Summary: Mrs B complains about the Council’s assessment of her son’s eligibility for a disabled facilities grant. We have found fault sa there was a delay in the provision of adaptations which have still not been provided and there was fault in the decision-making process. The Council has agreed to review the decision, pay a financial remedy and carry out a service improvement.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complains on behalf of her son, Mr C, who lacks the mental capacity to make the complaint.
2. She says the Council has delayed making the necessary adaptations to the family’s home which means the house does not meet Mr C’s needs. She says the Council’s decision-making process was flawed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have spoken to Mrs B. I have considered the evidence that she and the Council have sent as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Care Act 2014 and the Care and Support Statutory (CASS) Guidance set out the Council’s duties towards adults who require care and support.

Duty to meet needs

7. The Council has a duty to assess adults who have a need for care and support. If the needs assessment identifies eligible needs, the Council will provide a support plan which outlines what services are required to meet the needs.
8. Care and support can include the provision of aids and adaptations.

Adaptations to properties

9. 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 that the works are:
• necessary and appropriate to meet the disabled person’s needs, and
• are reasonable and practicable.
10. The “necessary and appropriate” test usually relies on an assessment by an occupational therapist (OT) or another approved assessor. This should identify what the disabled person’s needs are and suggest how they can be met. The “reasonable and practicable” test is about the physical structure, layout, and space of the property.

Amount of Grant and the Means Test

11. The maximum grant payable by a council is £30,000. A council can award other discretionary help if it thinks it is necessary.

Processing a DFG

12. In March 2022 the government issued non-statutory guidance “Disabled facilities Grant (DFG) Delivery: Guidance for local authorities in England”.
13. This guidance advises councils in England on how they can effectively and efficiently deliver DFG funded adaptations.

DFG Process

14. The DFG guidance identifies five key stages to delivering home adaptations:
• Stage 0: First contact with the service. Councils should ensure the public has access to information and advice about the DFG process.
• Stage 1: First contact to assessment and identification of the relevant works. An occupational therapist (OT) will assess the person’s needs and potential solutions through home adaptations.
• Stage 2: Identification of the relevant works to submission of the formal grant application. The person completes and submits the application form together with designs and costing for the works (where necessary).
• Stage 3: Grant application to grant decision. The Council will check the application and issue a decision letter. If a council refuses a grant, it must explain why.
• Stage 4: Approval of grant to completion of works. The works are arranged and carried out and the necessary quality checks made.
15. A council should decide a grant application as soon as reasonably practicable. In addition, the timescales for moving through the stages will depend on the urgency and complexity of the works required. The guidance gives the following timescales:
• Urgent and simple works – 55 working days
• Non-urgent and simple works – 130 working days
• Urgent and complex works – 130 working days
• Non-urgent and complex works – 180 working days

Council tenants

16. The Statutory Guidance says:
• Disabled Facilities Grants are capital grants that are available to people of all ages and in all housing tenures (i.e. whether renting privately, from a social landlord or council, or owner-occupiers) to contribute to the cost of adaptations.
• Eligible council tenants can apply for a DFG in the same way as any other applicant. However local housing authorities with a Housing Revenue Account should self-fund home adaptations for council tenants through this account.
17. There has also been case law on this matter. The High Court ruled, in the case of McKeown, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Islington [2020] EWHC 779 (Admin) that councils could not treat DFG applications from council tenants differently to those from other tenants. The Judge also said it was not lawful for the council to refuse the DFG on the ground that the claimant had to move from their home.

Interim works

18. We expect councils to consider whether interim equipment or temporary works should be provided when it will take them a long time to secure a permanent solution.

Foundation’s High-Cost Home Adaptations Protocol

19. Foundations is an organisation which supports councils in delivering home adaptations. It has written a protocol on high-cost adaptations. This is not statutory guidance but is helpful in setting out good practice.
20. The Protocol is a joint working agreement between the key organisations which should be involved. These include the Council’s adult social care departments, the NHS, housing associations and charities among others.
21. The Protocol acknowledges that multiple stakeholders can make coordination difficult and recommends setting up a project team which includes the different stakeholders. It also stresses the importance of involving the family from the outset.

What happened

22. Mr C is an adult who has severe physical and learning disabilities. He lives at home with his mother, Mrs B and two siblings. Mrs B is Mr C’s main care provider but he also receives a package of support from the Council.
23. The house that Mr C lives in has a bedroom and bathroom on the ground floor which were adapted to meet Mr C’s needs when he was still a child. The bedroom was created by reducing the existing living room/dining room to half its size.
24. Mrs B contacted the Council as she said Mr C had outgrown the bathroom and bedroom and his condition had deteriorated. She wanted a further OT assessment.
25. The children services’ OT assessed Mr C on 6 February 2023 and said:
• Mr C was able to bear weight in high kneeling position or to walk with his knees fixed in flexion. Mr C’s mobility had deteriorated in recent years. He was under review with an orthopaedic consultant who was unable to provide a prognosis at this time.
• The family said the bathroom was too small because of Mr C’s size and potential care needs in the future. The OT noted that Mr C’s wheelchair and shower chair were stored in the bathroom. The family said Mr C experienced seizures while on the toilet and they were unable to move him.
• There was a permanent ramp to the front of the property. Mrs B reported difficulty pushing Mr C in his wheelchair up the ramp.
26. The OT ‘s conclusions were as follows:
• ‘Although his prognosis is currently unknown, [Mr C] has a deteriorating condition and it is possible that a hoist will be required for his transfers in the long term.
• ‘If he experiences further deterioration while waiting for adaptations or undergoes surgery, he may require a mobile hoist for interim use.’
• ‘A permanent ramp has been installed at the front of the property but it is too steep, placing the carers at risk of injury when pushing [Mr C] up the ramp in his… wheelchair.’
27. The Council’s Private Housing Services (PHS) department received the referral for the hoist and step lift at the front on 10 February 2023.
28. The Council wrote to Mrs B on 4 April 2023 and said the DFG referral for the hoist and step lift had been made. The surveyor would now consider the proposed adaptations. The Council said that, because of high demand for adaptations, it may take 6 months to process the request.
29. The surveyor visited Mrs B’s home on 27 April 2023 and noted that the gradient was within the acceptable range so he was of the view that works to the front access were not necessary.
30. The Council received a quote for the hoist on 18 May 2023.
31. On 23 May 2023, the Council agreed to progress the application for a step lift at the front of the property as the OT had recommended this.
32. The Council received a quote for the step lift on 15 June 2023.
33. On 22 June 2023 Mrs B wrote to the Council and said:
• She complained about the lack of progress in the provision of the step lift and hoist.
• The company providing a quote for the hoists had said that it was not possible to install a hoist track that went from the bedroom to the bathroom as there were sliding doors between the rooms so it had suggested two separate hoists.
• Mr C had grown a lot in recent years. The house no longer met his needs as Mr C could not use a standing frame, nor could therapists provide therapy in the house.
• She asked whether the garage could be converted into a room with a wet room and kitchenette for Mr C.
• The OT had suggested the family should move, but Mrs B knew how unlikely it was that another property could be found.
34. The Council responded to the complaint on 10 July 2023 and said:
• It was obtaining quotes for the works recommended by the OT (lift and bedroom hoist).
• There were substantial demands on its service so it would be approximately 6 months before it could process the request.
• It would not consider an extension as this had not been requested by the OT. It estimated the cost of an extension would be around £100,000.
35. Mrs B complained on 19 July 2023 and said:
• She had been told the Council would not be able to fit the hoists and lift until March 2024 because of the number of applications it had received.
• She did not want the upheaval of a move, particularly if it meant moving her other children to new schools. It made more sense to convert the garage.
36. The Council replied on 20 July 2023 and said:
• It was progressing the application for a step-lift and a hoist in the bedroom and bathroom.
• It could not recommend an extension, especially without an OT recommendation and said Mrs B should take up the OT’s offer of support to apply for a larger property.
37. The contracts manager also said on 20 July 2023 that the Council’s Housing Management had asked that anybody who required significantly expensive adaptations should be referred to Housing Management so that Housing Management could consider other housing options. The manager said:
• ‘Therefore we cannot build an extension for his in any case however if relocation is to be considered, the OT referral should confirm that an extension is the only way the property could be made suitable.’
38. As Mr C was now an adult, a new OT from the adult services became involved and he visited Mrs B’s home with the surveyor/grants manager on 9 August 2023. The OT recommended a trial of a shower chair for transfers between the bedroom and the bathroom as it was not possible to install a hoist track. Mrs B did not think this would work but agreed to a trial of the shower chair.
39. The OT visited again on 26 September 2023 to try the shower chair, but Mr C was too tall to use any of the shower chairs.
40. The OT sent an email to the technical manager and said the outcome of the visit was:
• There was adequate clinical reasoning to say that the bedroom and bathroom spaces were too small for safe turning and use of the wheelchair.
• The bathroom was too small (only 67 inches wide) and the available space was further reduced by the wash basin and toilet seat.
• There was no space for the use of a shower stretcher/changing plinth which Mr C needed.
41. The OT therefore recommended:
• Additional space should be created in the bedroom and/or bathroom.
• Installation of a ceiling track hoist in the bedroom, bathroom and living room.
• Installation of modular ramp at the front of the house.
• Installation of a wall mounted shower stretcher if feasible.
42. The OT emailed the proposal to the technical manager. The technical manager replied to the OT and said this was the opposite advice from the previous OT report so he suggested a meeting with the Council’s housing management team and said:
• ‘as they are the landlord and would need to confirm if they are willing to pay £100,000 plus to extend the property, or offer relocation to a larger one.’
43. The technical manager sent an internal email and said the bedroom and bathroom needed to be made bigger, but this would mean making the living room/kitchen smaller and said:
• ‘neither of these rooms would seem to have any spare space. Therefore, the question of extending the property is again being raised.’
44. Mrs B continued to chase the Council for the works and said on 31 October 2023:
• Mr C had been hospitalised 3 times in the last 3 months.
• She had still not received any of the adaptations which had been recommended since January 2023, neither had the Council provided any interim adaptations.
• Mr C was over 94 kg and was over 6 feet 6 inches tall. She was a small woman and had great difficulty in moving Mr C or providing care for him.
• Mr C was now not able to move around on his knees anymore so the matter was urgent.
45. The Council says it held a ‘quick’ meeting between the OT, the surveyor and the technical manager and the Council’s Housing Management team on 16 November 2023 to decide the way forward. The following was discussed:
• Private Housing Services confirmed that the property was not adaptable to fully meet the needs identified by OT, unless Housing Management agreed to fund an extension.
• Housing Management said it did not have sufficient funding to extend the property, and due to this would prefer to explore other housing options, which would in this case be relocation to a more suitable property.
• It was acknowledged that Mrs B was not keen on relocation so it was agreed that the surveyor and OT would work together to consider the feasibility of a compromise scheme without extension, at the same time as the relocation process was managed by Housing Management.
46. The OT said on 31 January 2024 that the Council had obtained a quote for a changing plinth/stretcher (which would be attached to the wall). The OT said:
• ‘There are some concerns with its practical use on a day-to-day basis.’
• ‘When the stretcher was down, it would leave very little space for using the wheelchair, adult carer and hoisting Mr C. Mrs B would have to bring Mr C into the bathroom on his wheelchair, hoist him, then take the wheelchair out and then lower the stretcher. She would have to do the reverse once the shower was finished.
• ’As an OT I am worried about the moving and handling risk associated with the task.‘
• ‘Due to the layout of the ground floor, I don’t think we can increase the width of the present bathroom, unless we consider extending it outwards.’
• In addition, ‘Mr C was a really tall young person and is relatively broad at chest and trunk. Hence, he will hardly fit on the shower stretcher that we assessed him for. Thus, it will pose a practical challenge.’
47. Mrs B made her stage 2 complaint on 5 February 2024 and said:
• The OT had said, during his visit in November, that the wet room needed to be made bigger, but it was not possible to move the wall into the hallway as this would block access to the kitchen.
• She had been told that she would be provided with an update after the visit but this had not happened.
• The issues with the ramp at the front of the house had still not been resolved.
• The Council had told her during the visit that there was a housing crisis and that there were no houses available for the family to move to. She needed to stay locally as she had a vital support network nearby which she and Mr C relied upon in emergencies.
• The OT had agreed in October that an extension was the most appropriate way forward, but the decision would be made by the Adaptations team. She questioned what the point of the OT’s recommendation was.
48. The Council replied to the complaint on 15 March 2024 and said:
• ‘The OT cannot decide whether the adaptations are or are not feasible. Their assessment should focus on the person’s needs, not on how they are to be met.’ PHS would assess whether the recommendation could be practically implemented.
• ‘The Council will not approve an extension to the property as Housing Management Services do not have the funding available to do so.’
• The OT and the PHS could have communicated this better to Mrs B. It was not until later correspondence that it was made clear to Mrs B that the Housing Management team ‘decide whether or not an extension could be considered.’
• The Council had asked PHS and the OT Team to remind officers to manage residents’ expectations and explain that ‘where adaptations cannot be made within the footprint of a property to accommodate a resident’s needs, then rehousing will be considered.’
• The Council acknowledged the delay but said this was partly due to finding a suitable solution within the footprint of the house.
• It admitted that using a shower stretcher may have some moving and handling difficulties due to the limited space in the wetroom.
• As Mr C needed a carer to move his wheelchair and the steplift could not accommodate a carer, the steplift was deemed not to be suitable.
• PHS, Housing Management and the OT held a meeting on 14 March 2024 and decided that the only way to accommodate Mr C’s needs was to use the space in the living room.
• The Council provided the mobile hoist and sling on 20 February 2024.
• The Council offered compensation of £500 for the time and trouble Mrs B had in chasing the Council, the communication and the delay in providing the correct sized sling.

Further information

49. There have been further developments after the final complaint response which are relevant to the complaint.
50. The Council decided that it could meet Mr C’s needs by extending his bedroom into the living room and moving the shower into the bedroom.
51. Mrs B disagreed and said the proposed works would not meet Mr C's needs and it would mean that the family had even less space in the living room.
52. Mrs. B wrote to the Council on 24 June 2024 and set out her concerns about the proposal. She said:
• The OT and surveyor who visited her home agreed that there was still insufficient turning space for Mr C’s wheelchair, under the new proposed plans.
• Mr C was doubly incontinent and was often covered in faeces. He often refused to go from the toilet to the shower which was a step away. He throws himself on the floor causing the floor to be soiled so the bathroom had to be disinfected daily. The suggestion to put a shower stretcher in the bathroom but a shower in the bedroom was unworkable and unhygienic. The smell of faeces would stay in his bedroom. Mr C should be allowed the privacy in a separate bathroom that met his needs.
• Mr C would not be able to eat his meals in the living/dining room anymore as it would be too small for the table that he needed to accommodate his wheelchair.
53. The Council’s manager responded to Mrs B and said he understood what she suggested but Mrs B had already been told that the Council would not agree to an extension. The Council had suggested relocation to a more suitable property but Mrs B had refused to be relocated. Therefore, the proposal was a compromise. He would ask the OT to provide a response to the concerns she had raised. (Note: The OT never provided a response.)
54. The Council’s housing allocations panel approved an application for Mrs B and her family to move to a four-bedroom house on 26 March 2025. The approval referred to an email from the technical manager dated 15 October 2024 which said PHS could not provide suitable disabled adaptations for Mr C without extending the property.

Council’s response to the Ombudsman’s questions

55. These are the questions I asked of the Council and its responses.
• Have the hoists and the access ramp been installed? The Council said the tracking hoist and access ramp had not been completed as Mrs B was due to be rehoused.
• Are there any four-bedroom houses available in Mrs B's neighbourhood and, if not, what are the likely timescales of the house becoming available? The Council said there were no four-bedroom properties available and, due to the current housing crisis, it was unable to give the Ombudsman a timetable on when a four-bedroom house that could meet Mr C's needs would become available.
• Was it the Council's position that the latest proposal could meet Mr C’s needs? The Council said it could.
56. I also asked the Council to send me all the OT reports relating to Mr C. I noted that the most recent OT report was dated February 2023. I said that, if there was no OT report relating to the current proposal, could the OT confirm that he agreed that the current proposal would meet Mr C's needs?
57. The Council said:
• It was in the process of arranging an additional OT assessment but because of staff shortages and a severe lack of OTs this would require additional time.
• It would be in a better position to ensure that the proposed design met Mr C’s needs once the additional OT assessment was completed.
58. The Council then changed its position and said a further assessment was not required as the previous OT assessment covered Mr C's needs.
59. When asked whether the latest proposal met Mr C’s needs, the OT said:
• ‘I agree it was a compromise plan as the landlord has declined an extension and we have to work with the available space. As an OT, we assess the client's functional needs and make recommendations for proposed adaptations but it is not within our remit to determine the feasibility of the adaptations from a technical and financial point of view. If the adaptations are not feasible, then we would advise the client to consider rehousing and this was discussed with the client's parents.’

Analysis

60. I have explained to Mrs B that there are limits to the investigation by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman cannot assess Mr C’s needs nor can it say what adaptations the Council should carry out. I have investigated whether the Council has followed the appropriate law, guidance and policies when it made its decisions.
61. Mr C lives in a Council property so any adaptations will not be funded from the DFG budget but will be funded by the Council's own housing revenue budget. But that is an internal accounting measure and the fact that Mrs B is a Council tenant should not mean that she and Mr C can be treated less favourably than those in any other tenure.

Delay in provision of access to the front

62. I have first considered the delay in the adaptations for access to the front of the property (initially a stair lift and then a change to the ramp).
63. The DFG Guidance is non-statutory so it is not legally binding. However, the timescales in the Guidance are a good measuring tool to assess a council’s performance, particularly in a complaint such as this one where the Council’s own policies do not include any time targets for completing adaptation works.
64. According to the DFG Guidance, the proposed works would be classed as non-urgent and simple works and should be completed in 130 working days (26 weeks or 6 months). Clearly, the Council did not meet this target, but that does not mean that I can say that there was fault.
65. The passage of time is, in itself, not fault. It would only be fault if the Council did not progress the application.
66. The Council's OT recommended that a step-lift was installed at the front of the property in February 2023. The Council made the referral for a DFG in April 2023, agreed to progress the application in May 2023 and received a quote in June 2023. So at this stage, the Council was progressing the application, albeit at a slow pace.
67. The Council then realised, in August 2023 that a step-lift would not work because it could not take a wheelchair with the carer and it would need to install a longer ramp with a lower gradient. The Council did not progress this new proposal any further and the matter has been left in limbo ever since.
68. So there was fault in the delay. I am not sure why the step-lift was recommended in the first place as presumably the Council knew the limitations of the step-lift, but in any event, I cannot find evidence the Council progressed the new proposal of a different ramp after it decided that a new ramp was required. That was fault.

Delay in provision of the hoists

69. I have also considered the delay in providing the hoists. These works should have been completed in 6 months, according to the Guidance. The OT recommended the works in February 2023 and the Council initially progressed the application.
70. A company attended the home to provide a quote, but there was then a change of plan in August 2023 because the original plan, which was to install a hoist between the bedroom and the bathroom, was not possible because of the sliding doors between the rooms.
71. The OT suggested a shower chair as an alternative and the chair was tested in September 2023, but was not suitable.
72. It then seems the Council stopped progressing the plan partly because it was not clear what the plan was. The OT and the surveyor agreed that the hoists would not solve the underlying problem which was that the bedroom and bathroom were too small. The Council supplied Mr C with a mobile hoist and sling on 20 February 2024.
73. Based on the evidence I have seen, there was fault in the initial slow progress of the referral for the hoists. It took the Council 7 months to progress from the OT’s recommendation to the realisation, in August 2023 that the plan of the hoists was not workable.
74. There was also fault in the Council’s delay in providing a mobile hoist. I note the OT recommended the mobile hoist in the original OT report in February 2023 and it was a year later when the mobile hoist was finally provided. That was fault.

Decision making process

75. I have also considered whether there was any fault in the way the Council made decisions, particularly its refusal to consider an extension.
76. Once the Council made its decision that it would never agree to fund an extension it should have informed Mrs B that she had the right to apply for a DFG on behalf of Mr C. Its failure to do so was fault.
77. But more importantly, the Council has not provided evidence, particularly in its decision making on 16 November 2024 that it properly assessed and then considered what Mr C’s needs were and how the Council had to meet them.
78. Firstly, in terms of assessment, I do not think the Council can rely upon the previous OT assessment dated February 2023.
79. In my view, the OT should have carried out a re-assessment of Mr C’s needs in for the following reasons:
• Firstly, Mrs B had told the Council in October 2023 that Mr C’s needs had changed significantly as he was no longer able to mobilise on his knees (which he was still able to do in February 2023). This meant that her ability to move him from one room to another was significantly reduced. The Council knew Mr C had deteriorating health conditions and an up-to date OT assessment was needed.
• Secondly, it was clear that the original recommendations, following the OT assessment in February 2023 (continuous hoist between bathroom and bedroom and step lift at the front) were no longer possible and a totally different plan was required.
• Finally, the OT’s recommendations at the end of 2023 were drastically different from the previous recommendations and should have been based on a full written OT assessment. I am of the view that it was not sufficient to rely on a few emails following visits when this type of decision was to be made.
80. So, in my view, there was fault in the failure to provide a full re-assessment by the OT of what works were ‘necessary and appropriate’ and to write a formal report at this stage.
81. As there is no OT report, I have had to rely on the emails between the OT and the technical manager to find out what the proposals were. The OT, surveyor and technical manager all agreed in September/October 2023 agreed that an extension was (probably) the only way to meet Mr C’s needs.
82. The OT said there was not enough space for safe turning and use of the wheelchair in the rooms and there was no space in the bathroom for a changing plinth which Mr C needed. The technical manager said the kitchen or living room could not be reduced as they did not have ‘any spare space’.
83. The Council (Housing Management) decided on 16 November 2023 that it would not agree an extension. I could not find evidence how the Council applied the two- tier test (the works are ‘necessary and appropriate’ and ‘reasonable and practicable’) when it made that decision. There was no evidence on how the Council considered its statutory duty to provide the DFG/adaptations if the threshold was met. The decision was made entirely on cost. That was fault.
84. The surveyor and OT were told to further explore adaptations, but these could not include an extension.
85. To be clear, I fully accept that councils will always explore the most cost-effective option and try to provide any adaptations within the footprint of a property first. That is standard practice.
86. But the OT should be able to say what was adaptations are necessary and appropriate and the surveyor should be able to say when an extension is reasonable and practicable before a decision about funding is made. By deciding early on in the process that an extension was never an option, whatever Mr C’s needs, the Council did not follow the proper decision-making process.
87. Of course, matters have progressed since the decision in November 2023. The Council came up with a different proposal which was to put a shower in the bedroom and the extend the bedroom by further reducing the living room size.
88. It is not for the Ombudsman to say whether these works could meet Mr C’s needs. That is the OT’s and surveyor’s role. But I note the following:
• The OT and surveyor were told the Council would never agree an extension which restricted their ability to make recommendations in line with the statutory duty.
• Mrs B has raised valid concerns about the proposal in her email dated 24 June 2024 and these have never been addressed.
89. I have also considered the Council's continued claim that Mrs B had ‘chosen’ to turn down the Council’s ‘offer’ of an alternative house and so Mrs B had options available which she chose not to take.
90. Firstly, there was no real offer of an alternative house as the Council has repeatedly said there are no suitable houses available and it does not know when a house will become available.
91. Secondly, I agree that the financial cost of the works might be a relevant consideration whether adaptations are reasonable and practicable where alternatives exist (such as moving to a more suitable property) and are accepted by the applicant. However, the Council cannot require a tenant to move instead of providing adaptations which would otherwise meet the statutory test.
92. I have also considered the Council’s duties under the Care Act 2014 to meet Mr C’s needs. All professionals are agreed that Mr C’s needs cannot be fully met in the house without adaptations so the Council is currently failing in its duties under the Care Act to meet the needs. This is further fault.

Injustice and remedy

93. Where the Ombudsman has found fault, we also consider whether the fault has caused an injustice and, if so, how the injustice can be remedied. The aim of the remedy is to put the complainant in the position they would have been if the fault had not occurred.
94. In terms of the failure to provide suitable access to the front of the house, I recommend the Council completes these works within 3 months of the final decision. These works are not affected by any decision about the rest of the house.
95. In terms of the hoist, I note the Council provided a mobile hoist in February 2024 and I accept there is little point in installing a permanent hoist until a final decision is made about the adaptations so I make no recommendations in that respect.
96. I have also found fault in the decision making regarding the works that are still needed so I recommend the Council takes the following actions to address this.
97. The Council should make a fresh decision about what adaptations (including a possible extension) it will provide. The decision-making process should include:
• Invitation to health agencies involved with Mr C who can advise on his needs and consider NHS funding.
• Involvement of the Council’s Adult Social Care Team which should consider its duties to meet Mr C’s needs and consider whether it can provide any funding to do so.
• A proper full assessment of Mr C’s needs by the OT which sets out what adaptations are necessary and appropriate to meet Mr C's needs.
• A report by the surveyor whether the works are reasonable and practicable.
• A final decision by the Council on what works it will fund. The Council should provide evidence that the decision was made in line with its statutory housing and adult social care duties.
• The Council should send Mrs B a copy of the OT assessment, the surveyor report and a written explanation on how it made the final decision.
98. In cases such as this one, where there has not been a direct financial loss because of the fault, the Ombudsman can recommend a symbolic payment to reflect the distress that has been suffered. I do not underestimate the difficulties and distress Mr C and Mrs B have suffered by the continued delay in providing access to the front of the house, the delay in providing the mobile hoist and the failure and therefore delay to properly decide which adaptations are needed to meet Mr C’s needs. I recommend the Council pays Mr C £1000 and Mrs B £500. This replaces the Council’s proposed £500.
99. I also make some service improvement recommendations so that other families do not have the same problems that Mrs B and Mr C encountered.

Back to top

Action

100. The Council has agreed to take the following actions within one month of the final decision. It will:
• Apologise in writing to Mrs B for the fault I have identified.
• Pay Mr C £1000 and Mrs B £500.
• Remind relevant officers of the statutory duties the Council has under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 and the Care Act 2014 in terms of adaptations.
• Consider adding timescales for completion of adaptation works in the relevant policies.
101. The Council will take the following actions within three months of the final decision:
• Carry out the necessary works to the front of the property (ramp).
• Make a fresh decision on what adaptation works it will carry out. This decision should be made in line with the process set out in paragraph 97.

Back to top

Decision

102. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed the remedy to address the injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman