Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s decision to propose a step lift instead of a wheelchair ramp for Mr Y in 2023 which met his needs and was in line with relevant guidance. However, there was poor communication to Mr Y and Mrs X from the Council around the reasons why it decided not to install the ramp. The Council agreed to apologise for the frustration and uncertainty caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained on behalf of her father, Mr Y.
2. Mrs X complained the Council delayed approving and installing a wheelchair ramp outside Mr Y’s home by over 18 months after it failed to obtain relevant permission for the works to go ahead.
3. Mrs X says the delays meant Mr Y was unable to leave his home independently which caused distress and uncertainty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
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)
7. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Mrs 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 happened

10. Mr Y lived independently in a former housing association property which he now privately owns. Following illness in 2023 Mr Y needed to use a wheelchair.
11. In July 2023 Mrs X contacted the Council to ask it for assistance for Mr Y. She explained he now required a wheelchair and would therefore need adaptations to his house so he could safely enter and exit. Mrs X and Mr Y’s preference was for a wheelchair ramp outside the front of the house.
12. An Occupational Therapist (OT) became involved and the Council carried out an assessment and survey of Mr Y’s home.
13. Records show in August 2023 the Council obtained plans and quotes for a ramp outside Mr Y’s front door. A step lift at the rear of Mr Y’s property was also proposed however Mr Y rejected this as it would impact on the enjoyment of his garden area. The plans show contractors showed concerns however that the ramp would impede on the public footpath outside Mr Y’s home.
14. The OT discussed Mr Y’s case internally. Concerns remained that the proposed ramp would impede on a footpath outside Mr Y’s home which was accessible to the public. The OT decided that a step lift at the rear of the house would be more appropriate and would meet Mr Y’s needs.
15. The OT visited Mr Y and proposed the step lift. Records show the OT explained the step lift was easier to fit and met Mr Y’s needs. They explained about the ramp impeding the public path and because of this permission would be required from the landowner. Mr Y and Mrs X refused the step lift.
16. The OT discussed the case with the Council’s highways department. Highways advised that they did not own the land outside Mr Y’s home. However, the OT decided to go ahead and propose the step lift. In October 2023 the OT wrote to Mr Y and explained that as he did not own the land outside his home and because it was a public highway the Council could not provide the ramp. The OT said because of the public highway restrictions their recommendations was for a step lift which was necessary and appropriate to meet his needs. The Council recorded no response to the letter from Mr Y and so it closed the case.
17. In March 2024 the Council received a new referral for Mr Y requesting a wheelchair ramp. This was referred to the OT who called Mr Y to discuss the matter. Mr Y told the OT that following his illness he regularly attended hospital and needed the ramp to exit and enter the property. Mr Y confirmed that his home was a former housing association property which he now privately owned. Records show the Council’s stance remained the same in that a ramp could not be fitted and a step lift remained the appropriate option. This was again declined by Mr Y.
18. In June 2024 a local councillor and Mr Y’s MP contacted the Council about the matter and its refusal to fit a ramp and asked the Council to review it. A Council manager contacted Mrs X who said a homemade ramp was failing and they needed a solution for Mr Y to exit and enter the house safely. She said the proposed ramp fitted onto a path which was owned by the housing association and nobody used it. The manager said they would look into it.
19. Mrs X provided the Council with a letter from the housing association giving permission for the ramp to be installed. The manager said the Council would seek planning permission for the ramp as although the land was owned by the housing association it was still a public path.
20. Case records show Mrs X chased the matter in October 2024. The manager from the Council apologised for the time taken and acknowledged planning permission could have been requested back in 2023 when the ramp was initially proposed.
21. Records of the planning application show Highways had no concerns and therefore permission for the installation of the ramp was approved in December 2024.
22. The work for the ramp went ahead and was completed in March 2025.
23. Mrs X complained to the Council in March 2025 about the delay in approving and installing Mr Y’s wheelchair ramp. She said the Council had unnecessarily refused to install it in 2023 and the significant period of time without the ramp caused Mr Y upset and distress and meant he could not independently leave the house.
24. The Council responded in May 2025. The Council said following the initial plans for the ramp in 2023 the OT believed it was not possible to proceed due to concerns that it would encroach into public areas. It said it proposed the step lift but this was declined by Mr Y. Following the MP enquiry in 2024 it sought planning permission which led to the works being completed. The Council said in future it would explore planning permission for ramps at an earlier stage. It apologised for the time taken to explore an access solution for Mr Y.
25. Mrs X remained unhappy and complained to us.
26. The Council told us that although the ramp was a more cost-effective solution than the step lift, it believed the ramp would impede and encroach onto a pathway outside Mr Y’s home which a member of the public could access. It therefore required planning permission which the Council decided was not appropriate to pursue at the time. The Council said it maintained that the step lift offered Mr Y an immediate and safe solution which avoided planning complications and presenting any risk to members of the public.
27. The Council said it accepted that it changed its view and installed the ramp following pressure from Mr Y’s MP and a local councillor. It acknowledged external pressure should not influence decision making in future cases.

My findings

28. The referral for support for Mr Y was initially submitted in July 2023 however it was not until March 2025 that a solution was eventually installed. Following the initial referral the evidence shows a ramp was proposed and plans drawn up. However, there was confusion from the Council around whether the ramp would encroach onto a public highway and path and about who owned the land outside Mr Y’s property. So, the OT decided the propose a step lift instead which Mr Y declined. There was no fault in proposing the step lift because this was appropriate and it would have met Mr Y’s needs at the time.
29. Although the Council could have considered planning permission and further enquiries at an earlier stage I have decided on balance that not doing so was not fault. I say this because as explained above the Council ultimately offered an appropriate solution which would have met Mr Y’s needs and it was a professional judgement at the time to propose the step lift over the ramp. Although the Council changed its view following pressure from the MP and local councillor this was ultimately a decision it was entitled to make and not fault.
30. It is clear however that communication with Mr Y and Mrs X about the matter and the reasons for not installing the ramp could have been clearer. Despite the Council’s highways department confirming the area outside Mr Y’s home was not a public highway the OT wrote to Mr Y and told him the ramp could not proceed due to public highway issues. It did not explain the full reasons why it was proposing a step lift instead of the ramp or properly clarify the path issue with Mrs X and Mr Y. This was fault and caused Mrs X and Mr Y frustration and uncertainty, however it is unlikely the outcome would have been any different had the Council acted without fault.
31. This appears to be an isolated case and the Council has already ensured relevant departments will explore the planning permission process in similar circumstances in the future. Given this I have not made further service improvement recommendations.

Back to top

Action

32. Within one month of the final decision the Council agreed to write to Mrs X and Mr Y and apologise for the frustration and uncertainty caused to them by the poor communication arounds its decision to propose a step lift for Mr Y instead of a wheelchair ramp in 2023. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.
33. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

34. I found fault causing injustice and the Council agreed to my recommendation to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman