Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to install a downstairs wet room. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council assessed what adaptations were needed to meet the disability needs of Ms X and her son, Y, to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X said the Council agreed to install a wet room, but work was delayed due to COVID-19. It later carried out a fresh assessment, following which it said the family had no mobility needs. She said it had not explained why she could have the adaptations she wanted and the work it has offered to carry out, including installing a stair lift and a downstairs toilet, do not meet the family’s needs. Ms X said the Council’s failings affected her mental health and both she and her son are impacted by the current toileting facilities.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
4. 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X complained in January 2025 about events from 2018. We usually expect people to complain to us within 12 months of the events complained about. There is no evidence Ms X could not have complained to us sooner. I have decided to consider the period from November 2023, when a fresh assessment was carried out, but there are no good reasons for considering the earlier period and it is unlikely we could achieve a worthwhile outcome if we did so.

What happened

8. In November 2023, the Council explained to Ms X that it needed to carry out a fresh assessment of the disability needs for her and her son because its previous assessment was out-of-date. An initial visit was made later that month and the occupational therapist (OT) recorded Ms X was fully mobile and independent around her property. At a second visit in January 2024, Ms X allowed the OT to observe her going upstairs, which she did with difficulty. She was offered, but later declined, a second rail to assist her on the stairs. There is no record Ms X mentioned any continence issues during the assessment. Based on these visits, the OT did not recommend the ground floor extension to include a bathroom and toilet that Ms X wanted. The OT explained this was because major adaptations were not considered necessary and appropriate to meet her disability needs.
9. Ms X complained about the outcome several times during 2024, and the Council responded. It explained it had not consulted her G.P or obtained medical records because Ms X had not consented to that. It eventually agreed to carry out a fresh assessment, which was completed in September 2024. The OT observed Ms X had difficulty using the stairs and had difficulty accessing the bath. The OT recommended:
• a stair lift to alleviate pain and fatigue using the stairs;
• provision of a level access shower within the footprint of the existing bathroom;
• chair raisers to enable easier transfers on and off the sofa; and
• a referral to her GP for input from the continence service.
10. The Council carried out a further assessment to consider her son, Y’s, disability needs. Y reported difficulty with toileting and concerns about needing the toilet when Ms X was using it. Y said he would be more willing to take his prescribed medication if he had access to a second toilet.
11. The OT wrote to Ms X in December 2024 to say that, based on the recent assessments, they recommended:
• provision of a level access shower within the footprint of the existing bathroom; and
• provision of a downstairs toilet.

My assessment

12. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to decide what adaptations are necessary and appropriate to meet the disability needs of Ms X and her son, Y. We can consider how the Council reached its decisions. However, unless we find fault in the decision-making process, we cannot comment on the outcome reached.
13. To meet the criteria for a DFG, the adaptations must be necessary and appropriate to meet the applicant’s assessed disability needs. Council records show it assessed those needs at various points in the period under consideration. The assessments show an OT visited the property to carry out the assessments, considered the difficulties Ms X and Y said they had, and set out their recommendations with reasons for them. Although the OT did not recommend the adaptations Ms X wanted, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the assessment process to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman