Summary: Mrs Y complained about the Council’s handling of her request for a disabled facilities grant. We have found fault causing injustice by the Council in failing to: update Mrs Y about, and arrange, the OT assessment within a reasonable timescale; complete a proper assessment of options for meeting Z’s need for a separate bedroom; and give proper consideration to her circumstances before telling her to make a referral for a new assessment. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice by: apologising to Mrs Y; making a payment to recognise the upset caused; and offering a further OT assessment.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complains about the Council’s handling of her request for a disabled facilities grant (DFG) to provide a separate suitably adapted bedroom for her disabled child, Z.
2. She asked the Council for help to convert their loft into a separate bedroom and bathroom for Z. Mrs Y says it failed to properly consider and assess:

• Z’s needs;
• whether the proposed work was necessary and appropriate to meet Z’s needs; and
• whether the work was reasonable and practicable, taking into account the age, condition and layout of their home.

3. Because of the Council’s failures, Mrs Y says she is still waiting for a proper assessment of her request, more than three years after her first contact about this in 2022. This is causing upset and difficulty because of the extent of Z’s needs and the impact on the whole family in their current living arrangements.
4. Mrs Y wants the Council to approve her request for a DFG for a loft conversion.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these.
6. 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). 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)
7. 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)
8. 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)
9. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

10. I have not investigated what happened between October 2022, when Mrs Y first requested help to convert the loft into a bedroom for Z, and 2024, when they were invited to a clinic appointment.
11. This because we cannot investigate late complaints – where someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done, unless we decide there are good reasons.
12. Mrs Y complained to us in April 2025. I don’t consider there are good reasons to investigate anything the Council did before April 2024.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

13. I considered evidence provided by Mrs Y and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
14. Mrs Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Disabled Facilities Grants

15. Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs) 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 the work is necessary, meets the disabled person’s needs, and is reasonable and practicable.

The DFG process

16. The government issued non-statutory guidance in March 2022 “Disabled facilities Grant (DFG) Delivery: Guidance for local authorities in England”.
17. This guidance identifies five key stages to delivering home adaptations:

• Stage 1: First contact with the service. Councils should ensure the public has access to information and advice about the DFG process.
• Stage 2: 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 3: 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 4: 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 5: Approval of grant to completion of works. The works are arranged and carried out and the necessary quality checks made.

18. The guidance also says councils should decide grant applications as soon as reasonably practicable. It gives the following timescales for moving through the stages:

• Urgent and simple works – 55 working days
• Non-urgent and simple works – 130 working days
• Urgent and complex works – 130 days
• Non-urgent and complex works – 180 working days

19. Councils should notify an individual in writing no later than 6 months after the date of the application concerned whether the application is approved or refused (s34 of the Housing Grants, Construction & Regeneration Act 1996).

The Council’s DFG process

20. The Council’s Staying Independent at Home Policy refers to its statutory duty to provide DFGs and its process.
21. The policy says requests for a DFG arise from an Occupational Therapy (OT) assessment and that there are a few simple steps to start the application process to access the grant, which are:

• Step 1: Request an OT assessment
• Step 2: OT assessment. An OT will discuss the concerns and issues and look at the most cost-effective solution to meet those assessed needs. This may mean the needs can be met in other ways. Should all options have been considered as not suitable, then a recommendation for an adaptation is required
• Step 3: Priority needs assessment. This confirms the necessary and appropriate adaptations and determines the relevant priority
• Step 4: Application for DFG funding
• Steps 5, 6 & 7: Grant decision, decision notification, work completed

22. The policy also says:

• by law, it must consider DFG applications and make determinations on those applications within six months of receipt; and
• it considers a DFG application has been submitted on receipt of a satisfactorily completed application form along with quotations for the work and relevant permissions.

23. The Council’s website says, in the section on DFG eligibility:
1. The Council must be satisfied that the proposed work is:

• necessary and appropriate to meet the disabled person’s needs; and
• reasonable and feasible, considering the age, condition and layout of the property.
2. An OT will first need to assess eligibility. As part of this process, they'll look at whether equipment or small adaptations can help, as smaller solutions must be tried before considering major changes to the home. Any adaptations must also be the most affordable and practical option.

What happened

24. I have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened. It is based on my review of all the evidence provided about this complaint.

Background

25. Although I am not investigating what happened between 2022 and early 2024, for the reasons explained in paragraphs 10 to 12, I have set out what happened as context for my findings.
26. Mr and Mrs Y live in a three-bedroom home with their four children, one of whom (Z) is disabled. In October 2022 Mrs Y contacted the Council’s Children’s Services. She said she had been told to contact them as she would like help to convert their loft into a sensory room for their young child (Z) who had autism.
27. Children’s Services referred Mrs Y’s request to the Council’s Children and Young Persons Occupational Therapy (OT) team. In the form OT sent her to complete for the referral. Mrs Y told it about Z’s disabilities and their impact at home and why they needed a separate sensory room just for Z’s use.
28. OT wrote to Mrs Y on 4 November 2022. It confirmed:

• it had received her application for an OT assessment of Z at their home;
• her case had been placed on the waiting list, but the current COVID situation was likely to extend the waiting time; and
• she should contact the team if their circumstances changed or they required an urgent assessment.

29. In February 2024, as she had still not heard anything about an appointment, Mrs Y called OT. It told her she was still on the wating list.

October 2024: contact about a clinic appointment

30. The Council has told us its Children’s OT service reviewed its practices in 2023/2024, following a significant reduction in staff and an increase in demand for assessments.
31. To minimise wait times, it introduced initial clinic appointments rather than home visits for some cases and offered these to those families prioritised as “low” who had been waiting the longest.
32. On 31 October OT wrote to Mrs Y inviting her to an adaptations clinic appointment on 13 January 2025. The letter asked her to bring photographs or videos of their home, information about the child’s disability and the completed questionnaire.

13 January 2025: clinic appointment

33. Mr Y and Z attended the OT appointment on 13 January. The assessment notes say:

• Mr and Mrs Y had four children (including Z) under 12. Their home had three bedrooms (two double and one small single), two reception rooms, kitchen and downstairs bathroom and toilet.
• Mr Y asked if it was possible to have the loft converted into a bedroom for Z with a bathroom and toilet; and
• OT identified Z’s needs could be met within the home by changing sleeping arrangements and using the second reception room as a bedroom for two siblings so Z could have their own larger separate room.

January 2025: OT’s recommendations

34. OT wrote to Mrs Y on 28 January setting out their recommendations and advice about adaptations to meet Z’s needs. These included:

• changing the family’s sleeping arrangements to give Z a bigger separate room on the first floor by using the second reception room as a bedroom for two siblings. This would meet Z’s needs within the current footprint of their home;
• use of two-way audio and video camera to monitor and support the children using the ground floor reception room as a bedroom; and
• if they decided to follow the recommendation and move Z to a separate larger room, this could be modified to support Z in that room through adaptations including a barn door, with an upper section which could be left open, and sensory lighting.

35. OT confirmed it had now completed its assessment and closed their case. It said if there was any change in their circumstances, they would need to make a new referral.

OT’s referral to the Staying Independent at Home team

36. OT’s role is to assess the child’s needs and recommend any necessary and appropriate adaptations to meet those needs.
37. Once this assessment is completed, OT sends a referral for any recommended adaptations to the Council’s Staying Independent at Home (SIAH) team which administers the DFG application process from this point.
38. Following the appointment on 13 January, OT sent a referral – the priority needs assessment - to the SIAH team, with recommended adaptations. This said:

• reason for referral: to have the second first floor bedroom modified to keep the child safe in their bedroom, support sleep management and minimise their walking up and down stairs during the night. The recommended adaptations were: change to a barn style door; provision of ceiling sensory lights; window restrictors; and padding of the shared wall with neighbours to minimise noise disturbance.
• has a home visit been undertaken: OT assessment completed via adaptation clinic;
• any further concerns identified in relation to the property: parents may not be happy with recommendation. OT advised the family change their sleeping arrangements as they have two living rooms which could be used as a bedroom. However, the family has asked for adaptations to the loft. The above recommendation is reasonable under the DFG scheme, which is not to be used to resolve over-crowding.

February 2025: Mrs Y’s contact about the OT recommendations

39. Mrs Y contacted the Council on 3 February about the outcome of the OT assessment. She said:

• they’d told OT the rooms in the house were very small and it was not possible to use a downstairs room as a bedroom for two children. When she asked OT how she could challenge the outcome, she was told the case was now closed; and
• she would like someone else to look at the case for her and tell her how to challenge the decision as her child really needed a separate room.

40. The SIAH team sent a letter to Mrs Y on 5 February referring to an OT recommendation to install a lift and convert a conservatory building into a bedroom. When Mrs Y called to query this, it told her it had been sent in error. The Council has accepted this letter did not relate to Mrs Y’s case and was sent by mistake.
41. The SIAH team then wrote to Mrs Y on 10 February confirming:
1. OT’s recommended adaptations: modifying the bedroom door; provision of sensory lights; provision of window restrictors; and padding of the shared party wall in the bedroom to minimise noise disturbance to the neighbour;
2. They were currently on stage 1 of the DFG process. The key stages were:

• 1: means test;
• 2, 3 & 4: allocation to lead provider; survey and design; scrutiny and compliance;
• 5 & 6: high-cost panel for complex schemes; and grant approval
3. The OT’s recommendations were based on necessity and level of need. If they did not agree with the proposed recommendations, they should contact OT as the SIAH team could not change the request; and
4. If they had any questions in relation to the DFG process they should contact the SIAH team.

42. The Council spoke to Mrs Y on 11 February about her application. She told it she was not happy with the recommendations and wanted to challenge them.

Council’s response to Mrs Y’s complaint

43. OT said in its response to her complaint:

• it had concluded the OT assessment had been completed thoroughly and provided comprehensive recommendations to support Z, including reasonable adjustments within the family home;
• OT had escalated the recommendations to the DFG team (SIAH). In reviewing the assessment, it had identified the family home was overcrowded, which was something that could not be addressed under DFGs; and
• the SIAH team had told it she had declined the recommendations, and it had therefore closed the case. If she had changed her mind OT could re-refer the recommendations back to SIAH.

44. Mrs Y asked the Council to review her complaint. The Council sent its final response confirming the initial outcome. Mrs Y was not satisfied with this and brought her complaint to us.

Council’s response to our enquiries

45. The Council told us:

• use of internal space is always considered in the development of a DFG scheme. Because Mrs Y had stopped the process, it could not confirm if the second reception room could be used as a bedroom;
• OT recommendations are considerations, and the decision on a final scheme is made by the SIAH team. No decision had been made by the SIAH team about whether the need could be met through internal space or an extension as they had not yet got to that point; and
• if Mrs Y wanted a re-assessment, she should follow the route in its closure letter through a new assessment of needs, and the options to meet them.

46. It also said in this case, OT:

• determined it was neither necessary nor appropriate to complete a home visit or conduct any further assessment. This decision was based on the information gathered during the assessment and the evidence provided by the family; and
• considered all reasonable and practicable options within the existing property layout before making recommendations. The availability of a second reception room was identified as a solution to meet the child’s needs without requiring structural changes.

My decision – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

Timescale for the DFG process

47. Mrs Y started the Council’s DFG application process in October 2022 when she asked it for help to convert their loft into a sensory room for Z and completed the referral for the OT assessment. It took over two years for her to get to stage 2 of the process – the OT assessment – and nine months from April 2024 – the starting point of my investigation.
48. I have not seen any evidence the Council contacted Mrs Y during the period from April 2024 to provide her with updates about estimated wating time, or an explanation about the reasons for the delay.
49. I consider nine months just to get to stage 2 of the process to access a DFG grant is an unreasonable delay, having regard to government guidance about timescales.
50. The Council has told us it had a backlog of requests for OT assessments in 2022, when Mrs Y was placed on the waiting list and further delays were due to a reduction in staff and increased demand.
51. We recognise service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. But this is still fault, even though we have not found any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by the organisation leading to this service failure.
52. I consider the Council’s delay completing the OT assessment for the DFG process and failure to keep Mrs Y updated about this process in the period from April 2024 to January 2025 was fault.
53. This caused Mrs Y and her family worry and uncertainty about what was happening with their request.

The completion of the assessment

54. 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 the person disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
55. I am not able to say whether the Council was right or wrong to assess that Z’s need for a separate. suitably modified bedroom, could be met by using a ground floor reception room as an additional bedroom.
56. But I am able to say whether, in my view, the Council followed the proper process before making this assessment.
57. Here, having considered the process the Council followed, and the evidence it had at the time it made its decision, my view is the Council did not have sufficient information available at the time to make this assessment. This is because:

• Mrs Y had told it in October 2022 she wanted help to convert the loft as a separate bedroom for Z;
• it arranged to complete its assessment of Z’s need for a separate bedroom and how to meet this need through a clinic appointment instead of a home visit;
• the assessment notes show the only information the Council had about the home was that it had three bedrooms (two double and one small single), two reception rooms, kitchen and downstairs bathroom and toilet. It had no information about the size of the rooms or the layout. There is no evidence it considered at the time of the assessment whether a home visit was required; and
• in my view it was not possible, without this information, to properly assess whether the option of using the second ground floor reception room as an additional bedroom was a practical solution to meet Z’s needs.

58. I consider the Council’s failure to obtain all the relevant information and consider making a home visit before completing its assessment was fault.
59. This has further delayed Mrs Y’s access to the DFG process and caused additional worry and uncertainty about the outcome of her request for help providing Z with a suitable separate bedroom.

The Council’s response to Mrs Y’s concern about the assessment outcome

60. The Council’s response to Mrs Y’s complaint has been unclear. It said its SIAH team cannot make any changes to OT’s recommendations. But it told us a decision has not yet been made on whether Z’s needs can be met through the existing internal space because Mrs Y had stopped the DFG process.
61. However, in response to her concern that the option of using a ground floor room as a bedroom was not feasible, the Council told Mrs Y the only way her request could be looked at again was through a re-assessment by OT – even though she had waited over two years for the first assessment.
62. In my view the Council failed to give proper consideration to Mrs Y’s circumstances - including the amount of time she had waited for the OT assessment and that it had been conducted at a clinic rather than by a home visit - before telling her she would have to make a referral for another assessment.
63. This failure was fault. It has caused Mrs Y additional unnecessary worry and uncertainty about the process for further consideration of her request by the Council.

Back to top

Action

64. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, and within four weeks from the date of our final decision, the Council should:
1. apologise to Mrs Y for its failures to: arrange an OT assessment within a reasonable timescale and update her about this; complete a proper assessment of options for meeting Z’s need for a separate bedroom; and give proper consideration to her circumstances before telling her to make a referral for a new assessment, and the worry and uncertainty these have caused her and her family. This apology should be in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology;
2. pay Mrs Y £150 to recognise the upset caused by its delays and failures. This is based on our guidance on remedies; and
3. offer Mrs Y a further OT assessment, to include a home visit, of Z’s need for a suitable separate bedroom and reasonable and practical options to meet this need.
65. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

66. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take the above action to remedy this injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman