Summary: Mrs X complained the Council incurred delays in considering her application for a Disabled Facilities Grant for her son. She also complained the Council did not properly consider her application. Mrs X said the Council’s actions caused avoidable distress to her son and the family. The Council is at fault as it incurred delays in the Disabled Facilities Grant process. It has agreed to provide an apology and a financial remedy to Mrs X.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council incurred delays in considering her application for a Disabled Facilities Grant for her son. She also complained the Council did not properly consider her application. Mrs X says the Council’s actions caused avoidable distress to her son and the family. She would like the Council to apologise and reconsider her application.

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. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
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. 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 and have not investigated

6. I have exercised discretion to investigate the complaint dating back to August 2022.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an initial draft of this decision. I considered their comments and issued an amended draft decision. Mrs X and the Council then had an opportunity to comment on the amended draft decision. I considered their further comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Disabled Facilities Grants

9. Under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, councils can award Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG) to people whose disability means their home needs adapting. If the person applying meets the qualifying criteria, the council must award the grant.
10. Councils must decide if the proposed works are necessary and appropriate to meet the needs of the disabled person; councils only approve grants for work they decide is necessary. An occupational therapist usually assesses need. Councils must also be satisfied it is reasonable and practicable to carry out the works given the condition of the property to be adapted.
11. The maximum amount of mandatory grant is £30,000. Grants for children are not means-tested.
12. Guidance published by the government in 2022, ‘Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) delivery: Guidance for local authorities in England’, says:
• There may be occasions when a client would like to consider works to their home which are more extensive than those identified as necessary and appropriate.
• Authorities should be mindful of achieving best value for money. Where there are potential alternative options for the relevant works that could meet the required purposes, then the authority would usually choose the lower cost option.
• There will be some cases where the disabled person and the applicant elect for a higher cost option. The housing authority will still need to ensure that the works meet the required purposes and are necessary and appropriate, but the estimated expense would still be based on the lower cost option.

What happened

13. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
14. In August 2022, Mrs X contacted the Council. She said she required adaptations to her home due to her son’s disability. Mrs X said her son, Child Y, has a diagnosis of autism and incontinence, as well as mobility issues which require him to wear orthotics on his legs to help correct his gait.
15. In October 2022, the Council carried out a telephone assessment with Mrs X. Mrs X said Child Y continued to wear nappies and often refused to go to the toilet or get into the bath. She said the only toilet and bathroom was upstairs, but this was difficult for Child Y to access because of his mobility issues. Mrs X said her own health issues meant she found it difficult to carry Child Y upstairs. Mrs X requested a ground floor toilet and shower facilities; she said she would like an extension built for this purpose. She said this would help in assisting Child Y and would also be safer for her younger children, as she would not have to leave them alone downstairs when she was upstairs with Child Y in the bathroom.
16. In September 2023, an Occupational Therapist (OT) visited Child Y at home to carry out an assessment. The OT report said:
• As part of the assessment, the OT had observed Child Y using the stairs with the assistance of the stair rail present.
• As Child Y was not demonstrating an ability to use the toilet, an additional toilet was not assessed as a clinical need at that time. The OT said this could be reviewed when there was evidence of Child Y’s progression regarding this matter.
• A ground floor shower was not a practical solution because Mrs X would still be required to leave her other children alone when assisting Child Y.
17. The OT recommended the conversion of the existing bathroom into a wetroom, or the conversion of part of the front reception or dining room into a wetroom, with a level access shower and toilet. The OT recorded that Mrs X declined these options, preferring instead to top up any DFG funding to provide her own extension with access to washing and toileting facilities on the ground floor.
18. The Council wrote to Mrs X in late September 2023 to confirm the recommended adaptations were appropriate and necessary, namely, to provide access to a room with a suitable toilet and bath or shower. The Council told Mrs X its housing service would contact her regarding the DFG enquiry.
19. A Financial Assessment Officer visited Mrs X on 31 October 2023. The Council says this visit was to facilitate the completion of Part 2 of the DFG application form.
20. In December 2023, the Council allocated Mrs X’s case to a Housing Technical Officer (HTO).
21. The HTO visited Mrs X in January 2024, and again in March 2024.
22. In May 2024, the Council recorded that it had received a new referral from the OT, recommending that the existing upstairs bathroom could be adapted.
23. In June 2024, the HTO produced a proposed scheme of works. They referred the scheme to the OT for confirmation that it could meet Child Y’s needs. The OT agreed the schedule of works on 21 June 2024.
24. The Council wrote to Mrs X on 25 June 2024 setting out the DFG scheme being offered. This consisted of the removal of the existing bath and the provision of a level access shower.

What happened next

25. Mrs X called the Council on 2 July 2024 as she was unhappy with the DFG scheme offered by the Council. The Council agreed to carry out a further OT assessment.
26. The Council carried out a second OT assessment on 22 July 2024, undertaken by a different OT. As part of the assessment, the OT recorded that they observed Child Y to be independently mobile, and that he had ascended and descended the stairs using the stair rail. The OT acknowledged Mrs X’s explanation that Child Y did not like having a bath or shower, and that it was difficult to lift Child Y into the bath. The OT agreed that having showering facilities would help keep him clean; they recommended adapting the existing first floor bathroom into a wet room. The OT also recommended the installation of a second stair rail on the opposite side to the existing one, to assist Child Y in using the stairs.

Mrs X’s complaint

27. Mrs X complained to the Council on 6 August 2024. She said the first OT had witnessed Child Y fall on the stairs during the assessment, and the second OT had been confrontational and dismissive. Mrs X complained the HTO had verbally approved a DFG of £30,000 but a third party had got involved and wanted to review the decision, resulting in an offer to remove the bath and provide a level access shower instead of recommending a ground floor extension. Mrs X also complained the Council had delayed the DFG process.
28. On 25 September 2024, the OT carried out a further assessment of Child Y at his school, with input from some of the school staff. The OT recorded that they observed Child Y to be independently mobile. They recorded that Child Y had attended school trips with his peers and that he took part in PE classes. The OT also recorded that the school staff said Child Y used the toilet at school but was not required to ascend or descend any stairs. The school staff told the OT that Child Y’s balance could be affected when he was tired.
29. The Council provided its complaint response on 7 October 2024. Regarding the first OT assessment, the Council said the main need identified was safe access to washing facilities. The Council said the OT advised Mrs X that she may be able to offset costs by topping up any grant funding to provide her preferred adaptation. The Council acknowledged the visits undertaken by the HTO but said they had not said a grant had been approved; the Council said the figure of £30,000 was the maximum amount of a DFG. The Council said the findings of the second OT were consistent with the first OT assessment, and that both assessments found that Child Y could use the stairs safely with supervision. The Council said an additional toilet was not currently an assessed clinical need, but an accessible bathing solution and a second stair rail were recommended.
30. Mrs X escalated her complaint on 8 October 2024. She said the HTO told her the family needed an extension, and the OT assessments had only observed Child Y for a short time. Mrs X said both OTs had witnessed Child Y fall; she said the use of orthotics meant Child Y found it very difficult to go up and down the stairs. Mrs X said the Council was not offering the grant which was available despite her providing evidence of Child Y’s health issues.
31. In mid-October 2024, the Council received a revised OT recommendation following the reassessment. This said that safe access to a bathroom and toilet could be achieved through adapting the existing first-floor bathroom.
32. The Council wrote to Mrs X again on 22 October 2024, providing a schedule of works which proposed the removal of the bath in the existing bathroom and the provision of a level access shower. The Council asked Mrs X to complete and return an acceptance form to tell it whether she wished to go ahead with the scheme.
33. The Council provided its stage two complaint response on 28 November 2024. It said it could not confirm what was discussed during the HTO’s visit, but said the officer had explained government guidelines, and why councils consider using existing internal areas before considering extensions. The Council acknowledged and apologised for a delay in progressing the OT assessment. It said the second OT had not witnessed Child Y fall on the stairs, but they had recommended a second stair rail to assist in ascending and descending. The Council referred to its DFG offer letter and said it was waiting for Mrs X to complete and return the acceptance form.
34. On 12 December 2024, the Council wrote to Mrs X to advise her of the offsetting costs of the proposed scheme. The Council said Mrs X could either accept the proposed scheme or carry out works with a different scheme and put the value of the Council’s assessed costs towards a preferred scheme, with Mrs X funding any shortfall.
35. Mrs X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and brought the complaint to us.

Analysis – Mrs X’s complaint about delays incurred by the Council

36. The Council acknowledged as part of its stage two complaint response that it incurred delays in progressing the OT assessment. In addition, in response to my initial draft decision, the Council acknowledged it also failed to confirm the DFG scheme it was offering to Mrs X in a timely manner. Having reviewed the evidence provided and the timeframe of the Council’s communications with Mrs X, I agree with the Council’s comments regarding this matter.
37. The delays identified are fault causing injustice to Mrs X, namely avoidable distress and frustration.

Mrs X’s complaint that the Council did not properly consider her application

38. I acknowledge Mrs X does not agree with the Council’s decision regarding the DFG application, and her comments that the Council did not properly consider her application and the evidence she has provided.
39. However, the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether a complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
40. In this case, the Council carried out an OT assessment which it used as part of the DFG service’s consideration of the application. It then carried out a second OT assessment by a different OT, at home and at Child Y’s school. This was also considered by the DFG service. The Council considered the existing facilities and decided they could be adapted to meet Child Y’s needs instead of approving a new extension. The Council provided Mrs X with a proposed schedule of works and information about the costings of the approved scheme, in case she wanted to put this towards the cost of her preferred option.
41. I have found no evidence the Council did not follow relevant legislation and guidance when considering Mrs X’s DFG application. Whilst I acknowledge Mrs X disagrees with the OT assessments and the Council’s consideration of her application, this is not in itself evidence of fault.
42. The Council followed the relevant processes correctly and I therefore cannot question the decision it made. As a result, I have found the Council is not at fault regarding this aspect of the complaint.
43. The Council says it has not yet received all the required information from Mrs X to decide whether it will approve or refuse her DFG application. As a result, the Council says it has not at this stage approved the DFG; it says the Council is waiting for a response from Mrs X to confirm how she wishes to proceed.

Back to top

Action

44. To address the injustice identified, the Council has agreed to take the following actions within one month of the final decision:
1. Provide an apology to Mrs X. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings:
2. Make a symbolic payment to Mrs X of £150 in recognition of the distress and frustration caused, and
3. Remind staff to progress DFG applications and communicate with applicants in a timely manner.
45. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
46. Mrs X has indicated that she does not wish to receive an apology or financial remedy. I acknowledge Mrs X’s comments but consider this remains an appropriate remedy to address the injustice identified. Mrs X may discuss with the Council how she wishes to proceed regarding this matter.

Back to top

Decision

47. I have found fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take the above action to remedy the injustice and I have therefore concluded my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman