Summary: There is no evidence of fault by the Council in this complaint. The Council properly assessed Mr X’s needs and completed necessary adaption works to allow him to access the front and rear of his property. The Council also arranged to re-hang the rear door, but Mr X declined the offer.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that adaptation works the Council completed to his property under a disabled facilities grant does not allow him to access his back door due to the proximity to the area where he stores his mobility scooter, and,
2. The Council has refused to re-hang the back door to resolve the problem as it inaccurately considers the issue to be one of storage rather than an access issue.
3. Adaptations the Council made to Mr X’s former home made it unsaleable.

Back to top

What I have investigated

4. I have only considered points 1 & 2. I have explained the reason at the end of this statement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have:

• considered the complaint and discussed it with Mr X
• considered information the Council submitted to this office
• taken account of relevant legislation
• offered Mr X and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft of this document.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation

8. Local housing authorities have a duty under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 to award a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) to help meet the cost of adapting a property to meet the specific needs of a disabled person.
9. Owner-occupiers, council tenants and private tenants, among others, can apply to the council for a DFG to make their home more accessible.
10. DFGs must be used to meet the cost of adapting a property to meet specific needs, for example providing ramps, installing a lift, or adapting/providing accessible washing facilities.
11. Councils should consult social services to decide whether proposed works are “necessary and appropriate”.
12. It is not mandatory for the OT assessment to be provided by the social care service; private contractors are also acceptable. Councils will usually expect an OT assessment as part of the application. They may also require other information to determine whether works are appropriate.

What happened

13. Mr X has cerebral palsy and other physical health issues. He uses an electric wheelchair inside and outside of his home.
14. In 2019 Mr X needed to move from a home he owned because it was unsuitable for his needs and adaptations were not possible. The Council’s assessment shows Mr X had specific accommodations needs. Mr X told the Council it was important that any future accommodation had indoor space to store his mobility scooter. The Council did not consider this essential and said it would not consider it a priority when allocating accommodation.
15. Mr X was offered accommodation from a housing association. Before accepting the property, a bungalow, Mr X viewed the property along with an Occupational Therapist (OT), and an officer from the Council’s Home Improvement Agency (HIA) to establish the suitability of the bungalow and assess the adaptions needed to meet Mr X’s specific needs. As an essential wheelchair user, access and storage for Mr X’s electric wheelchair was essential. Adaptations to the property were completed before Mr X moved in in December 2019, this included a ramp to the rear of the property to allow access for Mr X’s electric wheelchair.
16. After moving into the property, Mr X raised concerns about the height of a bathroom seat. The Council arranged a joint visit by an OT and officer from the HIA. During the visit Mr X demonstrated that he was able to access the rear of his property in his electric wheelchair. However, he was unhappy that he was unable to access his home when using his mobility scooter and that he had no space to store it indoors.
17. Officers told Mr X they did not consider this essential and such adaptions could not be funded under a DFG. Officer offered to contact the housing association on Mr X’s behalf to ask for permission for an outside storage unit for his mobility scooter. Mr X declined this offer, saying he wanted his scooter stored indoors.
18. Mr X submitted a formal complaint to the Council in January 2020, saying he had no indoor access and storage space for his mobility scooter, and he wanted the Council to fit double doors like that of his neighbour. He said the rear door to his property had been incorrectly measured and prevented him accessing his property on his mobility scooter. The Council reminded Mr X the rear door access was for his electric wheelchair not his mobility scooter. The Council considered Mr X’s request for double doors a new request and arranged for an officer from the HIA to visit Mr X, along with a surveyor.
19. The visit took place on 28 January 2020. Mr X asked that the rear door be replaced with double doors and that the ramp in situ be altered. The officers agreed to the changes.
20. An officer from the HIA visited Mr X again on 11 February 2020 to discuss the changes. Mr X told the officer he no longer wanted the work to the rear door completed and asked that double doors and a ramp be installed to the front of the property.
21. The HIA officer made a referral to the OT. Following a further OT assessment, the works were approved and completed in July 2020, funded by a DFG. This significantly increased the internal floor space, which allowed Mr X to access the front of his property in his electric wheelchair.
22. Mr X complained to the Council, saying that when he stored his mobility scooter indoors, he had difficulty opening his rear door. He asked the Council to rehang the rear door so it opened outwards. Initially the Council declined saying the purpose of the changes was to enable Mr X to access the front of his property in his electric wheelchair, not his mobility scooter. It reiterated its advice, that Mr X should obtain outside storage for his mobility scooter, and said he was able to safely access his property from the front and rear and it considered his essential needs met and input from the OT would end.
23. Mr X was dissatisfied and complained to the Council. The Council maintained its position.
24. As part of my investigation, I asked the Council the basis for its refusal to re-hang the rear door so that it opened outwards. It responded saying, “The Housing Manager at Housing Solutions has confirmed that an offer was made to re-hang the door but [Mr X] then advised that he didn’t want the work doing. An order for the work to be done was placed, then [Mr X] refused it so the order was cancelled”.
25. Mr X says he has now purchased outside storage for his mobility scooter.

Back to top

Final decision

26. There is no evidence of fault by the Council. It properly assessed Mr X’s needs and completed necessary adaptations works to allow him to access the front and rear of his property. The Council also arranged to re-hang the rear door, but Mr X declined the offer.
27. It is on this basis; the complaint will be closed.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

28. This office previously considered a complaint from Mr X about the adaptations carried out to his former home (17003 695). We will not reconsider these matters.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman