Summary: Mr X complained the Council installed an unsafe ramp in the entrance of the block where he lives. He said the Council caused delays in changing the ramp and its handling of his complaint. As a result, Mr X said he and Mrs Y experienced distress and had time and trouble to get the Council to put things right. There was not enough evidence to show the ramp was unsafe. However, the Council was at fault for its delays in properly considering Mrs Y’s difficulties with the ramp and its complaints handling. It has agreed to make payment to Mr X to acknowledge the distress, uncertainty and time and trouble this caused them.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complained about the Council’s installation of a wheelchair ramp in the entrance of the block where he and his wife, Mrs Y, lives. He said it:
• failed to consult with him before installing the ramp;
• installed the ramp poorly and with bad workmanship and
• caused delays in its handing of his complaint and make the necessary changes so the ramp was suitable for Mrs Y.
2. As a result, Mr X said Mrs Y experienced distress due to the discomfort and pain caused by the ramp. He also said he experienced distress from the delays and time and trouble to get the Council to put things right.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated the issues Mr X raised about the suitability of the ramp and how the Council handled his concerns from April 2019 to December 2020.
4. I have not considered the actions the Council took, as a landlord, to consult with residents before installing the ramp. The reasons for this are set out in the last section of this statement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
6. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
7. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of housing let on a long lease by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5B, schedule 5, as amended)
8. 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

9. As part of my investigation, I have:
• considered Mr X’s complaint to the Council and its responses;
• discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered the information he provided;
• considered the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries; and
• given Mr X and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision and consider their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Law and policy

Care needs assessments

10. The Care Act 2014 (the Act) says where a council is aware a person may have needs for care and support, it must assess the person’s needs. It must also assess the impact of the person’s needs, the outcomes the person wishes to achieve and whether the provision of care and support could help achieve those outcomes.
11. The Act says where a person refuses a needs assessment, a council is not required to carry out the assessment.

Duty to make reasonable adjustments

12. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010. It applies to any body which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people. When the duty arises, the body is under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must be made.

Council’s Complaints Policy

13. The Council’s policy says it aims to resolve complaints informally at the first point of contact. If this does not resolve the matter, its formal complaints process consists of two stages:
• Stage one: says it will investigate and respond to complaints within 15 working days.
• Stage two: says if a complainant remains dissatisfied, a different senior manager will investigate and respond within 20 working days. If the investigation requires more time, the complainant will be informed, and an explanation will given.

What happened

14. Mr X lives in a Council managed flat with his wife, Mrs Y.
15. In early 2019 the Council told the residents in Mr X’s block of flats it was wanted to put in a door opener system, lower the door and install a small ramp to allow for wheelchair access. The Council says it did not receive any objections to its proposal.
16. In April 2019, the Council installed the ramp.
17. Mr X was unhappy with the size and type of ramp the Council had installed. He asked it to remove the ramp and replace it with a small doorstep ramp. He also said:
• the ramp was causing pain and distress to Mrs Y because of her health conditions.
• The handrail was attached to the earth and not the concrete path, which will make it unstable over time; and
• It was not flat and was therefore a tripping hazard.
18. In response the Council offered Mrs Y an assessment with its Occupational Therapist (OT). Mrs Y did not want a formal assessment, but she did explain how the ramp was causing her distress.
19. The OT and the Council’s Technician visited the block to assess what changes were needed to address Mr X’s concerns about the impact the ramp had on Mrs Y. They considered extending the side of the ramp to allow for level access with a step at the top of the ramp. And so, the OT told Mr X the Council’s plan.
20. Mr X said, as the Council had lowered the door, a small ramp at the base of the door would be enough to allow for wheelchair access, He again asked the Council to remove the ramp as it was causing Mrs Y pain and distress.
21. The OT told Mr X the Council would not remove the ramp as it was necessary to meet the needs of another resident. She also said she could not provide more information about this due to Data Protection. And so, she explained its plan would meet the needs of both the other resident and Mrs Y.
22. Mr X was not happy with the Council’s decision. In May 2019, he asked it to consider his complaint as set out in its complaints policy. He also asked his local MP to consider his concerns that the work was unnecessary and a waste of money.
23. The OT acknowledged Mr X’s complaint and told him the Council’s Disability and Home Improvement’s (DHIT) manager would respond to him.
24. Two weeks later, Mr X said workers were taking measurements at the ramp. He told the Council he had an active complaint, and he would not expect any works to take place until this was resolved.
25. In response the OT told Mr X the Council’s Technician has visited the block to consider feasibility of its plan, but it had not planned any work at this stage. She also said it would respond to his complaint.
26. Mr X asked the Council to respond to his complaint two more times and made calls to its DHIT manager.
27. A month after Mr X made his complaint, the Council’s DHIT surveyor called him and arranged for them to meet to discuss the ramp issue.
28. However, due to other priorities, the DHIT Surveyor could not meet Mr X at the agreed time. So, he asked Mr X to meet him the following week.
29. Mr X was unhappy the Surveyor cancelled. He told the Council Mrs Y’s needs were not taken seriously and said he would remove the ramp himself.
30. The Council’s Surveyor asked its Tenancy Services Officer to speak with Mr X. He explained the Council’s plans and what he understood to be Mr X’s concerns about the ramp. He also explained Mr X’s and Mrs Y’s privacy concerns.
31. The Officer spoke with Mr X and explained why the works to the ramp was necessary to meet both Mrs Y’s and the other resident’s needs. Mr X told the Officer the soft ramp material was not suitable for Mrs Y’s health conditions and it therefore needed to be a more robust ramp surface. And so, the Officer told the Surveyor what Mr X had said.
32. Mr X continued to ask the Surveyor to meet before the works started, but no meeting took place.
33. In July 2019, the side of the ramp was extended, and a step access was installed. The material used for the ramp surface and the step did not change. Mr X complained to his local MP and to the Council again. He said:
• the Council did not properly consult with the resident of the block before installing the ramp;
• the Council had failed to respond to his request and had handled his concerns poorly;
• the ramp caused and continued to cause pain and distress to Mrs Y;
• Mrs Y is a private person and the extension to the ramp had drawn attention to her needs; and
• the ramp it had installed was a waste of money.
34. The Council responded to the MP and explained the works that it had completed to meet the other residents needs. It said when Mr X raised concerns, it had offered an assessment with its OT, but Mrs Y had declined this. It therefore acted on the information it had and completed the amendments to the ramp in July 2019. And so, the MP shared the Council’s response with Mr X.
35. In August 2019, Mr X told the Council its response to the MP was inaccurate and asked again to remove the ramp because of the impact it had on Mrs Y.
36. The Council’s Senior Operations Manager visited Mr X. He told Mr X it would not remove the ramp as it met the needs of another resident in the block. He said an OT assessment was needed for Mrs Y, but due to her privacy concerns an informal OT assessment would be arranged.
37. The Council’s DHIT manager and an OT inspected the ramp and spoke with Mr X. They acknowledged the ramp was causing Mrs Y some considerable difficulties. They said a building surveyor would inspect to decide if the ramp should be removed and be replaced by a paved incline instead.
38. A month later, the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint. It said:
• it had sent letters to residents of the block before the ramp was installed. However, it acknowledged the letter had not explained the adaptations clearly and apologised for this;
• when Mr X told it about Mrs Y’s issues with the ramp, it had offered her an OT assessment, but she declined this. And so, it had acted on the information it had received; and
• it had visited Mr X in the autumn and discussed Mrs Y’s accessibility issues and its surveyor had inspected in November 2019. As a result, its plan was to replace the ramp with a paved incline. However, as planning permission may be required, this could take up to three months to complete.
39. Mr X remained unhappy with the Council’s handling of his concerns and asked the Council to consider his complaint under its stage two complaints process.
40. In response the Council said it would update Mr X on the planned works and it would respond to his complaint.
41. In late 2019 and early 2020, the Council updated Mr X on the planned works. It completed the paved incline in February 2020.
42. Mr X was happy with the completed works. However, he remains unhappy about the Council’s handing of the ramp issue. He said it had taken it 10 months to resolve the issue and Mrs Y had experienced pain and distress during this time when using the ramp. He also said the ramp had been unsafe and installed with poor workmanship. So, he asked the Council for compensation.
43. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s complaint and said it would respond. However, due to the outbreak of COVID-19 it told him it could not respond at this stage.
44. Mr X said he understood the pressure COVID-19 had on the Council and said he was happy with the delay in its response.
45. The Council gave Mr X its final complaint response in December 2020. It apologised for not responding sooner and acknowledged it did not consult enough with residents before installing the ramp. However, it did not find fault in its handling of Mr X’s concerns, nor that the ramp had been unsafe or installed with poor workmanship.
46. Mr X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

47. Mr X complains about the ramp the Council installed in April 2019 and adapted in July 2019. The complaint is more than 12 months after the Council’s action, and it is therefore late. However, I have considered Mr X’s reasons for the delay in bringing it to our attention. I am satisfied it was reasonable for Mr X to wait until the ramp had been changed in February 2020. In addition, he did not receive the Council’s final complaint response until December 2020, I am therefore satisfied it is appropriate to exercise my discretion and consider the complaint from March 2019.

Was the ramp unsafe and installed with poor workmanship?

48. Mr X provided photos of the ramp from July 2019 as evidence the ramp was unsafe and installed poorly. These showed bolts were not attached to the railings and the front of the ramp was slightly raised. He also said the back of the ramp was first attached to concrete sometime after it was installed in April 2019.
49. The Council said no works took place on the ramp after it was installed in April 2019 until its adaptations in July 2019. It also said Mr X’s photos were taken during the time when its contractor was working on the ramp in July 2019.
50. Based on the evidence available to me, I cannot say the ramp was unsafe or installed with poor workmanship. This is because the Council’s own photos shows bolts were properly attached, the front of the ramp was not raised, and it appears to have been securely attached to the ground. Also, Mr X has confirmed his photos were taken in July 2019, which was when the Council’s contractor was adapting the ramp. I accept the ramp may have been less secure during this short period, to allow for the contractor to make the alterations. And so, without any further evidence, I cannot say the Council was at fault.

Did the Council cause delays in meeting Mrs Y’s needs?

51. When Mr X told the Council the ramp was affecting Mrs Y’s health in April 2019, it followed its duty under the Care Act 2014 and offered Mrs Y a needs assessment. Mrs Y declined a formal assessment but provided information about her health to the Council’s OT. The Council accepted Mrs Y’s wish for privacy and made reasonable adjustments to assess her needs under the Care Act 2014. And so, it decided it should provide support to make the ramp suitable for her needs.
52. The Council said it acted on the information it received from Mr X and Mrs Y and considered its options to meet her needs. However, I am not satisfied the Council properly considered Mr X’s concerns about the ramp. This is because Mr X told the Council in June 2019 the soft surface of the ramp was not suitable for Mrs Y’s needs. I have seen no evidence the Council considered this, and it did not change the surface when it completed the adaptations in July 2019. Mrs Y therefore continued to experience distress when using the ramp.
53. Mr X had to complain to the Council again and ask his local MP for help. It was first then, the Council properly considered the difficulties the ramp was causing Mrs Y. It took the Council until February 2020 to install a paved incline which met both Mrs Y’s and the other resident’s needs.
54. I acknowledge the Council normally waits for an OT assessment to be completed before agreeing to adaptations. However, it agreed to make changes to the ramp based on the information provided by Mr X. It was therefore at fault for not properly considering the information he provided in June 2019 and making the necessary adaptations at that time.
55. I understand the planning considerations for the paved incline took three months to complete. And so, had the Council started this process in June 2019, when Mr X told it about his concerns about the ramp’s surface, the paved incline would have been completed by September 2019. I am therefore satisfied the Council’s fault caused a delay from September 2019 to February 2020.

Did the Council handle Mr X’s concerns poorly?

56. Based on the evidence available, there were delays in all three stages of the Council’s complaints handling.
57. The Council considered Mr X’s complaint in May 2019 informally as set out in its complaints policy. However, it took over a month for Mr X to a response and he had to chase the Council for it to do so. When Mr X complained again to the Council and his local MP. It responded to his MP, but there was a substantial delay before it gave Mr X his stage one response.
58. I acknowledge the Council was taking steps to resolve his complaint; however, I have seen no evidence the Council told Mr X its responses were delayed and when he would receive its responses. And so, the Council was at fault for its delays in responding to Mr X’s complaints as set out in its complaints policy.
59. In addition, the Council’s stage two response was also substantially delayed. However, this was due to COVID-19 and Mr X is not complaining about this delay.

Injustice

60. I am satisfied the Council’s delay in completing the paved incline and the faults in its complaints handling caused:
• Mrs Y some distress when using the ramp between September 2019 and February 2020;
• Mr X and Mrs Y’s some distress and uncertainty in the Council’s ability to resolve the matter; and
• Mr X time and trouble to get the Council to adhere to the law and its complaints policy.

Back to top

Agreed action

61. To remedy the injustice the Council caused to Mr X and Mrs Y, the Council has agreed to, within one month of the final decision:
1. Pay Mr X £400 to acknowledge the avoidable distress and uncertainty this caused;
2. Pay Mr X an additional £150 for the time and trouble he had to get the Council to adhere to the law and its complaints policy.
62. Within three months of the final decision the Council should also:
1. Remind its staff to adhere to the deadlines as set out in its complaints policy and inform complainant if there are delays in its responses.

Back to top

Final decision

63. There was fault leading to injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations. Therefore, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

64. I have not considered the way the Council consulted with residents in the block where Mr X and Mrs Y lives. This is because the Council was acting in its capacity as a landlord when dealing with this. Complaints about registered social housing providers must be made to the Housing Ombudsman.
65. In addition, I have not considered the ramp’s size or suitability for Mr X’s neighbour. This is because this matter is about another person’s needs. I can only consider the Council’s actions in relations to Mr X’s complaint and Mrs Y’s needs.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman