Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it assessed Mrs X’s child, Y’s needs following a Disabled Facilities Grant application. It considered information from Mrs X, Y’s doctor and the local housing authority and made recommendations that met Y’s needs.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained Council A failed to properly collaborate with her local housing authority, Council B, over her Disabled Facilities Grant application and failed to properly consider her child, Y’s needs in its OT assessment for the application. She says this has delayed the completion of adaptations to her home and meant the planned adaptations do not meet Y’s needs, causing her frustration, distress and uncertainty. She wants Council A to properly assess Y, apologise and compensate her for its failings

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

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. Council A first carried out an OT assessment for Mrs X’s DFG application in 2022 and began liaising with Council B. In November 2023 Mrs X asked Council A to stop the DFG process. Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman in March 2025.
6. Part of Mrs X’s complaint is late because it concerns council actions that happened more than 12 months before she complained to us. I have not investigated events before March 2024. It was open to Mrs X to complain to us sooner about events before that date and I consider it was reasonable for her to have done so.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X, Council A and Council B as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mrs X and Council A have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Law

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 adaptation. If the person applying meets the qualifying criteria the council must award the grant.
10. Councils only approve grants for work they decide is necessary. An occupational therapist usually assesses need. Where a borough council is responsible for DFGs, the occupational therapist may work for a county council. Borough and county councils should work together to provide a well-coordinated DFG service.

Background

11. Mrs X’s child Y is disabled. Y has a lifelong movement and coordination disorder, sensory processing disorder and epilepsy.
12. In 2021 Mrs X applied to her borough council, Council B, for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) to create a larger ground floor toilet area to allow more space for a carer to support Y. Council B proposed a scheme with a wash/ dry toilet and no sink in the existing toilet space. Council B asked the Council (Council A) for its occupational therapy recommendations. Council A said the scheme did not meet Y’s needs as there was not enough room in the toilet area for a carer to assist Y. They added a carer would also need access to a sink.
13. Council A recommended removing a wall and expanding the ground floor toilet into an area that housed Mrs X’s white goods, including a tumble dryer. Mrs X was unhappy with the decision to relocate the appliances. In November 2023 she refused a joint visit from Councils A and B and told Council A she did not want to continue the process.

What happened

14. In March 2024 Council B emailed Council A asking if it could revisit the removal of the partition wall and whether it was needed for a carer to support Y in the toilet. Council A sent Council B its assessments and possible options for the scheme. At the same time, it spoke with Mrs X to ask if she wanted to continue with the application. Mrs X confirmed she still did not want to proceed due to the impact on her and her family.
15. Council A and Council B met in April 2024. Council A confirmed there was enough space for the adaptations if the white goods were removed.
16. In June 2024 Mrs X complained to the Council. She said the Council had delayed sharing relevant information with Council B that had delayed the scheme. Council A did not accept Mrs X’s complaint. It said it had shared information with Council B when asked. It said its OT had followed the correct process and assessed Y’s needs. It added it had provided Council B with additional information until Mrs X said she no longer wished to continue with the application.
17. At the same time Council A asked Mrs X if she wanted to continue with the application. It explained her application remained pending. It said it had assessed Y’s needs and its recommendations were with Council B. Council A met with Council B and Mrs X agreed to a visit. Council A carried out a visit in August 2024.
18. Following the visit Council A and Council B liaised over different options for adapting the toilet area without removing the partition wall. By November 2024 Council B said it could not proceed with any of these as the negligible space gained did not justify the works. It told Council A Mrs X had also mentioned issues with handling Y on the stairs that could impact any design. Council A said it was happy to review any scheme.
19. In mid-November 2024 Mrs X told Council A that Y had been diagnosed with a rare genetic disorder that may impact their mobility further in years to come. In December 2024 Council A asked Council B if there were any updates. Council B said it was in regular contact with Mrs X. It said Mrs X had now raised concerns over whether Y needed a ground floor bath. Council B asked Council A whether its recommendations had changed given Y’s recent diagnosis. Council B said it was concerned about Y using a bath given their epilepsy. It said it would discuss potential schemes with Mrs X before sharing with Council A for its view. It accepted this was different to its usual approach but felt it was necessary.
20. In January 2025 Council A agreed to carry out a new OT assessment of Y’s needs. In early February 2025 it contacted Y’s doctor to gather more information on their recent diagnosis. At the same time, it met with Council B. Council B said it was drawing up plans for a level access shower. Council A said its OT had not recommended this.
21. Council A sent Mrs X its new OT assessment of Y in March 2025. It said while Y had received a new diagnosis it was not clear how this would impact Y’s needs in the future. It said Y was physically capable of using the stairs and its recommendation remained to expand the ground floor toilet. It said any decision on further adaptations was for Council B to take. Mrs X disagreed with the assessment and complained to the Ombudsman.
22. Since Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman Council A met with Council B again. Council A confirmed the current application was to improve accessibility to the ground floor toilet and did not include a need for a level access shower. Council B said it had presented Mrs X with three options which she had rejected. Council B confirmed it was not waiting on any further information from Council A.

Findings

23. The DFG application Council A was under a duty to assess was to increase access to Mrs X’s ground floor toilet to allow a carer to support Y. When Mrs X confirmed she wished to continue with her DFG application, Council A shared its existing assessment with Council B. When Council B began exploring alternatives Council A visited Mrs X’s property and provided its recommendations on Council’s B’s proposals.
24. Following Y’s diagnosis Council A carried out a new assessment. It considered information from Y’s doctor and Mrs X and decided it could still meet Y’s current needs for increased access to a ground floor toilet through its existing recommendations. In making its decision, Council A took account of the relevant guidance and information. Council A followed the appropriate procedures when making its decision and I cannot therefore criticise it.
25. While Mrs X voiced concerns over the location of white goods, and Y’s mobility in future years, Council A’s duty was to provide recommendations based on Y’s current needs. Council A was not at fault.

Back to top

Decision

26. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman