Summary: There was fault in the way the Council initially assessed and recorded Miss X’s child Y’s needs for a toilet adaptation which caused an avoidable delay. There was also fault in the Council’s initial communication with Miss X. The Council made its subsequent decision to approve only one adaptation without fault. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment to Miss X to recognise the frustration and uncertainty the faults caused Y and Miss X.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council:
1. refused to approve two “wash and dry” toilets for her disabled child Y;
2. occupational therapist did not properly assess Y and the Council ignored evidence from professionals about his complex needs;
3. failed to communicate clearly with her about what adaptations it had approved; and,
4. delayed providing evidence required by the wheelchair services to provide a new wheelchair for Y.
2. Miss X said as a result she continues to face challenges in meeting Y’s needs properly and the Council’s decision has worsened her mental health.

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 suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. We do not need to show any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by an organisation to say service failure (fault) has occurred. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(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 spoke to Miss X about her complaint.
9. I considered evidence provided by the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Miss 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 law and guidance

11. Under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, councils can award Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG) to people whose disability means their home needs adaptation to meet their essential needs and to allow them to continue living safely and independently. If the person applying meets the qualifying criteria the council must award the grant.
12. Councils only approve grants for work they decide is necessary and appropriate to meet the needs of the disabled person/child. An occupational therapist usually assesses need. It must also be satisfied it is reasonable and practicable to carry out the works given the condition of the property to be adapted.
13. A council should decide a grant application as soon as reasonably practicable. This must be within six months of the date of the application.
14. The government guidance for DFG funded adaptations sets out timescales for completing the whole DFG process. The timescales are 130 days for complex and urgent work and 180 days for complex and non-urgent work.
15. 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 self-fund home adaptations for council tenants through this account. The same applies to applications from tenants living in dwellings managed by an Arms-Length Management Organisation (ALMO) but owned by the local authority. This is because councils cannot use government funding to adapt their own properties.

The Council’s Housing Revenue Account Homes Adaption Policy

16. For major adaptations within council homes, funding is provided within the Housing Revenue Account (HRA), rather than using Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) which is available to people living in privately owned, rented or Housing Association properties. The Council follows the legislation applied to its DFG adaptation policy whereby a maximum limit of £30000 is available to fund a major adaptation.
17. Major adaptation works will be considered where they are assessed as being necessary and appropriate and where it is reasonable and practicable to carry out the works having “regard to the age and condition” of the property and where there are other alternative housing options available.
18. The policy sets out that occupational therapists (OTs) are responsible for assessing cases where the applicant has a disability. The OT will provide advice and recommend the most appropriate adaptation solution along with approximate costs.
19. The Council has a waiting list due to demand for adaptations and limited funding from HRA. Major adaptation cases are defined in two categories: “Priority” cases (applicants with exceptionally high-risk circumstances, palliative diagnosis, fast progressive medical conditions and whose hospital discharge is delayed without adaptation) and “Standard” cases (cases that do not fit into the definition of priority cases).
20. Within the Standard category, each case has an individual risk rating attached to it, as defined by the Occupational Therapist, which is considered when managing the waiting list. Waiting times also vary according to the size and complexity of the work.

What happened

21. This section sets out the key events of this complaint and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
22. Miss X’s child Y has special educational needs. Y lives with Miss X in a council property.
23. In May 2024 Y’s social worker referred Y to the Council’s occupational therapist (OT) for a home safety assessment. The referral form noted that Y was fully mobile, needed support in all areas of self-care, and their behaviours put them at risk of significant injury from falls in the bathroom. The OT accepted Y’s referral in the same month and noted that Y needed a home safety assessment to understand their support needs. It also noted that there was an extensive waiting list meaning it could take 12-18 months for any OT intervention to begin.
24. In January 2025 the Council OT completed a home safety assessment and assessed that Y needed support with toileting with a plan to provide a wash and dry toilet. The OT noted in the assessment that Y’s current bath was unsafe for them to use to access the shower, and that there was a risk of falls. The OT also recorded that Y’s needs meant that they often flooded the bathroom floor which added to the risk of falls. The OT recorded that a wet room would provide a safe environment and a wash and dry option for toileting would help Y with their toileting routine and cultural needs. The OT also recorded that they would complete a risk assessment.
25. In April 2025 the Council OT made a major adaptation request for adaptations and noted Y’s priority as “standard”. The adaptations included a “bio bidet” seat (an equipment which is attached to the existing toilet and provides a wash and dry function). The request form noted Y’s cultural needs around toileting and that Y enjoyed the sensation of water which often caused the bathroom to flood. The OT noted that a bio bidet toilet seat could provide the wash and dry facility to complete Y’s hygiene routine safely and in line with their cultural needs and was a less expensive option than a wash and dry toilet. The OT ordered the bio bidet toilet.
26. Miss X contacted the Council OT in May 2025 about adaptations to the downstairs toilet in addition to the upstairs toilet as she had previously requested both, and about needing a supporting letter for NHS wheelchair services. Records showed that the OT noted that it was unlikely that two toilets would be funded but they would discuss this with the senior OT.
27. The OT emailed Miss X later in May 2025 to say that the Council would fund only one wash and dry bio bidet seat as Y could manage stairs so they were expected to use the upstairs toilet if Miss X wanted them to use the bio bidet. The OT noted that this may be a good opportunity to toilet train Y using the standard toilet downstairs so that they had both options available. The OT said they would provide a supporting letter for a new wheelchair.
28. Soon after Miss X complained to the Council about its decision to provide only one adapted toilet and that there was no proper assessment or trial to ensure the bio bidet option was suitable for Y’s needs. Miss X felt the Council’s decision was based on financial grounds rather than an assessment of Y’s needs. Miss X said that the OT had failed to properly consider Y’s complex needs as outlined in evidence from Y’s sensory assessment.
29. Miss X also said the OT had failed to communicate what adaptations had been approved; she found out that only one toilet would be approved after someone came to survey her home for building work. She also complained that she contacted the Council OT for a supporting letter for Y’s wheelchair referral on many occasions but did not receive a response.
30. In early June 2025 a senior OT responded to Miss X and said:

• Y was able to manage stairs so there was no justification to fit bio bidets on both floors. The senior OT said that the Council made decisions considering what was reasonable and justifiable, and part of this was considering what was cost effective as well as ensuring that the adaptation met the needs of the disabled child.
• Y’s OT had acted within the timeframes that were expected from them, and the adaptations process takes time – it has multiple stages involving multiple departments and screening processes to ensure the work is necessary appropriate to meet individual’s needs, reasonable and practicable and within the framework of the Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) work and funding.
• The Council was unable to reallocate Y’s case to another OT at that time but it could reallocate when a new OT became available but this would add a significant delay as the Council had no OTs immediately available to pick up Y’s case.
• They had spoken to Y’s OT who would talk to Y’s school to understand how Y was managing toileting in school to further inform their assessment of Y’s needs.

31. In June 2025 the Council OT visited Y’s school. Notes of the visit recorded the OT’s discussed Y’s toileting with Y’s teacher. The OT recorded Y used the available standard toilet in school and needed adult supervision when toileting. The OT recorded that there was no clinical need for a second bio bidet downstairs.
32. In early July 2025 the Council issued a stage one complaint response. In it the Council apologised for the delay in providing supporting information for Y’s NHS wheelchair referral. The Council said it had sent this supporting letter in late July 2025. It also apologised for delays and gaps in communication and stated that moving forwards, Y’s OT would follow up all key communications in writing via email.
33. The Council explained that assessments for wash and dry toilets were conducted in showroom settings where appropriate for the child. In Y’s case, it said it did not consider a showroom assessment due to the risk of Y absconding alongside them having to visit a new place with people they did not know. Therefore Y’s previous OT made a decision to visit Y in their school to speak with staff involved in Y’s daily care to understand their toileting needs. The Council said its OT took appropriate action, considering Y’s challenges and cultural needs. It said the OT ordered the bio bidet in March 2025 to avoid any delays and that this adaptation could be reviewed once in place.
34. Miss X remained unhappy and asked the Council to escalate her complaint.
35. In September 2025 the Council issued a stage two complaint response. In it the Council apologised for the delay of over eight weeks in providing a supporting letter regarding Y’s NHS wheelchair referral.
36. It said Y’s OT had visited Miss X’s home in January and March 2025 and had undertaken an assessment during their visit in January 2025. The Council confirmed that there would be no separate toilet assessment or trial as Y’s needs had not changed. The Council said it was satisfied that it had completed a full assessment along with a follow-up home visit and a visit to Y’s school which was sufficient for it to make an informed decision regarding the toilet adaptation.
37. It said the approval of one toilet was in line with the criteria for children to have access to basic facilities as per the principles of the Disabled Facilities Grant. it acknowledged that having only one adapted toilet would provide an additional challenge which it considered could be supported through additional support to enable Y to prepare and adjust to a new routine.
38. The Council said Miss X declined to proceed with the adaptations in September 2025 as she was unhappy with the proposed plan. She complained to us soon after.
39. In late September 2025 the Council allocated a new OT to Y’s case who spoke with Miss X the following month. The notes record the new OT told Miss X that funding was for access to basic facilities, so households usually had to choose which toilet to adapt if they had more than one. Miss X said this would not work due to Y’s challenging behaviours. The OT discussed other options/activities to meet Y’s sensory needs. They also discussed Miss X taking Y to trial a wash and dry toilet to see how they responded to it. Miss X took Y for a trial in November 2025 which was successful.
40. In December 2025 the OT carried out a home visit and recorded that a wash and dry toilet was feasible. The OT also recorded that they would revise the bathroom adaptations plan to include a wash and dry toilet.
41. In January 2026 the OT sent a revised request for major adaptations for one wash and dry toilet, and to adapt the bathroom to provide wet room as previously planned. The “Priority” section of the request form stated: “Please can this progress without further delay, as had previously waited for work and then paused for review following complaint.” The work has not yet started.

The Council’s response to our enquiries

42. In response to our enquiries the Council sent us case records made between May 2025 to July 2026. The case records showed communication between Miss X and the Council OT in June and July 2026 about the progress of the wash and dry toilet order and approximate timescales regarding the booking and start of the work.
43. The Council told us its decision to approve one wash and dry provision was consistent with the principles of the DFG and was sufficient, based on the assessment information currently available, to enable Y to access a suitable toilet. Y is independently mobile and the assessment indicated that they can use the stairs within their home to access the toilet upstairs. It recognised that Y may need preparation and support to adjust to a new routine and it had offered support to help with this. It also said that it could review its decision if Y’s needs changed or if further evidence indicated that one provision was not meeting Y’s needs.
44. The Council said its available records did not evidence why a bio bidet toilet was initially selected or why a showroom trial for a wash and dry toilet was not considered earlier. In a later review, the Council OT’s professional view was that the bio bidet equipment would not have been robust and appropriate for Y’s needs due to their behavioural concerns, and that a wash and dry toilet system was more suitable for Y’s needs.
45. The Council said while it delayed providing a supporting letter to the NHS wheelchair services, for which it apologised, Y did not meet the NHS wheelchair eligibility criteria in the end, and Miss X was signposted to explore charity funding options.

Analysis

The Disabled Facilities Grant process

46. The Council said the adaptations in Y’s case are being funded by the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) but with the principles of the Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). If the Council is treating the HRA process with the DFG principles, then the timescales according to government guidance on DGF, are for it to make a decision as soon as reasonably possible and within six months of the application.
47. Y was referred for an OT assessment for in May 2024 and then placed on the OT waiting list the same month, with the Council noting that it had an extensive waiting list for OT intervention. The OT did not assess Y until eight months later in January 2025. This delay was significantly beyond the recommended timescales set by government guidance and was fault. While we acknowledge that the reason for this delay was due to the Council’s extensive waiting list for OT intervention, we can still find fault where the Council failed to provide a service even if the reason for that failure was beyond its control.

The Council’s initial Occupational Therapist Assessment

48. The Council initially approved one bio bidet seat (an equipment which fits on to the existing toilet); Miss X wanted a wash and dry toilet system.
49. The Council did not record why it did not consider a showroom trial for a wash and dry toilet system in its initial assessment or why it decided a bio bidet toilet was suitable for Y’s needs. The Council’s poor recording of why it made these decisions was fault and leaves doubt over the decisions it made at that time and whether they were based on what was necessary and appropriate or were overly influenced by cost.
50. The Council told us that upon further review it accepted a bio bidet toilet would not have been a suitable option for Y, and it approved a wash and dry toilet in December 2025 after Miss X took Y to a showroom for trial. In the absence of records and based on the Council’s later decision on further review, I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the Council did not properly assess Y initially which was fault. In addition to the delay in Y’s OT assessment, the Council’s fault in its initial OT assessment added an additional and avoidable delay to the DFG process. This has left Y without a suitable toilet for longer than they would have been had the initial assessment correctly identified Y’s need for a wash and dry toilet system.

The Council’s decision to approve one wash and dry toilet

51. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
52. The Council approved one wash and dry toilet instead of two, in line with the principles of the DFG to provide adaptations to meet essential needs. Evidence showed that the Council considered information from Miss X and other professionals about Y’s needs and explained that Y was independently mobile and able to use the stairs to access a suitable toilet. It offered support to help Y to prepare and adapt to their new routine. It said it would revisit its decision if Y’s needs changed or if there was further evidence to show that one toilet was not meeting Y’s needs. The Council followed the appropriate procedures and guidance when making its decision to approve only one provision and there was no evidence of fault in the way it reached this decision.

The Council’s communication

53. The Council accepted its earlier communication with Miss X about the adaptations was not clear which was fault. It apologised for this fault. Records of the Council’s further communication with Miss X with the new OT showed that it updated Miss X of the progress of proposed works and provided information it had access to about timescales for works to start. There was no further fault in the Council’s communication with Miss X.

Wheelchair services

54. The Council accepted that it delayed providing evidence in support of Y’s NHS wheelchair application. The NHS wheelchair services decided that Y was not eligible for an NHS wheelchair. Therefore, this delay did not cause Y a significant injustice, but it did cause Miss X some frustration. The Council has already apologised which was an appropriate remedy for the frustration this caused her.

Service improvements

55. The Council provided us with evidence of a plan it has put in place since Miss X’s complaint to improve its recordkeeping and to tackle delays from rising OT referral rate. I do not consider that further service improvement recommendations are needed to prevent recurrence of similar faults.

Back to top

Action

56. Within one month of this decision the Council will apologise and pay Miss X £1,000 for the avoidable frustration caused by its delays and failure to carry out a proper initial assessment of her child Y’s toileting needs. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council will consider this guidance in making the apology.
57. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

58. I found fault causing injustice and the Council agreed actions to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman