Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s assessment of the adaptations she needs to meet her medical needs. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council had not supported her request for bathroom adaptations, which meant she could not apply for a disabled facilities grant. She says the Council discriminated against her and says the refusal means her disability needs are not being met.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. Ms X moved to her current property in July 2024. She asked the Council to support her request for a walk-in shower, which an occupational therapist (OT) had said she would benefit from when she was living in a previous property.
6. This Council carried out a fresh OT assessment to consider her medical needs in relation to her current property. The assessment recorded that Ms X was able to shower independently using the grab rail and shower stool provided. But Ms X said she had difficulty cleaning the area after showering, including drying the walls and floor. She said she was concerned this would lead to mould. She wanted the wet room to be changed to an enclosed shower cubicle.
7. The OT said they could not support the request for an enclosed shower cubicle with a tray because there was no functional need for this and because it would increase the risk of trips and falls. They recommended a half height folding shower screen situated between the shower and the toilet, to be used in conjunction with a shower curtain, to stop water going across to the toilet area. They also recommended the use of a squeegee with a functional arm to scrape excess water off the walls, which would then drain away from the floor.
8. Ms X did not agree to the OT recommendations and complained the OT had not properly assessed her needs. The Council considered her comments but said that, after careful review, the wet room already provided met her needs. It said the half height screen was a proportionate and effective recommendation to contain water within the shower area and that she could ask for an assessment of her care and support needs if she needed more support with household cleaning.
9. In its response to our enquiries, the Council said that, following the complaint response an independent OT assessment was carried out, which made the same recommendations and that these recommendations are in line with standard practice.

My assessment

10. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decision was correct or substitute that decision with our own. Unless we find fault in the Council’s decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached.
11. The Council considered Ms X’s medical needs, her own account of the difficulties she faced and the physical space. It considered Ms X’s concerns about the OT recommendations and explained its reasons for deciding not to support the specific adaptation Ms X asked for. There is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman