the DFG process would start again, with new forms to sign.
20. Throughout March and April, the Council tried to contact Mr X by phone five times to get information about his income. The Council eventually spoke to Mr X in mid-May and asked him to provide evidence of his income.
21. In September, the Council told Mr X the planned works would cost more than the DFG limit. It explained discretionary funding options. Its note says Mr X asked why the plans changed from a through floor lift to an extension.
22. The OT spoke to Mr X about the plans. The note of the call says Mr X said the “costings for the extension is not clear enough to support looking for extra funding”. He therefore asked to revert to the original recommendations. The OT approved this as meeting his needs.
23. In October, surveyors for the building works and through floor lift visited Mr X at home to produce plans.
24. In November, the Council’s contractors provided quotes for the works.
25. In January 2024, the Council told Mr X he needed to contribute to the cost of the works because they exceeded the maximum grant. Mr X paid this in February. The Council approved the DFG in March and wrote to Mr X and the contractors.
26. The initial contract for the building works included an asbestos survey. At the end of March, the survey found asbestos in the bathroom. The works stopped.
27. In April, in response to Mr X’s contact, the Council said it would ask the contractor why works stopped. The contractor told the Council about the asbestos. The Council told the contractor to tell Mr X the cost of the asbestos removal as he would be responsible for this cost.
28. Later in April, contractors found more asbestos in the ceiling where the through-floor lift was to go. They also identified pipes and cables which had to be relocated. These resulted in further costs. The Council’s records say the works were on hold because Mr X was disputing being expected to pay for the asbestos removal.
29. Mr X complained to the Council. He said:
• When he started the process in 2022, the Council told him the process would take less than a year. It was now 2024 and works were on hold
• He had paid his assessed contribution over two months ago but had not received a breakdown of the quote to show how his money was to be spent
• Prices had increased since 2022, so works would have been cheaper but for the delay
• He was having to wash at the kitchen sink because he had no access to a bathroom
• No one responded to his calls or emails.
30. In mid-May, Mr X said he still had not heard from the adaptations service. In late May, the Council emailed Mr X. It said it was still investigating his complaint and it was likely it would not respond on time.
31. In June, the Council told Mr X it had authorised works to continue. It would pay for the asbestos removal and costs of moving cables and pipes. It apologised again for the delay in its complaint response. It provided Mr X with a breakdown of the costs of the works.
32. The Council sent Mr X further “holding responses” on his complaint in June and early July. The Council responded to the complaint in mid-July. It said:
• It was sorry for the delay responding to the complaint.
• Works stopped in 2024 because Mr X disputed paying for the costs resulting from the asbestos survey.
• Mr X had contacted the Council and did not get a response several times. This was unacceptable.
• The time taken since September 2022 to proceed with the works was unacceptable.
• Some of the delay was because of “some unexpected absences within the team”. Usually it would reallocate work but the team was short staffed and this did not happen.
• As a “good will gesture”, the Council had paid the extra £2335 for the asbestos removal and rerouting cables so that works could start.
• It offered a further £150 in recognition of Mr X’s distress.
• Mr X would be liable for any further costs from the works.
33. By September 2024, the works were mostly complete. There were some outstanding snagging works but the lift and bathroom were usable.

My findings

34. The Council has already accepted fault for delay and its poor communication in this case. I agree, this was fault. Mr X experienced significant injustice as a result. He had no access to a bathroom for months longer than necessary.
35. However, the Council has already remedied the injustice this caused Mr X. It met the additional costs of the asbestos removal and rerouting cables. It did not have to do this. The works already exceeded the maximum DFG award. Under the Council’s housing assistance policy, any further discretionary grant would be secured as a charge against the property. The Council did not make such a charge. Were I to have calculated a financial remedy in line with our guidance, the amount would be similar to that paid by the Council towards the works.
36. I considered whether the delay meant the resulting works cost more than they would have had work started in early 2023. The Council has a framework agreement with its contractor. It agrees an annual uplift to this. The Council agreed a new uplift in February 2023, which was in place at the time relevant to this complaint. The works did not, therefore, cost any more than they would have done but for the delay.
37. The Council delayed in its complaint handling. However, it kept Mr X informed and updated at regular intervals. This is what we expect councils to do. It also acted to resolve the issue, by paying the costs so works could start again, without waiting for the complaints process to complete. This is good practice. The Council’s offer of £150 is a suitable remedy for the avoidable frustration and distress Mr X experienced.

Back to top

Decision

38. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council. It has already remedied the injustice this caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman