Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly assess his needs in relation to adapting his home under a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). The Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to properly assess his needs in relation to adapting his home under a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). He said this led to delays in carrying out the necessary works which caused him distress and meant his needs were not met for longer than necessary. Mr X wants the Council to recognise its faults and apologise to him.

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 spoke with Mr X and considered information he provided.
5. I considered information provided by the Council.
6. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on the draft version of this decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG)/Adaptations

7. Disabled Facilities Grants are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Councils have a statutory duty to give grants to disabled people for certain adaptations. Before approving a grant, a council must be satisfied the work is necessary, meets the disabled person’s needs, and is reasonable and practicable.
8. The process of a DFG includes:
• Assessment and recommendation: this is usually completed by an occupational therapist or another approved assessor;
• Identification of works and submission of grant application: this may be up to the applicant to complete themselves, the council or a Home Improvement Agency (a service that helps people remain independent in their home). It includes drawing up schedules of works or plans and obtaining quotes;
• Decision on DFG application: the council decides if the works are necessary, appropriate, reasonable and practicable; and
• Approval: completion of works and payment of grant.
9. Councils must decide a grant application within six months of receiving the completed application. Councils must complete the works within 12 months of approving the application.
10. The maximum amount of a grant is £30,000. Councils complete a means test to work out how much it can award to an applicant. If the applicant receives certain means tested benefits, the Council will automatically award them the full amount of grant and so they do not need to contribute towards the cost of the work.

Background

11. Mr X lives in his own property which consists of two floors. There are two bedrooms and a bathroom upstairs. There is a living room and kitchen downstairs. Mr X has used a mobility scooter for several years due to a previous injury. He has a ramp at the front of the house which allows him to access his house. Previously, Mr X used to pull himself up the stairs to gain access to the bathroom. Mr X lives with two members of his family.

What happened

12. In December 2023, Mr X underwent surgery which reduced his mobility further. Since then, he started to use a wheelchair.
13. At the beginning of February 2024, Mr X said the Hospital’s Occupational Therapy Team referred him to the Council’s Occupational Therapy Team as he was no longer able to access the bathroom in his home. He wanted a through-floor lift which would vertically take him up and down the house.
14. Towards the end of March 2024, an occupational therapist completed an assessment with Mr X. The assessment said Mr X was:
• no longer able to use the stairs to access the bathroom;
• using a commode for toileting which his family members emptied. He felt it had negatively affected his dignity and so wanted to access his bathroom;
• using a bowl of water to wash himself with; and
• using the living room as his bedroom.
15. The Occupational Therapist explored the option of a stairlift instead however, due to the shape of the stairs and the lack of room, deemed it would not be suitable. The Occupational Therapist recommended a through-floor lift, in agreement with Mr X.
16. At the beginning of April 2024, the Council informed Mr X it had agreed to the Occupational Therapist’s recommendation for a through-floor lift.
17. In May 2024, Mr X applied for a Disabled Facilities Grant. In his application, Mr X said the work required was a stairlift/through-floor lift. He also stated in his application he was in receipt of benefit payments. The Council considered Mr X’s application and concluded he was eligible for a full grant.
18. In June 2024, the Council’s Surveyor visited Mr X in his home. Mr X asked the Surveyor to consider adjusting the staircase which would allow for a stairlift instead of a through-floor lift, based on plans he had sourced. The Surveyor agreed to this. Later, Mr X wanted the Council to consider widening the bathroom door to accommodate his wheelchair. The Council considered the changes to the plan and approved it in the beginning of July 2024. The Council then contacted four building contractors for a quotation to complete the work.
19. Later in July 2024, Mr X contacted the Council about further adaptations. He wanted the Council to consider adapting the back of his property so he could have rear access to his house. He also wanted the Council to consider providing him with a level access shower. The Council informed Mr X that it would only adapt one access to the house and it would need to complete a bathing assessment for his request for a level access shower.
20. Mr X complained to the Council. As part of his complaint, Mr X said:
• he was unhappy with the amount of time it had taken so far for the Council to make changes to his property;
• the Council had not set a specific timescale for the work to be completed;
• the occupational therapy assessment did not consider the ground floor, bathroom and bedroom doorways which would need widening to accommodate his wheelchair; and
• the occupational therapy assessment had not considered his mobility and transfer ability in the bathroom.
21. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint and said:
• it had completed the occupational therapy assessment and reviewed his DFG application within its expected service time. However, it recognised its surveyor’s visit and completion of the initial draft plan had been delayed by three days. The Council apologised for the delay and said it had reminded staff of its expected timeframes;
• it had adhered to its timeframe for the tendering process however, it needed to allow contractors time to fully consider the work;
• its records showed Mr X had previously told the Occupational Therapist he was able to get through the doors situated on the ground floor of his home. Therefore, there was no requirement to change the ground floor doors. The Council had agreed to widen the door of the bathroom. The Occupational Therapist did not consider widening the doors of the bedrooms as Mr X’s plan was to continue using the living room as his bedroom. The bedrooms upstairs were being used by his family members. However, the Council acknowledged Mr X had changed his plans and so arranged for the Occupational Therapist to assess Mr X again;
• the Occupational Therapist was not able to establish whether Mr X could access his bath and equipment as he was unable to access his bathroom. The Occupational Therapist was considering other options on how to assess Mr X and planned to discuss it with Mr X at the next assessment; and
• it had received two quotes in relation to the work and had asked its Surveyor to review them. Once it had chosen the contractor, it would arrange a meeting with Mr X and the contractor in his home.
22. In August 2024, Mr X contacted the Council and said the ramp which was currently in place was temporary and it was no longer suitable to use.
23. In mid-September 2024, the Occupational Therapist completed a further assessment with Mr X. The assessment said Mr X:
• used a wooden board as a ramp on the inside of the front door because the ramp outside was not level access. Mr X therefore wanted a permanent ramp installed;
• found it difficult to access the rear of the property;
• reported there were no grab rails in the bathroom. Mr X wanted a level access shower;
• was unable to access his bathroom and so he was temporarily using a bathroom at a family member’s property which was suitable for his needs;
• wanted the doors of the bedroom, living room and kitchen widened; and
• wanted the staircase to be reconfigured to allow a stairlift to be fitted.
24. The Occupational Therapist recommended:
• adapting the front of the property to allow safe access;
• exploring accessing the property from the rear;
• a level access shower; and
• reconfiguring the staircase.
25. The Council approved the above recommendations. It also agreed to widen the doorways. However, the Council told Mr X it would not adapt the rear of the property for access as it was not appropriate and necessary. This was because Mr X was able to access the property from the front.
26. Mr X complained to us in September 2024.
27. Between September and October 2024, the Council selected a contractor and liaised with them regarding a quote, the schedule of works and a potential start date.
28. In mid-November 2024, the Contractor started the adaptations on Mr X's property. By March 2025, the Contractor had completed the work. Mr X told us he was happy with the adaptations.

Back to top

Findings

29. Mr X said the Council did not properly assess his needs in the initial occupational therapy assessment and that this caused delay in adapting the property to meet his needs. The assessment showed Mr X requested a through-floor lift to enable him to access his bathroom. In his DFG application, Mr X also said he required a stairlift/through-floor lift. The Council only has to consider what is requested and applied for in a DFG application. Therefore, the Council was not at fault as it assessed Mr X in line with his request for adaptations. When Mr X proposed a stairlift rather than a through-floor lift, the Council agreed to this and revised the plans, which included reconfiguring his staircase, which added to the timescale. It was not at fault.
30. In the initial assessment, the Occupational Therapist noted Mr X was using a wash bowl for personal care. It would have been good practice for the Council to have explored Mr X’s personal care needs further. However, Mr X did not request an assessment of his ability to meet his personal care needs. When Mr X asked it to consider adaptations to the bathroom and to doorways to improve access to the rest of his property, the Council completed a further occupational therapy assessment and agreed to include the additional works within the DFG. This was appropriate.
31. The Council approved Mr X’s DFG application in May 2024. The Council completed the work in his home by March 2025. This was within 12 months of the Council approving Mr X’s application and so, was in line with legislation. Given the changes in the requested adaptations, there was no evidence of significant periods of delay with the Council completing the work.

Back to top

Final Decision

32. I have now completed my investigation. The Council was not at fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman