Summary: Ms X complains the Council has not completed the agreed adaptations to her home following a previous Ombudsman investigation in 2024. There is continuing fault causing injustice because the Council has not progressed the agreed works within appropriate timescales. The resulting delay is significant and has affected Ms X’s ability to use her home in a way that meets her needs. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment, and take action to improve its service.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has failed to complete agreed disability adaptations to her home, despite the Ombudsman’s final decision in July 2024, and has not responded to her subsequent contact.
2. She says the delay has significantly worsened her health and wellbeing. She reports she is often unable to leave her home, particularly when the lift is unusable, leaving her effectively housebound. This has caused loss of independence, isolation, and increased anxiety and depression.
3. Ms X wants the Council to complete the agreed adaptations without further delay, provide a clear written timetable with regular updates, apologise for the impact of the delay, pay an appropriate financial remedy, and ensure staff receive training in line with the Ombudsman’s previous recommendations.

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. 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

What I have and have not investigated

6. The LGSCO’s Investigation Manual says we should agree a clear scope for the investigation of a complaint. Where there are ongoing issues, we should specify an end date beyond which we will not investigate. This is usually no later than the date when the complaint was submitted to us and may well be earlier.
7. Ms X previously complained to the LGSCO in January 2024 about her request for adaptations. The previous investigation found fault in the Council’s handling of Ms X’s request. In particular, the Council took too long to reach a decision, failed to properly consider and explore all available adaptation options with Ms X, and wrongly refused works after considering irrelevant factors. This resulted in Ms X remaining in accommodation that did not meet her needs and experiencing avoidable distress and difficulty.
8. To avoid re-investigating issues which were considered as part of the earlier investigation, the start point of this investigation will be July 2024. Although Ms X made a complaint to the Ombudsman in September 2025, which would usually be the end point of our investigation, I have exercised discretion to investigate matters to the present day. This is because I find it unreasonable to refer Ms X back to the Council to deal with matters for a third time due to the ongoing nature of the fault and injustice and her vulnerabilities as a disabled person.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Ms 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 adaptations

11. Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG) are provided under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Councils have a statutory duty to give grants to disabled people for certain adaptations. These include enabling the disabled person to access their home and essential facilities within the home, like bathrooms, bedrooms, and kitchens.
12. Statutory guidance says eligible council tenants can apply for a DFG in the same way as any other applicant. However local housing authorities with a Housing Revenue Account (HRA) should fund home adaptations for council tenants through this account.
13. The court has said that applications for DFGs from council tenants should be considered on the same basis as those from other residents. (McKeown, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Islington [2020] EWHC 779 (Admin))
14. Government guidance (Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) Delivery: Guidance for local authorities in England 2022) sets out expected timescales for progressing an application and completing the works. This gives the following timescales:
• Urgent and simple works – 55 working days
• Non-urgent and simple works – 130 working days
• Urgent and complex works – 130 days
• Non-urgent and complex works – 180 working days

What happened

15. Ms X is a Council tenant who has several health conditions affecting her mobility. Following completion of our previous investigation, the Council agreed to take several actions to consider adapting Ms X’s home. This included arranging a meeting with Ms X, an Occupational Therapist (OT), and a project officer or surveyor to fully explore all viable adaptation options and then to make a fresh decision on what works were necessary, appropriate, reasonable and practicable. The Council also agreed to progress a step-lift to improve Ms X’s access into and out of her property.
16. Records show the Council arranged a joint visit involving an OT and a design professional in July 2024, followed by a further meeting with Ms X in August to discuss proposed options. In September the Council identified a preferred scheme: a ground floor extension to provide a bedroom and bathroom for Ms X.
17. In October 2024 the Council sought planning permission for the proposed ground floor extension. Planning permission was granted in December 2024. The OT then completed another assessment of Ms X’s functional abilities in January 2025. The assessment concluded that Ms X needed some minor adaptations to ensure safe access to her kitchen and bathroom.
18. In March 2025 Ms X contacted the Council to express frustration due to the ongoing delays with completing the agreed step lift. The OT responded to explain the reasons for the delays. They said the Council continued to wait for quotes from utility companies to move a gas pipe and electric cable. The OT said those quotes were due by the end of March.
19. The Council arranged for the installation of the step lift in May 2025 following the relocation of the gas pipe and electricity cable. Shortly after, Ms X contacted the Council to express frustration that contractors had not re-installed her gate following the works. Ms X also said she was still waiting to receive a timeline for the agreed extension.
20. In response to the second point, the Council told Ms X that it was waiting for a ground survey “… to check if there are any caves below the area that we are looking to build on. There have been caves found below properties in the area that you live in”.
21. In October 2025 the OT visited Ms X’s property in response to a report of water pooling on the recently installed lift. The Council arranged for remedial work to take place between November 2025 and January 2026. It says that Ms X did not report any further problems with the step lift after this point.
22. After identifying a suitable contractor to complete the ground floor extension, the Council made contact in November 2025 in an attempt to confirm a start date. On 28 November 2025 the OT emailed Ms X to explain the contractor had not confirmed a start date due to their workload and competing demands.
23. The Council provided another update in early January 2026, repeating a similar message. At the end of January 2026, the contractor told the Council they could no longer complete the works. The records show the Council tried to call Ms X in early February 2026 to provide an update, but there was no answer.
24. The Council arranged a meeting on 12 February 2026 to consider ways to speed up the process following the contractor’s decision to withdraw. The Council agreed to move forward with obtaining another quote and arranged an appointment on 4 March 2026 with a prospective contractor.
25. On 28 April 2026 the Council arranged a ground works survey which identified no issues.
26. Around this time, the Council said Ms X may need to temporarily move out of her property to allow for the building works to progress safely. The Council explained this was to allow building material to be transported through the house. The Council also explained there was nowhere on site for welfare facilities to be situated, so contractors would need to use the kitchen and bathroom in the property.
27. The Council held a further meeting in May 2026 and confirmed that Ms X would need to move temporarily due to the constraints of the site. It also agreed to visit Ms X to discuss next steps and set expectations. This visit took place on 11 June 2026. While Ms X initially declined to move, she later agreed to stay with a family member if necessary. The Council then agreed to carry out an assessment to identify any minor adjustments needed to meet Ms X’s needs during the temporary arrangement.
28. When responding to our enquiries in mid-June 2026, the Council explained the contract for the works was due to be signed imminently with a start date for the works likely to be July or August 2026.

Was there fault causing injustice to Ms X?

29. Government guidance on Disabled Facilities Grants indicates that, even for non‑urgent and complex cases, councils should normally progress from assessment through to completion of works within around 180 working days. While this is not a statutory deadline, it is suggested as a reasonable timescale.
30. In Ms X’s case, the Council took over a year to allocate a project officer and a further period to reach a decision, which we previously found to be fault. Since then, there has been further delay in progressing the agreed works, such that several years have now passed without the necessary adaptations being installed. Some factors contributing to the delay are outside the Council’s direct control, for example the first contractor’s decision to withdraw. However, this does not remove the Council’s overall responsibility for progressing the works
31. Our Remedies Guidance is clear that cases like this, where a person has been without adaptations over time, are treated as loss of service. The financial remedy we recommend is a monthly symbolic payment reflecting the impact of that loss.
    For housing adaptations, the guidance says that where someone has been deprived of adaptations which would improve independence and daily life, we will usually recommend £150 to £350 per month, depending on severity.
32. In our previous decision we recommended £250 for each month during which Ms X did not have access to both the step lift and downstairs bedroom and bathroom which she needed. The records show the Council eventually arranged installation of the step lift in May 2025. We therefore recommend a further payment of £250 for each month between August 2024 and May 2025. This amounts to a payment of £2500 for this period.
33. Between June 2025 and June 2026, Ms X remained without access to the adaptations needed to meet her downstairs living needs. While the Council offered interim measures, such as a commode and a temporary downstairs bedroom, these did not fully address her needs. The delay in completing the works caused Ms X avoidable injustice. We recommend a further remedy of £150 per month which amounts to £1950 for the period May 2025 onwards.

Back to top

Action

34. Within four weeks of the date of this decision, the Council has agreed to:
• apologise to Ms X for the ongoing delays and pay £4450 to recognise the impact of the reduced living facilities she has experienced since July 2024.
• we publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• if building works do not commence as planned by August 2026, the Council should make an additional payment of £150 per month for a maximum of six months to reflect any continuing injustice.
35. The Council previously agreed to take steps to improve its decision making in relation to DFG adaptations. However, the continued delay in progressing agreed works shows a further need to improve the Council’s management and delivery of adaptations following approval. The Council will therefore, within three months of the date of this decision, take the following action to improve its service:
• put in place a system to actively monitor the progress of adaptation works after a decision has been made, including clear deadlines and escalation arrangements when delays happen.
36. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

37. I find fault causing injustice. The Council will complete the above actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman