Summary: Miss X complains the Council did not provide the necessary adaptations to her property to assist her to care for her teenage daughter, who is severely disabled. She complains the matter has been stressful. We found the Council failed to take and communicate decisions in a timely way, and it did not have regard for all the facts. This caused delay and meant adaptations were not implemented. We recommended an apology, a meeting to explain the Council’s position and a payment to reflect the impact of the period the family have had without suitable adaptations.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council has not provided the necessary adaptations to her property to assist her to care for her teenage daughter, who is severely disabled. She complains the matter has been stressful and lifting and carrying her daughter is causing her back pain. She also complains that her daughter is also unable to live independently without the necessary actions being taken.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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)
4. 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

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) Process

7. Disabled Facilities Grants 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.
8. In March 2022 the government issued non-statutory guidance “Disabled facilities Grant (DFG) Delivery: Guidance for local authorities in England.
9. This guidance advises councils in England on how they can effectively and efficiently deliver DFG funded adaptations. The guidance sets out five key steps to delivering home adaptations

• First contact at which information should be available.
• Assessment and recommendation – usually by an OT or other approved assessor.
• Identification of works and submission of grant application.
• A decision on the DFG application – where a council decides if the works requested are necessary, appropriate, reasonable, and practicable.
• Where approved, completion of works and payment of the grant

10. Government guidance sets out timescales for completing the whole process. It expects 95% of cases to be done in these timescales. Urgent and complex cases should be completed within 130 days (just over 4 months), Non-urgent and complex cases should be completed within 180 days (6 months).

What Happened

11. Miss X has a severely disabled daughter, who is referred to in this statement as Y. Miss X moved into a new property in late 2021. She told us this was offered to her on the basis that adaptations could be carried out to help with accessibility and care her daughter needed. The Council confirmed the criteria for Miss X’s property search noted she needed three bedrooms and included the need for a wheelchair accessible bedroom for Y (either on the ground floor, or accessible via a lift).
12. We are investigating events from February 2023 when Miss X made a request for adaptations to help her daughter.
13. In March 2023 an Occupational Therapist (OT) assessment identified a need for hoist transfers and arranged a joint visit with other professionals to assess the viability of lifts to enable access to the upstairs floor and ceiling tracks for hoists.
14. A joint visit with a lift technician in May 2023 identified several key issues:

• Fitting a stair lift would be difficult because a non-standard seat and harness were needed and because the stairlift would have to end at the top of the stairs, where lifting Y on and off the lift would pose safety risks.
• The ceiling construction of the property would affect the ability to install a ceiling track on the ground floor. This meant vertical supports would be needed which would take up room.

15. The Council’s case notes describe a discussion with Miss X about the safety issues arising from lifting Y off the lift at the top of the stairs. The OT stated the lift could be brought around onto the landing to make transfers safer than at the top of the stairs. The notes indicate this would be discussed with a manager. A later case note stated a manager had agreed a different proposal to continue the stair lift into the front bedroom, which would also allow transfers to take place away from the top of the stairs, but it would mean losing a room. A lift surveyor agreed this was feasible.
16. Following this visit, an OT made a referral for the urgent installation of ceiling tracks upstairs and downstairs. Other adaptations were also being discussed. These included a height adjustable bath and sink, a lowered kitchen worktop and a ramp to allow access to the garden.
17. In June 2023 the difficulties in resolving the safety issue with the stairlift led to a decision not to progress any other adaptations (as it was not yet clear how Y could be supported to use the first floor). This highlighted the importance of reaching a decision about this issue promptly to allow other work to progress.
18. In October 2023 a case note recorded that the family did not wish to proceed with extending the stairlift into the spare bedroom. This was because all the bedrooms were needed for family members.
19. The Council’s records show officers were making efforts to research types of stairlifts, seats and harnesses. They also indicate that Y’s needs are complex. However, the work to progress the feasibility of a stairlift was protracted during 2023.
20. In January 2024 there was consensus among various OTs, surveyors and Miss X that a stairlift was possible, accepting some risks due to the inability to hoist Y on and off the lift at the top and bottom of the stairs. At this point, the case notes no longer indicate that the lift would need to run into the front bedroom. A stairlift was proposed for the external curve of the stairs. The professionals involved also appeared to recognise there was already risk on the stairs with Miss X currently carrying Y up and down.
21. There was a period of six weeks between March 24 and May 24 of unavoidable delay in progressing the installation for personal family reasons and through no fault of either the Council or the family.
22. A visit in May discussed other alterations needed to the bathroom and access to the garden.
23. In July 2024 a successful trial of a moulded seat cushion took place and there appears to have been consensus that the combination of stairlift and seat was acceptable, and it should be progressed to a panel to agree it. Case notes in July evidence the OTs were prepared to recommend the stairlift with Miss X lifting Y on and off at the top and bottom of the stairs – recognising this was not ideal.
24. Following the involvement of the complex case panel, senior managers and the legal department, the agreed way forward was for a risk assessment to be documented and Miss X to be asked to sign a disclaimer accepting the risks. Risk assessment work was done promptly by the OT but overall the process of agreeing the indemnity wording further delayed progressing a stairlift between July 2024 and September 2024.
25. A case note on 13 September suggested the Council wished to revisit options. The Council was concerned that, regardless of the family’s willingness to sign an indemnity, if professional care workers were required in future, they would not be able to use the stair lift. This was because lifting Y on and off it would still not be regarded as safe at the top of the stairs.
26. The Council set out three options to consider.
• Plan A revisiting the use of a stair-climber chair which had been tried previously.
• Plan B whether the stairlift could be located on the internal curve of the stairs (previously ruled out) to avoid transfers happening at the top of the stairs.
• Plan C fitting a stairlift on the external curve of the stairs, but reconsidering the use of some of the small front bedroom.
• The Council also wanted to consider if an internal or external vertical lift was feasible. The potential for an extension was also referenced, although not scoped out more fully.
27. Miss X complained in late September. She stated she accepted her current property on the understanding that it could be adapted after a long search for a suitable property. She complained the delays in agreeing and implementing the adaptations had a severe impact on her and Y. In the meantime, Y had no access to the upstairs of the property so Miss X had been carrying her upstairs which was difficult and unsafe in itself. She also complained there were issues with a chair Y was provided with.
28. On 30 October 2024 a lift surveyor confirmed an internal vertical lift could not be fitted due to the room sizes upstairs. An external lift shaft would be technically possible. However, it was unlikely to be possible for some years due to covenants restricting alterations by the developers.
29. In November 2024 an OT proposal to install a vertical lift between bedrooms 1 and 2 were reviewed by a surveyor and this was considered feasible. It would involve other property alterations, affecting the existing bedrooms. Senior managers agreed a stairlift as a short-term solution while this was considered and subject to a detailed risk assessment.
30. In mid-December 2024, the Council responded to Miss X’s complaint. It stated that its staff had worked collaboratively with her housing provider, equipment suppliers and surveyors and carried out extensive research, continually assessing and evaluating the situation. They took account of safety and meeting Y’s needs practically in the long-term. It stated ceiling track hoists has been fitted in several rooms. It noted assessments were ongoing and it did not uphold Miss X’s complaint. The Council explained how Y’s chair was selected and notes this was agreed with the family. It stated it had no records of being made aware that part of the chair was missing. It did not uphold this part of the complaint.
31. The Council set out some current actions it was considering to resolve the lift issue and stated the relevant team could provide support with Y’s chair if required. It noted a stair climber had been offered for use in the meantime, to prevent Miss X needing to carry Y upstairs.
32. On 3 January 2025 officers visited Miss X to consider the long-term adaptation plans. The proposal was to install a vertical lift. It was noted this would reduce the house to 2 bedrooms. Miss X explained this could not be done as the bedrooms were all needed. At the meeting, OTs told Miss X a stairlift was not a suitable option because it would not support Y’s long-term independence, and, if required, care workers would be unable to lift Y on and off the stairlift. Miss X agreed to a stair climber assessment and other adaptations were discussed.
33. In March 2025 a consultant clinical psychologist documented their concerns about Y’s stair climber trial. They stated Y had experienced significant panic symptoms as she felt unsupported and unsafe on the stair climber.
34. In April 2025 a stair climber assessment was conducted. Y was anxious about it. Miss X did not want to push the use of the stair climber and make Y’s anxiety worse. At the assessment, Miss X asked why the stair lift they tried successfully in July 2024 had not been installed. An OT stated that two separate companies were involved and noted the risks of physically lifting Y on and off the lift would still be present.
35. At the time of the complaint to the Ombudsman, no solutions had been found. However, in its correspondence with us the Council accepted the property, with its current occupants, did not lend itself to being adapted for a wheelchair user.

Was there fault by the Council

Considering the adaptation request

36. When Miss X requested adaptations to her property in February 2023, an OT visit took place fairly promptly and it was clear that adaptations were required. However, establishing what adaptations should be done and deciding whether they could be achieved, was clearly difficult in this case.
37. I found there was fault by the Council. I say this because:
• There were various periods of avoidable delay in progressing the actions needed to decide on adaptations in 2023 and 2024.
• The Council was aware of the key issue with installing a stair lift (the potential risks of its use) at the outset. However, it failed to reach a firm conclusion that a stair lift was not possible until January 2025, almost two years after Miss X requested adaptations. I recognise that council staff and various other professionals worked to try and achieve adaptations for Miss X and for Y in the meantime. However, it did not consider all the relevant issues in a timely way, and as a result it unproductively went round the same loop of considering and reconsidering installing a stair-lift, which it later accepted it could not fit.
• Similarly, the Council considered at various points whether a through the floor vertical lift was an option. This, too was not possible without losing a bedroom the family needed.
• When the Council escalated the matter and consulted its legal team, there was further avoidable delay, both in the time taken to decide on appropriate indemnity wording, and later when it was finally determined that the safety issues could not be indemnified as this would leave the family without any contingency plans should they need paid carers at a later date.
38. I note the Council proposed that while the family were awaiting adaptations, the key issue of Y accessing the first floor could be resolved by use of a stair climber. However, there is evidence the use of the stair climber caused significant anxiety to Y, so this was not a solution.
39. The Council accepted in response to our enquiries that opportunities were missed to decide, and explain the Council’s position that the stair lift could not proceed at the property without compromising bedrooms. It agreed it could and should have made the decision earlier that the stair lift could not proceed because of the safety concerns that became apparent. It accepted its communication about its concerns could have been clearer and more precise to enable Miss X to understand the Council’s position.
40. The Council also reflected that not all of the right people were involved in the decision-making process. It has taken learning from this.
41. The Council proposed it should offer Miss X £450 to reflect the various issues and that it should hold a multi-disciplinary meeting with Miss X to properly explain its position and decisions and to help identify the way forward. This is positive.
42. The DFG guidance requires complex cases to be completed, at the latest within 6 months, so I found the family were left in unsuitable accommodation for 18 months longer than they should have been. This was because of the delays and lack of clarity in the Council’s approach, its communication and the lack of appropriate decision making. Our remedy guidance recommends a payment of between £150 and £350 per month where someone has been deprived of adaptations which would have improved their daily lives and/or enabled their independence. In Miss X’s case I have recommended £250 per month for 18 months, to reflect the period over and above the timescales the DFG guidance expects adaptations to take. This is a total of £4,500. This sum takes into account the related distress caused by the matter.

Suitability of the property

43. Our investigation considers events from February 2023. As a result, we do not consider how the Council decided Miss X’s new property was suitable when it was offered to her in or around 2021. At the time Miss X was offered the property it was known the family needed three bedrooms and that Y needed to have wheelchair access to her bedroom (whether or not this was on the first floor).
44. We make no findings about whether there was fault in the way the house was offered to Miss X. However, it is evident there have been difficulties providing disabled access to a bedroom for Y without impacting the number of bedrooms the family was known to need. In its response to us about the other issues raised by the complaint, the Council noted it does not have full records about the housing allocation, but it indicated the housing department will review the learning from the issues with this property allocation.

Back to top

Action

45. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council should:
46. Send a written apology to Miss X and to Y for the fault we have set out in this decision statement. The apology should adhere to our guidance on making effective apologies. This is on our website, within our Guidance on Remedy here.
47. To recognise the lengthy period that the family have been without the necessary adaptations to their property, caused by the fault we identified, the Council should make a payment to Ms X of £4,500.
48. The Council should hold a multi-disciplinary meeting with the family to explain its decisions and to agree the way forward.
49. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

50. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman