Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her request for disabled adaptations to her Council property. Part of the complaint is late and there is insufficient evidence in relation to the way the Council assessed her disability needs or the way it made decisions about whether to carry out works to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s failure to adapt her Council property to meet her disability needs. She says the Council failed to fully assess her disability needs before deciding not to carry out works. Ms X also complained about the Council’s failure to make reasonable adjustments when communicating with her.
2. Ms X wants the Council to make the adaptations she asked for, pay her compensation and to make reasonable adjustments to the way it communicates with her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
6. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
7. 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
9. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

10. Ms X lived with her daughter, Ms Y, in a Council property.
11. In 2022, Ms X asked the Council to make adaptations to her previous property. The Council refused her request, and its review panel upheld that decision. It told Ms X she could challenge the decision by making a judicial review application to the courts, but Ms X complained it did not assist her to do this.
12. In 2023, the Council offered Ms X the property she is currently living in. Ms X made a number of complaints about the viewing the Council arranged, including that she had to use a walking frame because she could not access the property with her wheelchair, the occupational therapist (OT) was present at the viewing did not have an understanding of her disability needs, and she had to make a decision immediately about accepting the property, although she has a disability that means she needs extra processing time. She told us that, although she accepted the property, it did not meet her disability needs. In correspondence with Ms X the Council said the notes from the viewing indicated the OT explained some of the future limitations of the property at the viewing.
13. In June 2023, the Council discussed adaptations for the kitchen and the widening of two doorways to allow wheelchair access. Ms X said she was pushed into making immediate decisions about the works and that the Council surveyor told her the property was not suitable for a wheelchair user. Following this Ms X asked for a level access door and widened path, which were agreed, and requested external hard standing, which was not agreed. Ms X also raised concerns about the proposed kitchen works, which she did not consider fully met her needs.
14. In October and December 2023 and April 2024, the Council made further visits to consider the adaptations needed. In May 2024, a Council officer suggested it would be better for Ms X to move to an alternative property that could be better adapted to meet Ms X’s needs and she they would support her to secure this. In July 2024 Ms X complained. She said she believed the Council was using our-of-date information about her disability needs when making its decisions and that it was pressuring her into making decisions too quickly. She also said she felt she was being pressured to move and she did not want to do so.
15. In September 2024, the OT made a referral for adaptations to be considered, including adaptations to the kitchen and bathroom, the widening of doors, the relocating of light switches and power sockets and changes to the access. The request was considered by the Council’s panel, which refused in November 2024. The Council explained it had considered whether the adaptations proposed would meet Ms X’s needs both now and into the future, and the physical limitations of the property. It set out the difficulties raised by each part of the scheme and concluded that Ms X’s needs would be best met by moving to a suitable property, possibly one that was already adapted, that would better meet her long term needs.
16. In January 2025, Ms X asked for a review of that decision. In early February, the Council agreed to carry out the internal adaptations but declined to carry out the external hard standing works requested. Ms X asked for a further review. The Council carried out a further review. It upheld the decision to refuse the external hard standing and explained its reasons.
17. In March 2025 Ms X submitted a disability discrimination claim to the court, alleging the Council had discriminated against her and citing all the events from 2022 set out above.

My assessment

18. We usually expect people to complain to us within 12 months of the events they are complaining about. In this case, Ms X complained to us in December 2024 about events from 2022. Although Ms X has disabilities, these have not prevented her from raising concerns with the Council and I am not persuaded she could not have complained to us earlier. There are no good reasons to consider the events in 2022, which relate to a request for adaptations to a previous property, and it is unlikely we could achieve a worthwhile outcome if we did so, given the lapse of time. There are also no good reasons to investigate the offer of the current property in March 2023. Whatever the circumstances of the viewing, Ms X accepted the property and wishes to stay there. Therefore, I will consider events from June 2023, when the Council first started considering adaptations.
19. Ms X complained the Council had not fully understood her disabilities. Council records show the key reason she needed adaptations was because she is a wheelchair user. Ms X’s concerns about the adaptations proposed in 2023 were about whether the kitchen adaptations went far enough to meet her needs because certain parts of the kitchen would be inaccessible to her from her wheelchair. There is no indication of any other disability that would affect the adaptations proposed in 2023 or 2024. We will not consider this part of the complaint further because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council assessed Ms X’s disability needs.
20. Ms X is a Council tenant. We cannot consider the Council’s decisions in its capacity as social landlord. That said, Council tenants should not be treated differently from other applicants seeking disabled adaptations via a disabled facilities grant. The Council must consider what adaptations are needed to meet the person’s assessed disability needs, which is not the same as agreeing to the adaptations the person wants. The Council’s decisions show it has considered the recommendations of the OT and Ms X’s views, as well as practical considerations such as the physical limitations of the property, and it explained its reasons for refusing to carry out works. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way it made those decisions to justify further investigation.
21. The Council has since agreed to carry out all the internal works and, whilst it has taken longer than I would expect to see to reach a final decision, this was partly due to Ms X not agreeing to works proposed, partly due to the number of adaptations being considered and party due to the Council considering whether it would be in her best interests to move to another property better suited to her needs. It is unlikely that we would be able to establish, even on balance, that the Council should have agreed to make the adaptations sooner. Therefore, we will not consider this part of the complaint further as we could not achieve a different outcome not recommend the compensation Ms X seeks.
22. Ms X has now started court action against the Council. Her disability discrimination claim covers its failure to make reasonable adjustments to the way it communicates with her, so we will not consider that part of her complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

23. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because part of the complaint is late, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council assessed Ms X’s disability needs or in the way it made decisions about what adaptations to make, and Ms X has started court action in relation to disability discrimination.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman