Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint the Council’s chosen preferred scheme does not consider all the household’s needs and occupational therapist recommendations. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council’s chosen preferred scheme does not consider all the household’s needs and occupational therapist (OT) recommendations. She says the Council will only give them access to funding if they agree to the Council’s preferred scheme.

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))
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X has applied for a disabled facilities grant. As part of the process, Mrs X’s husband and child were assessed by OTs to identify what adaptations were needed. The recommendations were:
• Provision of a bedroom for the child.
• Provision of an accessible bedroom for Mrs X’s husband.
• Provision of a level access shower.
• Installation of a single person through floor lift, not located in a child’s bedroom and capable of being locked when not in use.
• Alterations to the rear access to ensure a level approach.
7. Five adaptation options were presented to the Council for consideration. Option five was Mrs X’s preferred scheme.
8. The Council held a meeting with the adult and children OTs to consider the five options. The Council’s chosen scheme was option 3, which included:
• Creation of a new bedroom upstairs.
• Creation of a new downstairs bathroom with level access shower.
• Staircase to be reconfigured to allow independent access to all bedrooms.
• Through floor lift placed in master bedroom.
9. The records showed the Council’s rationale for choosing option 3 as its preferred scheme and why it was satisfied it met all OT recommendations. The Council considered:
• The scheme maintained access to all facilities.
• Concerns about Mrs X’s other child’s stair use. However, Council satisfied it was manageable as they could continue to use the wall for support.
• The scheme allowed for Mrs X and her husband to remain in their current bedroom, which was in line with their preference.
• Concerns about the children accessing the through floor lift. However, noted the lift could be locked, with the key retained by Mrs X’s husband. Further, as bathroom and toilet facilities were available downstairs, this meant lift would primarily be used to access the bedroom and so the lift could remain upstairs during the day. Also noted the lift would be in a private bedroom and not a communal space.
10. The Council did also consider Mrs X’s preferred scheme, which included:
• Creation of a new large master bedroom upstairs.
• Creation of a new family bathroom upstairs.
• Increased space in the study/medical room.
• Creation of a new larger kitchen
• Improved rear property access.
11. The Council noted that this option did meet OT recommendations, as well as additional benefits of a larger kitchen and increased study/medical space. However, the Council considered the scheme did not utilise unused internal space and that the additional works fell outside the OT recommendations. The Council agreed this scheme could be supported as a preferred scheme, but that Mrs X would need to raise the additional funds over and above the mandatory and discretionary grant provision.
12. An investigation is not justified because we are not likely to find fault with the way the Council made its decision. The Council is allowed to decide what scheme it considers is necessary, appropriate, reasonable and practicable. In this case, the Council has considered all options presented and made its decision which scheme it considered met all OT recommendations in a reasonable and practicable way. Therefore, we could not find fault with the decision as it was made properly.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman