Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her husband, Mr X, the Council delayed providing home adaptations and implementing his agreed care and support, leaving him without appropriate support and increasing his reliance on his family. There was fault causing injustice. The Council's delays caused avoidable distress, loss of independence and dignity, increased reliance on family members, and prolonged exposure to a risk of harm. The Council agreed recommended actions to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained on behalf of her husband, Mr X, that the Council delayed progressing his Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) application and completing the adaptations required to meet his disability-related needs. She also complained the Council delayed assessing and meeting his eligible Care Act needs, including arranging Direct Payments and implementing his care and support package. She also complained the Council failed to adequately consider interim measures whilst he was waiting for adaptations and support.
2. Mrs X said these delays left Mr X without suitable adaptations and care and support for a prolonged period. She said this affected his dignity, independence and wellbeing, increased his reliance on his wife and family for personal care and day-to-day support, and caused distress, uncertainty and financial loss.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 recommend a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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

5. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. 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

Relevant legislation and guidance

Assessment

7. Sections 9 and 10 of the Care Act 2014 require councils to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. They must provide an assessment to everyone regardless of their finances or whether the council thinks the person has eligible needs. The assessment must be of the adult’s needs and how they impact on their wellbeing and the results they want to achieve. It must also involve the individual and where suitable their carer or any other person they might want involved.
8. Councils must carry out assessments over a suitable and reasonable timescale considering the urgency of needs and any variation in those needs. Councils should tell people when their assessment will take place and keep them informed throughout the assessment.

Care Plan

9. The Care Act 2014 gives councils a legal responsibility to provide a care and support plan (or a support plan for a carer). The care and support plan should consider what needs the person has, what they want to achieve, what they can do by themselves or with existing support and what care and support may be available in the local area. When preparing a care and support plan the council must involve any carer the adult has. The support plan must include a personal budget, which is the money the council has worked out it will cost to arrange the necessary care and support for that person.

Direct payments

10. Direct payments are monetary payments made to individuals who ask for them to meet some or all of their eligible care and support needs. They enable people to arrange their own care and support to meet those needs. The council must ensure people have relevant and timely information about direct payments so they can decide whether to request them. If they do so, the council should support them to use and manage the payment properly.
11. The council must provide interim arrangements to meet care and support needs to cover the period in question. Where accepted, the council should record the decision in the care or support plan. Where refused, the council should explain its decision in writing to the person who made the request. It should also tell the person how to appeal against the decision through the local complaints procedure. (Care and Support Statutory Guidance 2014)

What happened

12. Mr X has significant disabilities and became a full-time wheelchair user.
13. The Council received a referral regarding Mr X's care and support needs in July 2024.
14. An Occupational Therapist assessed Mr X in September 2024. The assessment identified Mr X required major adaptations to enable him to safely access facilities within his home. The Occupational Therapist referred the case to the Council's Housing Adaptations Team to progress a DFG.
15. The Council acknowledged receipt of the referral in October 2024 and advised there were delays due to demand for the service.
16. Mr X and his Member of Parliament sought updates from the Council regarding the lack of progress in the following months.
17. The Council requested updated Occupational Therapy advice in July 2025 because Mr X's circumstances had changed following severe operations. The Occupational Therapist reassessed Mr X and recommended revised adaptations.
18. A Financial Assessment Officer visited Mr X in September 2025. The Council then progressed the case through technical assessment, preparation of plans, planning permission and procurement.
19. The Council allocated Mr X a social worker in May 2025 to assess his Care Act needs.
20. The Council completed a Care Act assessment in July 2025. It assessed Mr X as having eligible care and support needs and later approved a Care and Support Plan and Personal Budget.
21. Mr X complained about delays in both the DFG process and the implementation of his care and support.
22. The Council upheld aspects of Mr X's complaint, apologised for the delays and confirmed steps were being taken to progress both the adaptations and care package.

Analysis and findings

Disabled Facilities Grant

23. Councils are responsible for considering applications for Disabled Facilities Grants and progressing necessary adaptations within a reasonable timescale.
24. The evidence showed the Occupational Therapy team assessed Mr X's needs promptly and referred the case for major adaptations in September 2024. Occupational Therapy remained involved throughout the process, reviewed Mr X's needs when his circumstances changed and updated its recommendations accordingly. The evidence did not indicate fault in the way Occupational Therapy assessed Mr X's needs or made its recommendations.
25. But there was a significant delay before the DFG application progressed. The Council did not allocate the case to a Financial Assessment Officer until September 2025, approximately twelve months after the Occupational Therapy referral.
26. The Council explained this delay resulted from high demand, staffing pressures and limited funding available for Disabled Facilities Grants. Whilst those factors helped explain why delays occurred, they did not remove the Council's responsibility to administer the DFG process within a reasonable timescale. There was fault in the Council's delay progressing Mr X's DFG application.
27. Once the case progressed beyond allocation, the evidence showed the Council took steps to obtain technical assessments, prepare plans, obtain planning permission and progress the adaptation works. Some delay during those later stages resulted from planning and technical processes. There was not sufficient evidence to conclude there was further fault in those later stages of the process.

Interim measures

28. Mrs X also complained the Council failed to consider interim measures whilst Mr X waited for adaptations.
29. The evidence showed Occupational Therapy provided interim equipment, including equipment to support transfers and toileting, reviewed Mr X's needs on several occasions and reassessed the suitability of interim arrangements following changes to his condition. The housing team also sought updated Occupational Therapy advice regarding interim measures during July 2025.
30. Whilst it may have been preferable for the Council to review interim arrangements sooner, the available evidence does not show the Council failed altogether to consider interim support. The investigation does not find separate fault in the Council's consideration of interim measures.

Care Act assessment and Direct Payments

31. The Council completed a Care Act assessment in July 2025 which identified eligible care and support needs.
32. The evidence showed there were delays progressing care planning, approving the Care and Support Plan and implementing Direct Payments. The Council accepted these delays resulted from a combination of sickness absence affecting the allocated social worker, delays in quality assurance, staffing pressures and delays within the Direct Payments process.
33. Whilst those factors explain why the delays occurred, they did not justify Mr X remaining without his agreed care and support for longer than was reasonable after the Council had identified his eligible needs.
34. There was fault in the Council's delay implementing Mr X's care and support package and Direct Payments.

Injustice

35. Mr X has significant disabilities and requires substantial support to meet his daily living needs.
36. The Council's delays meant Mr X remained without suitable home adaptations and his agreed care and support for an extended period. This affected his independence, dignity and wellbeing, increased his reliance on his wife and family members for personal care and day-to-day support, and left him without services intended to enable him to live safely and independently. Whilst the evidence does not show the delays caused identifiable physical injury, they exposed Mr X to an increased risk of harm by leaving him without adaptations and care intended to support his safety and independence.
37. Mr X and his wife also experienced avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty whilst repeatedly pursuing progress with both the DFG application and care arrangements.
38. Mrs X also provided evidence of additional expenditure which she says resulted from the delays. Whilst it is recognised the family incurred additional costs during this period, I cannot conclude all the claimed expenditure was directly caused by the Council's fault. The overall impact of the delays was considered when recommending a symbolic payment. The Council should invite Mrs X to submit receipts or other evidence of any reasonable additional expenses she says were incurred as a direct result of the delays and consider whether those costs should be reimbursed.

Back to top

Action

39. Within one month of our final decision, the Council should agree to:
• Apologise to Mr and Mrs X for the injustice caused by the faults identified. 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.
• Pay £1000 to Mr X to recognise the distress, uncertainty, time and trouble and risk of harm. In recommending a higher symbolic payment, I have taken account of the nature of the delays, Mr X's particular vulnerability, and the fact the fault left him without services intended to reduce the risk of harm and support his independence
• The Council should invite Mrs X to submit receipts or other evidence of any reasonable additional expenses she says were incurred as a direct result of the delays. The Council should consider that evidence and reimburse any reasonable costs it agrees were directly attributable to its fault. If it decides not to reimburse any claimed expense, it should explain its reasons.
40. Within three months of our final decision, the Council should agree to:
• Review how it monitors lengthy DFG cases awaiting allocation to ensure applicants with significant disabilities receive appropriate oversight and timely progression.
41. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

42. I find fault causing injustice. The Council agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman