Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of adaptations and equipment and about poor communication and complaint handling. There was some delay by the Council in providing specialist equipment, which was fault. It has already apologised and made a symbolic payment to reflect the avoidable distress and inconvenience. This is an appropriate remedy and so no further actions are recommended.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about delay in providing and/or failure to provide equipment and adaptations.
• The equipment is: slings, bed positioning system, showering cradle, swivel table, automatic curtains/blinds
• The adaptations are: a front door entry system, ceiling track hoists, bathroom access and works, internal and external door widening, patio and kitchen adaptations, automatic window openers, heating controls
2. Ms X also complained about poor communication and complaint handling
3. Ms X said the Council caused her avoidable distress placing her wellbeing at risk. It also denied her opportunities to maximise her independence and to make full use of her home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. We cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. We call these complaints ‘premature’ and usually refer them back to the organisation concerned. However, we may decide to investigate a premature complaint if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
6. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of the NHS. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34(1), as amended)
7. 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)
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(i), as amended)
9. 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)

What I have and have not investigated.

10. The timeframe of my investigation is April 2024 to April 2025. The later date is when Ms X complained to us. Matters after April 2025 are premature and it is reasonable for the Council to have a chance to respond if Ms X wants to complain about issues after April 2025. I have referred to events after April 2025, but this it is to summarise the current position with regard to adaptations and is mentioned for context.
11. Ms X also complained about the wheelchair service. The wheelchair service is part of the NHS. We advised her she needed to use the NHS complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate NHS services or provision.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
13. Ms X 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

14. Councils have a statutory duty to award a disabled facilities grant (DFG) for certain adaptations including adaptations to facilitate:
• access to and from the property
• access to and from the living room and bedroom
• access to a bathroom or to facilitate use of a bathroom
• cooking and preparation of food
• the use of controls of heat, light or power
• improvement of a heating system to meet the person’s needs

The maximum grant is £30,000

15. Before approving a grant, a council must be satisfied the work is necessary, meets the disabled person’s needs, and is reasonable and practicable having regard to the age and condition of the property. (Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 sections 23 and 24.)
16. Government guidance on DFGs identifies the following stages:
• 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.
• 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.

(Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) Delivery: Guidance for local authorities in England, March 2022).

17. The Guidance gives the following target timescales for completion of stages 1 to 4 which should be met in 95% of cases:

18. The Guidance explains a council must identify the person’s needs and what relevant works are necessary and appropriate to meet their needs. Key principles include considering how to achieve best value for money, taking into account how to design adaptations that will meet current and anticipated future care needs (paragraph 4.40)
19. Councils may also offer discretionary assistance as a loan or top-up grant. They may have a policy which sets out priorities and principles for considering discretionary funding.
20. Councils must:
• promote ‘wellbeing’ when carrying out care and support functions. Wellbeing includes the suitability of living accommodation. (Care Act 2014, section 1(2))
• provide or arrange services, facilities or resources which reduce the need for care and support. (Care Act 2014, section 2)
21. The provision of equipment and aids is one way a council can minimise the impact of disability or deterioration for adults with complex health conditions. (Care and Support Statutory Guidance paragraph 2.9)
22. The Council’s Prevention and Therapy Service assessment process says where possible, all agreed actions are to be completed within 10 working days. This timescale applies to standard pieces of equipment which the Council’s contractor has in stock. Specialist items are approved by the Council’s fortnightly equipment panel and ordered separately.
23. The Council’s Private Sector Housing Assistance Policy covers mandatory and discretionary DFGs, discretionary special purpose grants and other discretionary funding for partnership work and other services. It does not cover Care Act 2014 duties to provide equipment and adaptations where there is an assessed need. It reflects the DFG legislation and guidance I have set out above. In summary:
• An OT carries out an assessment for the works, concentrating on the person’s ability to continue to live safely and independently. The assessment distinguishes between works that are desirable and those that are necessary, appropriate, reasonable and practicable.
• Discretionary DFGs to top-up a mandatory grant are available.
• Minor adaptations, often less than £1000 may be supported by Adult Social Care. Those that are eligible for a mandatory DFG may be offered as discretionary special purpose grants if the Council is satisfied funding this way will be quicker and improve the outcome for the applicant.
• Discretionary special purpose grants are available for repairs, minor works or interventions that the Council is satisfied are reasonable and practicable and help meet one or more of the policy’s objectives. Applicants from tenants will normally only be considered for work which is not the landlord’s responsibility. The maximum amount is £10,000. Examples of work includes:
1. Ineligible DFG works which will save money in the health and social care system.
2. Work which would be DFG funded which can be done instead to improve the outcome for the applicant.
3. Any other request deemed reasonable and practicable and necessary and appropriate to meet the objectives of the policy.

What happened

Background

24. Ms X is severely physically disabled. She moved into a wheelchair accessible property in the Council’s area in February 2024. Ms X’s home care is fully funded by the NHS and she receives care in bed. She does not have a wheelchair and case records suggest she needs a special one because of positioning needs.
25. The Council told me it needed wheelchair measurements to ensure the DFG recommendations and specifications for the adaptations were accurate. Due to Ms X’s condition, it was difficult to establish the width of the wheelchair and whether she would tolerate sitting and whether the chair would be upright or supine. The measurements, the Council said, were needed:
• for Internal and external door widening (to allow Ms X to move around the home safely if the wheelchair was wide)
• for hallway access and patio size
• for kitchen adaptations

Occupational Therapy (OT) Action Plan

26. An OT visited Ms X and completed an assessment and action plan in the middle of April 2024. The assessment said:
• Ms X had a floor bed with an air mattress, cushion support
• Slings and hoist were required for a trial. Ms X may not tolerate hoisting. Bespoke sling was required
• To trial a shower chair/trolley once Ms X is able to transfer
• Long-term ceiling hoists would be needed
27. The action plan said:
• Explore hoist and order a mobile hoist
• Contact a company so Ms X could trial a sling
• Make a referral to the NHS wheelchair service
• Explore shower chair options once Ms X was able to transfer
28. The records indicate the Council provided a mobile hoist in April and a second hoist in September 2024.

Slings

29. The Council provided a sling through an equipment company for Ms X to trial in June 2024. The equipment representative made some adjustments to the straps in September and sent them back to the manufacturer for alterations. The Council said it reviewed the sling in October and found it fit for purpose. In the complaint response, the Council acknowledged a second sling should have been ordered. The complaint response went on to say a second sling was still outstanding (at the start of 2025) and a third had been agreed as a back-up. Funding for the second and third slings was agreed in March 2025. Emails between the equipment representative and council officers indicate the additional slings were delivered to Ms X in June 2025.

Bed positioning system

30. The Council supplied one bed system in September 2024, which the OT considered may be suitable. Ms X tried this and considered it not suitable. It was returned to the supplier. A representative from an equipment company recommended another system. The equipment representative organised an assessment with a different company which provided a second bed system which Ms X tried and liked. The Council placed an order for the second bed system in November 2024.
31. The second bed system required a specialist sheet which Ms X received with the bed in November 2024. The OT made a mistake with the order paperwork delaying the provision of a second sheet which was supplied to Ms X in January 2025.

Shower cradle

32. The Council emailed Ms X some options for different shower cradles in September 2024. The Council arranged a shower cradle assessment in September, but this did not take place as Ms X wanted to explore other options with the equipment representative.
33. The Council’s moving and handling specialist visited Ms X at the end of October and shared a moving and handling plan with Ms X and her care agency.
34. The Council, the equipment representative and Ms X were involved in email exchanges about shower cradles in November/December 2024 and they visited Ms X to support her to trial them. Ms X said she had not received some emails and so the Council re-sent them.
35. The equipment representative visited Ms X to quote for a shower cradle at the start of February 2025. (they had been on leave in January). The cradle was not suitable for Ms X, so there was a further visit arranged to trial a different one. The representative suggested a different fabric for the cradle and the Council agreed with this.
36. The Council told me it received a quotation for the shower cradle in the middle of February 2025 and challenged the representative on the price which was high compared with other suppliers of the same item. The representative sent an amended quote. The Council’s internal records show it approved funding for the shower cradle in the middle of April 2025 and it was ordered at the end of April and delivered at the start of October 2025. The Council said the delay was down to other parties. The Council has provided emails between the representative and council officers indicating the representative had financial issues, delivery issues with the supplier and was delayed visiting Ms X with the shower cradle.

Heating Controls and blind/curtain openers

37. The OT sent a referral to the Electronic Assistive Technology Service (EATS) at the start of May 2024. The EATS assessed Ms X in July and contacted Ms X’s landlord to check if they would do the heating controls and blind openers. The landlord agreed to install the heating controls but not the blind openers. The Council’s decided it would not pay for blind openers as these were considered to be soft furnishings. The Council advised Ms X she would need to buy these herself.
38. The OT liaised with the landlord in October and again in January 2025 about the heating control. The heating control system was installed in March 2025.

Swivel table

39. The Council told us it accepted the swivel table should have been provided sooner (it was ordered in March 2025). The Council told me the delay did not leave Ms X at any risk.

DFG process for adaptions

40. In August 2024, an OT emailed Ms X with an update and next steps:
• Review the sling issued
• Possible provision of a larger hoist
• Consider shower chair or trolley (cradle)
• Ceiling track hoist for bedroom and bathroom; depends on type of shower chair/trolley (cradle)
• OT to submit DFG application without delay.
41. An OT completed a written recommendation for adaptations at the start of October 2024. The OT recommended the following:

42. The OT noted:
• Ms X was being assessed for a suitable wheelchair and would need to be hoisted for transfers in future.
• A video intercom was needed for the front door so she could open and close it independently.
• She was awaiting a shower chair assessment. She had a level access shower and a spacious bathroom.
• The DFG was to be split into parts with further recommendations to follow.
43. The Council completed two Schedules of Works in December 2024. One Schedule included French doors to the garden, back door powered entry, front door powered entry with video and app control and window openers with app control. A second schedule was for a ceiling hoist in the bedroom only. (Ms X had changed her mind about a ceiling hoist in the lounge)
44. The OT completed a second written recommendation for adaptations in March 2025 recommending:

45. The OT noted the DFG was to be submitted in parts. Further recommendations would be needed for adaptations to the kitchen, but recommendations about what would be needed could not be made until Ms X had her wheelchair.
46. Ms X submitted an application for a DFG at the end of February 2025 for the automatic door entry system, window openers, intercom system and ceiling track hoist. The Council approved Ms X’s application on the same date. Its decision notification referred to the Schedule of Works of December 2024. The total approved was £20,784. The covering letter to Ms X gave details of the approved contractors and told Ms X the contractor would contact her directly to arrange a date to start the work.

The Council’s communication with Ms X

47. The case records show many emails between officers and Ms X. Mostly Ms X’s communication is polite. She often asks a series of questions. At times the content of Ms X’s emails conveys her frustration with lack of progress. Ms X wanted to be copied in on all emails and to be asked for consent for each interaction. A few emails are lengthy and critical of individual officers and were the forerunner to Ms X’s formal complaint. An officer accidentally sent some emails to Ms X to an old email address and so there was a delay in her receiving them. The officer apologised.

The complaint to the Council and its responses in February and March 2025

48. Ms X used both stages of the Council’s complaint procedure. Its responses upheld some of Ms X’s complaints and said there were delays providing equipment. The first response also said Ms X had been belittling and had continually chastised staff for minor things, she had sent an extensive number of emails, made unfounded accusations and been hostile.
49. I have summarised the Council’s position on adaptations at the time of the second complaint response:

Ceiling track hoist: The Council agreed the original recommendation for a ceiling hoist in the lounge and bedroom in April 2024. The ceiling hoist would replace the mobile hoist Ms X already had in place. Provision of the ceiling hoist was subject to Ms X having a wheelchair. She had said the ceiling hoist in the lounge was not needed and so the Council had cancelled it.

Bathroom: It had only added the hoist and new doorway into the shower room to the DFG recommendation in March 2025 because it had taken time to identify a suitable shower cradle. The delay (in providing the shower cradle) was not just the OT’s fault. There wasn’t a sling available for Ms X to use to transfer into the shower chair, nor had Ms X consented for the visit to take place and the equipment representative being available. The recommendation for a wet floor shower was ‘enhanced by the understanding of the size and shape of the shower chair and by how often carers will use it’. There was delay in the recommendations for the specifications of the wet room. They were not made until March 2025 (at the same time as the shower chair assessment).

Door widening and hallway access, kitchen adaptations and patio: The OT could not make recommendations for the doors and hallway access and patio size until the NHS had agreed to supply the wheelchair she wanted. The same applied to kitchen adaptations. If the Council had used the wheelchair measurements given in September 2024, then there was a risk that adaptations would be incorrect causing distress and harm as well as potentially wasting funds

Heating controls: It made a referral to EATS then to the landlord in October 2024 and sent a chasing email in January 2025. The controls were being fitted at the end of March 2025.

50. The Council said it was sorry for the distress caused by its failings, offered to visit Ms X to apologise directly and offered £250 to reflect her distress. The response set out the following actions:
• The swivel table had been ordered and was awaiting a delivery date
• Additional slings would be ordered and delivered
• An officer would review the quote for the shower chair
• Kitchen adaptations would be assessed when the wheelchair was available
• The Council was waiting for confirmation of the wheelchair measurements in case further works were required. (widening of the external and internal doorways)
51. Unhappy with the Council’s response to her complaint, Ms X complained to us.

Action on the case since the complaint to the LGSCO

52. The Council produced a third Schedule of Works in August 2025 for adaptation of the bathroom.
53. At the end of October 2025, the Council approved a second DFG for £30,000, a special purpose grant of £5400 and discretionary top-up grant of £15000. The decision notice referred to the same Schedule of Works (December 2024)
54. The Council told me there was no equipment outstanding. It said the adaptations outstanding were:

• Window openers (bedroom, bathroom, lounge and kitchen)

• Automatic door opener rear and front

• Ceiling track hoist for the bedroom which links to bathroom

• New access to bathroom via bedroom

• Widening of bedroom and lounge door and automatic door opening system for these internal doors

• Widen patio area (subject to wheelchair dimensions)

• Provision of folding shower screen.

55. The Council said the adaptations mentioned in the above list are covered by the DFG(s) approved at the end of October 2025 (see paragraph 53). The contractor has been given a provisional start date of December 2025/January 2026 and will liaise with Ms X.
56. The Council also confirmed (again) that adaptations to the kitchen will need to be assessed when Ms X has a wheelchair. It said when the wheelchair is in place, it will consider a third DFG.

Findings: did the fault cause injustice requiring a remedy?

57. As I have explained earlier, my findings cover the period April 2024 to March 2025.

Slings

58. The Council’s assessment and action plan in April 2024 identified slings as a need. One sling was provided in June. This was not within the 10-day target timescale, however, the sling was not a standard item and so the 10-days did not apply. Two months was a reasonable timeframe for a specialist item that had to be identified and trialled first.
59. The Council delayed identifying the need for a second sling (once the first sling was deemed suitable) and in securing funding and ordering it. Ordering did not happen until March 2025 and the sling was not provided until June 2025. The Council acknowledged in its complaint response that it was at fault causing avoidable distress and inconvenience. It has apologised and offered a symbolic payment to reflect this. This is in line with our published Guidance on Remedies and no further recommendations for the Council are necessary.

Bed positioning system

60. The need for a bed positioning system was not identified in the assessment and action plan of April 2024. It was first identified as a need in September 2024 and one system provided. Ms X said this first system was unsuitable, but there is no fault in the Council asking her to trial it. This is a professional view that an OT is entitled to take and which the LGSCO has no grounds to criticise: our role is to make findings of fault in process and we have no expertise in specialist equipment. Once Ms X had confirmed the first system was unsuitable, the Council liaised with another company and ordered Ms X’s preferred system which was in place by December 2024. The timescale is acceptable given this was a specialist item which needed sourcing from a manufacturer.
61. The Council delayed providing a second sheet which was fault causing avoidable inconvenience for which the Council has apologised and offered an appropriate symbolic payment.

Shower cradle

62. The shower cradle was a non-standard item and needed to be identified, trialled by Ms X for suitability, funding needed to be agreed and then it needed to be ordered and provided. So it would not be provided within the standard two-week timescale in the Council’s policy.
63. The assessment and action plan of April 2024 identified the need for a sling and shower cradle. The assessment and action plan said a shower cradle could only be explored once Ms X could tolerate transfers which was not until September 2024 when the slings had been adjusted. I have no call to criticise this sequential plan. As explained earlier, the LGSCO’s role is to investigate fault in process and we have no grounds to criticise a professional decision taken without fault.
64. There was some delay in providing the shower cradle as I set out in points (a) to (d) below, but this was mostly not down to the Council, other than point (a) which is not significant enough to be fault:
1. Ms X did not receive emails for about a month. This was due to an officer sending them to an old email address. (November/December 2024)
2. The representative was on leave for a month (January 2025)
3. The Council challenged the representative on pricing (February/March 2025). This took about a month and it was not fault by the Council to achieve best value for public funds
4. There was delay between April and October 2025 due to issues with supplying the cradle. This delay was not within the Council’s control.

Heating controls

65. Heating controls can be part of a mandatory DFG. The Council’s policy recognises works agreed and funded by a DFG take a while to complete and so it may seek other funding to enable a quicker outcome for the disabled person. The EAT assessed Ms X in June and liaised with Ms X’s landlord about heating controls. The landlord agreed to install them but there was a delay and they were not installed until the end of March 2025. There is fault by the Council in failing to chase the landlord sooner. It has apologised for this which is an appropriate remedy. Ms X requested a different type of heating control which she says better meets her needs. As the control was provided by her landlord and not by the Council, any complaint about its adequacy would need to be raised with them.

Swivel table

66. There are no case records about this. However, the Council accepted in the complaint response that there was delay providing this, which is fault causing avoidable inconvenience. The Council has already apologised and offered an appropriate symbolic payment to recognise the injustice.

Automatic curtains/blinds

67. The Council refused to fund automatic curtains or blinds. Ms X said this affected her privacy, dignity and security. But the failure to agree DFG funding on that basis was not fault because privacy, dignity and security are not relevant considerations for DFG purposes (the mandatory purposes are listed in paragraph 14). It was therefore open to the Council to refuse mandatory and discretionary funding which did not align with the priorities in the Housing Assistance Policy.

DFG adaptations: front door entry system, ceiling track hoists, bathroom access and works, internal and external door widening, patio and kitchen adaptations, automatic window openers

68. The Council decided to split Ms X’s adaptations into two (then later three) applications. This is not fault. The DFG guidance allows for a mandatory grant of £30,000. The Council’s Schedules show the work will cost much more than £30,000.
69. Ms X’s adaptations are complex and needed to be staged because they were dependent on knowing accurate wheelchair measurements. Ms X disagrees and says the Council should have acted on the basis of estimations. I am not a wheelchair or adaptations expert and so I cannot comment on that. The Council has explained its reason for proceeding on a staged basis. This is in part based on cost. The DFG Guidance emphasises achieving best value for money taking into account current and anticipated future care needs. The Council acted in line with guidance and there is no fault, even though the suggested maximum timescale of 130/180 days has been breached. Those timescales are not absolute and the Guidance recognises they may be exceeded in a minority of cases.
70. The Council has, since Ms X’s complaint to the LGSCO, taken action to progress the adaptations; it has awarded additional mandatory and discretionary grant funding and works are scheduled to take place at the time of writing this statement.

Communication with Ms X and complaint handling

71. Overall, communication from council officers was appropriate and in line with our expected standards. Once Ms X made it clear she expected to be asked about consent on each occasion of third-party involvement, officers adhered to that request. The Council sent a few emails to an old email address, but this was due to officer error and is not serious enough to be fault. In any case, the apology already provided was an appropriate remedy for any injustice this caused.
72. The Council said in its complaint response that officers found Ms X belittling and they felt undermined by her approach. This was a statement about their feelings and in the context of a high volume of very detailed email contact from Ms X and the responses by all the officers involved in the case, was not fault.

Back to top

Decision

73. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has already taken actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman