Summary: Miss B complained that the Council had failed to properly include her in the Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) application process leading to a poorly finished outcome which differed from the approved plans and was unsafe. We found fault causing injustice to Miss B. The Council has agreed to apologise to her, pay her £500 and carry out a site visit to determine what outstanding works are required. It has also agreed to remind staff of the Council’s responsibility to ensure the DFG work is completed in accordance with the approved plans and meets the applicant’s needs.

The complaint

1. Miss B complained that West Oxfordshire District Council (the Council) failed to include her in key decisions about work to her property under a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG), leading to a poorly finished outcome, differing from the agreed plans with health and safety issues. The Council has refused to address the ongoing issues directing Miss B to the County Council and her landlord. This has caused and continues to cause Miss B significant 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 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)
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. I considered evidence provided by Miss B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Miss B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

DFG process and responsibility

6. We consider the following principles apply to the Council’s responsibilities in administering DFG applications:

Principle 1: Primary social care duty

7. There is an underlying primary duty under social care legislation to meet the assessed eligible needs of a disabled adult. This duty cannot be delegated to another body external to the Council.

Principle 2: Discharge of primary duty

8. We do not consider the primary duty to have been discharged until the disabled adaptations have been completed to a satisfactory standard. Our emphasis is on an end to end approach.

Principle 3: Concurrent social care and housing duties

9. The duties of the social services authority run concurrently to the housing authority duties. In other words, the primary duty does not end at the point the housing duties begin (see principle 1).
10. We consider the housing authority is acting on behalf of the social services authority in meeting the social care duty to ensure the complainants needs are being met. The housing authority is responsible for administering the DFG.
11. So, we consider the Council is responsible for ensuring the work carried out in respect of a DFG it has administered, is in accordance with the terms of the grant and the associated plans.

What happened

Background

12. Miss B has a health condition which affects her mobility. She uses a wheelchair and/or crutches to mobilise and lives in a housing association (HA) property. She asked the Council to provide improvements to her driveway to allow her to safely access her house and car. An Occupational Therapist (OT) from the County Council visited her in early 2021 and assessed she needed a concrete hardstanding and driveway.
13. A schedule of works was drawn up by a surveyor including ramped access to the front door. The plans also showed a new front door and associated drain works.
14. Miss B was not happy with the plans. She felt they were over-complicated and she explained she did not need ramped access to the front door as she could manage the step with crutches.
15. Following further discussions and another visit from an OT, the OT in March 2022 updated the Council and the housing association regarding what Miss B needed:
• Hardstanding to park her care with 1.5 metre circulation space on all sides.
• A level surface for safe mobility with crutches or a wheelchair to and from the hardstanding and the front/back doors.
• The path from the house to the road needed to be 1000mm wide with at least 900mm width of textured surface for safe use with mobility aids.
• The front door rehung on the right to stop it obstructing the kitchen door when opened.
• Removal of one base unit in the kitchen to house a small dishwasher.
16. The Council said it could not fund the kitchen alteration for the dishwasher through the DFG.
17. A surveyor for the Housing Association visited Miss B in May 2022 to review the plans. Miss B was dissatisfied with the plans because they still included ramped access to the front door which she said she did not need.
18. In June 2022 the OT visited the property again and the discussed the case with a senior OT. In August 2022 the OT sent an update to the Council and the HA saying that Miss B needed a three metre wide hardstanding the length of the front garden with no dropped kerb and not ramps as she could manage steps. Rehanging the door was not mentioned.
19. The OT, the HA and the Council approved the plans in January 2023 and sent them to Miss B who said she was very happy with them. The plans included reference to a new front door and associated drain works.
20. The DFG was approved in early April 2023. Work started in May 2023 and was completed in June 2023. The Council paid the invoice for the work in July 2023.
21. Miss B raised concerns that the contractor had not followed the agreed plans. She said the driveway was installed too high (6 inches above the damp proof course and was misaligned), the new door was not installed or the existing one reversed, the drain works were not done, the concrete had been done incorrectly so had cracked, slabs had been installed badly creating an unsafe situation and her garden had been damaged. She had spent £280 on engaging a private contractor to dig a trench to even out the driveway.
22. The HA inspected the work in July 2023.
23. In November 2023 Miss B raised her concerns with the OT. The OT compared photographs of the work done with the original plans. They concluded the work was different to the plans. They said to Miss B that the internal kitchen works, addition of gravel and topsoil around the edge of the hardstanding were not included in the approved works. She referred Miss B back to the HA to deal with the outstanding issues.
24. The HA said that the door had not been included in the original referral so was not part of the works, but it would install upstands to the side of the ramp to reduce the risk of falling or tripping and would rake across some of the existing gravel to the side of the driveway.
25. Miss B said the original plans referred to the door reversal or new door. She said the door was currently jamming and would not shut properly. She said raking gravel over was not sufficient to address the misalignment of the driveway. She said she had discussed the issue in person with the HA and it had agreed to add a one metre strip of gravel to even out the mistake.
26. The HA visited again in January 2024. It mended the front door so it would shut.
27. In May 2024 Miss B made a formal complaint to the Council that the works had not been completed in accordance with the approved plans. She said the HA had visited and promised to rectify the problems, but this had not happened.
28. The Council responded in June 2024. It said all the issues were being dealt with by the HA. At the visit in January, the HA had not found any mould due to the higher level of the concrete, there had been delays in completing the gravel works but quotes had now been obtained and it was reviewing options for ramp stands for the side of the hardstanding.
29. Miss B was unhappy with the response and escalated her complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints procedures. The Council responded in July 2024. It said:
• The driveway was bigger than that specified on the plans.
• There was no designated height for the concrete on the plans, but it had been completed to meet the height of the dropped kerb.
• The misalignment of the driveway was a necessary adjustment on site and the OT had approved the drive as fit for purpose.
• There was no new door specified on the OT referral or work schedule, so no drain was required.
• It would revisit her property to check the damp proof course issue.
• It had started work to fill the trench (which Miss B had created) and install the upstands.
30. The Council said that a DFG can only be used for work approved by the OT and Miss B had given consent for the work to go ahead in accordance with the plans.
31. Miss B escalated her complaint to stage three, She requested proof that an OT had visited/approved the final works and a copy of the works schedule. She said the new door was shown on the plans she had been sent, and no other communication had been received.
32. The Council responded saying that it did not have the OT approval, the work referral or schedule as they would have come from the HA. It said it did not get involved with third party organisations and she should take them up directly with the OT and HA.
33. Miss B complained to us in August 2024. We asked for some initial information at our assessment stage. The Council said it administered the DFG but the HA was the managing agent responsible for overseeing and delivering the works.
34. We did not agree with this position on the Council’s responsibility to ensure the DFG was completed in accordance with the approved plans to meet the disabled person’s needs. So we decided to investigate the complaint.
35. In response to my enquiries the Council has only provided the schedule of works completed in July 2021 showing the original superseded plans. It also said it has no evidence that the completed work was approved by an OT or anyone else and it would be doing that now. In respect of the door it said that the door work was not included because Miss B said she did not want ramped access to the house.
36. The Council also said that since the  completion of the works in June 2023, the staff at the HA responsible for DFG work have changed. They have implemented formal sign off on at least 90% of their adaptations and the Council will implement a client satisfaction request before payment of the final invoice to resolve any issues much earlier in the process.

Analysis

37. The plans sent to Miss B in February 2023 were approved by an OT, the Council, the HA and Miss B. These plans referred to a new door and drain and showed the drive in a central position. The OT had said in March 2022 that Miss B needed the front door reversed so she could access the kitchen. These plans formed part of the DFG approval in April 2023 and on which the work was based.
38. The work was not done in accordance with these plans. There is no evidence as to why the drive was built in a different position and why the door was not installed. Even though Miss B did not want ramped access to the front door she needed the door reversed or replaced so she could access the kitchen through the front door. This has not been done which is fault. The fault has been exacerbated by the Council’s denials since July 2023 that a new/changed door was required.
39. The Council has not provided an accurate or up-to-date work schedule. This is fault as it is unclear exactly what works should have been done and has added to the uncertainty and confusion since 2023 as to what should have been built.
40. The Council agrees it has no evidence that anyone inspected or signed off the completed works to ensure they were in accordance with the approved plans and met Miss B’s needs. This was fault which has led to protracted discussions for over a year as to whether the works have been completed correctly and whether they meet Miss B’s needs.
41. The Council wrongly stated the OT had approved the finished work and wrongly signposted Miss B to the HA saying it was not responsible for the work that was done. This was further fault.
42. These faults have caused Miss B distress, uncertainty and confusion for 18 months, and compelled her to complain to us to seek a resolution. She also incurred costs in trying to rectify the faults herself.

Back to top

Action

43. In recognition of the injustice caused to Miss B I recommended the Council within one month of the date of my final decision:
• Apologises to Miss B and pays her £500;
• Ensures a site visit is done to check what work remains outstanding (including the door and drain) and draw up plans (in consultation with Miss B) to rectify any identified issues;
• Reminds all staff dealing with DFGs of the need to:
1. ensure the completed work is in accordance with the DFG approval and meets the applicant’s needs; and
2. retain evidence to support these decisions.
44. The Council has agreed to my recommedations and has already sent an apology letter with a suggested date for a site visit. It should provide us with evidence it has complied with the other actions.

Back to top

Decision

45. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman