Summary: Mr X complained the Council decided not to replace the through lift in his property with a stairlift or sit-down lift. Mr X says the through-lift in place is not fit for purpose and is causing him distress and worry. The Ombudsman does not find fault with how the Council decided not to install a stairlift or sit-down lift.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council decided not to replace the through lift in his property with a stairlift or a sit-down through lift. Mr X says the through lift is not fit for purpose and breaks down.
2. Mr X complained about the Council has not properly considered his ability to use a stairlift or sit-in through lift when making its decision. Mr X says the situation with the lift is causing him distress and worry about whether it will break down leaving him stuck in the lift.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We cannot question whether an organisation’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)
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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered all the information Mr X provided. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
7. Mr X and the Council had opportunity to comment on my draft decision before I reached my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Care Act 2014

8. Sections 9 and 10 of the Care Act 2014 requires local authorities to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. The Care Act and the statutory guidance (known as the Care and Support statutory guidance) says local authorities must provide an assessment to all people. The Council must do this regardless of the person’s finances or whether the local authority thinks an individual has eligible needs.
9. 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.
10. If the Council assesses a person as having eligible needs following a care assessment, the Council must consider what it can do to meet the person’s needs. The Council must also ascertain whether the person wants to have those needs met by the Council.
11. Section 25 of the Care Act says the Council must ensure that any care or support it puts in place is proportionate to the person’s needs. The Council must ensure that it has considered the views of the person the care and support plan is about.
12. A council must review a person care needs or support plan on reasonable request from a person.

Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996

13. 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.
14. Owner-occupiers, council tenants and private tenants, among others, can apply to the Council for a DFG to make their home more accessible.
15. 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.
16. Councils should consult social services to decide whether proposed works are “necessary and appropriate”.
17. It is not compulsory for Council to complete an Occupational Therapist (OT) assessment; private contractors are also acceptable. Councils will usually expect an OT assessment as part of the application. They may also need other information to decide whether works are suitable.
18. Government Guidance says the Council must have consideration of value for money on public spend when considering adaptations. The Council must consider how any adaptations will meet not just the current needs of a person but also future anticipated needs. (Section 4.40 Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) delivery: Guidance for local authorities in England)
19. The Council should also expect that a person would be able to live in the property subject to adaptations for five years as their main residence. But, the Council should not refuse a grant application if a person has a prognosis of a worsening condition which could result in their residence for less than five years. (Section B34 Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) delivery: Guidance for local authorities in England)

What happened

Mr X’s Background

20. Mr X had spina bifida and then had one of his legs amputated in the 1960s. Since 2000, Mr X has experienced an increased number of conditions including nerve palsy and autoimmune disorders related to blood clotting. This resulted in Mr X’s GP diagnosing Mr X as dependent on a wheelchair in 2016.

Events surrounding Mr X’s complaint

21. An Occupational Therapist (OT) attended Mr X’s property on 26 April 2016 to complete an assessment of Mr X’s needs. The OT noted that Mr X used crutches to move around his house, including up the stairs despite Mr X having a through-lift in his property. Mr X told the OT the lift door caught on the edge of the wall, and he therefore could not fit a wheelchair into the lift. Mr X and the OT discussed the potential of installing a stairlift into his property.
22. A lift engineer attended Mr X’s property on 11 May 2016 on request of the Council. The lift engineer said they could not make changes to the lift.
23. On 16 June 2016, the OT wrote to Mr X to advise it could not make changes to the through-lift. The OT said that installation of a stairlift would create extra transfer risks and Mr X could not carry his crutches on the stairlift. The OT said the through-lift meets Mr X’s needs better than a stairlift. The OT told Mr X if he becomes more dependent on his wheelchair in his house they may need to consider rehousing.
24. On 19 September 2018, Mr X reported to the OT the through-lift stopped working from time to time. Mr X said he had now stopped using the through-lift after getting stuck in the lift.
25. The OT attended Mr X’s property on 1 October 2018 and noted that Mr X’s use of the stairs was slow and completed with difficulty. The OT said they would look at replacing or repairing the through-lift in Mr X’s property.
26. The OT discussed the through-lift with the manufacturer who confirmed the model was obsolete. The OT spoke with Mr X about rehousing which Mr X declined. The OT arranged a joint visit with a lift company, Company 1, to inspect the lift and potentially source a replacement.
27. On 6 November 2018, Company 1 and the OT attended Mr X’s property. Company 1 advised they could not install a through-lift which would accommodate a wheelchair in the same location. Company 1 suggested installation of a new lift in the lounge and removal of the old lift.
28. Mr X said he did not wish to have a through-lift in his lounge and sought consideration of a stairlift or smaller through-lift in the same location.
29. The OT arranged for a different lift company, Company 2, to attend Mr X’s property on 21 January 2019 to complete an assessment. Company 2 advised it could not install a through-lift in the hallway because of modern fire safety regulations but could install a through-lift in the lounge.
30. Mr X declined the OT’s recommendations of a through-lift in the lounge or offer of rehousing.
31. In October 2020, Mr X contacted to request a review of the Council’s decision about replacement of the through-lift now that he had a smaller wheelchair. The OT discussed the situation about a replacement through-lift with Company 1 who advised they did not have a smaller suitable lift for Mr X. The OT spoke with Mr X and agreed to seek the opinion of another lift company.
32. On 16 February 2021, the OT completed a second assessment with Company 2. Company 2 reiterated concerns the current location would not meet fire safety regulations.
33. Mr X’s GP contacted the Council on 21 April 2021 to advise Mr X was struggling with use of his stairs. The OT contacted Mr X to discuss the matter and advised both companies said they could not install the lift in the same location but could install a lift in the lounge. Mr X said he did not want a through-lift in his lounge and sought consideration of a stairlift. Mr X told the OT he was experiencing dizzy spells and recently had a fall. The OT told Mr X they would not recommend a stairlift because of this fall risk and a stairlift would not future-proof Mr X’s property if his mobility continued to worsen.
34. The OT agreed to complete a further assessment with a third lift company and arranged for Company 3 to attend on 10 June 2021. Company 3 said a replacement lift in the same location would not meet health and safety regulations but could install a through-lift in the lounge. The OT presented the choice of a through-lift in the lounge or rehousing to Mr X. Mr X declined both choices and requested a standing-through lift in the same lift location or a stairlift.
35. Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council on 8 September 2021. Mr X said the lift in his property is “creaking and groaning” and he is concerned the lift will break again soon. Mr X said he did not want a through-lift in the lounge and requested installation of a stairlift.
36. The Council provided a Stage 1 complaint response on 23 September 2021. The Council said:
• The lift companies have confirmed that a through-lift could only be installed in the lounge and not the same location as the lift in place.
• It could not support installation of a stairlift because Mr X’s medical conditions mean a stairlift poses a risk of injury.
• Mr X could consider installation of through-lift or rehousing. Or, Mr X could install a stairlift himself.
37. Mr X sought escalation of his complaint to Stage 2 of the Council’s complaint process on 26 September 2021. Mr X said:
• He did not want a lift in his lounge but would instead want a “sit-in” through-lift in the same location as the current lift.
• He could not use his wheelchair upstairs anyway so a through-lift which could accommodate a wheelchair was of no use.
• He did not want to move house because his wife works nearby and he has family in the locality.
• He does not have the funds to install a stairlift himself.
38. The OT contacted Mr X’s GP to get medical information to further guide its decision about installation of a stairlift. The OT also arranged a further feasibility assessment with Mr X with another lift company, Company 4.
39. On 13 October 2021, Mr X reported to the Council the lift broke down with him in it and he has hurt himself trying to climb out of the lift.
40. The OT and Company 4 attended Mr X’s property on 19 October 2021. Company 4 said could not install a through-lift in the same location. The OT suggested installation of a toilet downstairs so Mr X did not need to use the upstairs of his property; Mr X declined this option. Mr X suggested the OT completed an assessment of him using the stairlift in his father’s property. Mr X also said he had a quote from a lift company, Company 5, who would install a through-lift in the hallway.
41. On 21 October 2021, the OT observed Mr X transfer on and off his father’s stairlift and use the stairlift to navigate up and down the stairs. The OT said they would consider the appropriateness of a stairlift and discuss the through-lift option with Company 5.
42. The OT spoke with Company 5 who confirmed the through-lift proposed for the same location in Mr X’s property would not fit a wheelchair. The OT also passed over Mr X’s request for a stairlift to an advanced OT practitioner for consideration. The advanced OT practitioner said the OT observed Mr X using a stairlift within acceptable margins but did not consider a stairlift a suitable option for Mr X because:
• They cannot determine when Mr X would reach the threshold of being unable to use a stairlift safely given his worsening mobility.
• He only has functionality of one lower limb which is not a healthy limb compromising his mobility, balance and stability, putting him at risk of a fall.
• His wish not to move home could prevent him from alerting the Council when the stairlift is no longer a practical option.
43. In November 2021, Mr X discussed with the Council about the through lift option sourced through Company 5. The OT decided to seek further information from both Company 5 and Mr X’s GP.
44. On 10 November 2021, Mr X’s GP told the Council Mr X had a “big chance of losing function to his residual limb” and “quite a chance that his function will deteriorate”. However, Mr X’s GP said Mr X’s current mobility meant he could use a stairlift or seated through-lift.
45. The Council provided its Stage 2 complaint response to Mr X on 11 November 2021. The Council said:
• Five different OT’s had assessed Mr X’s needs and advised that Mr X needs a lift that can accommodate a wheelchair and recent GP information said Mr X was wheelchair dependent.
• It has approached many lift companies who have all confirmed a new through-lift cannot be installed in the same location.
• It has confirmed that a through-lift could be installed in Mr X’s lounge.
• Rehousing would be a choice for Mr X but he has declined this.
• It does not expect Mr X to pay for his own lift but it provides professional assessments and recommendations. If a person does not want to agree with those recommendations, they can make their own arrangements.
• It could not install a sit-in lift or a stairlift because of Mr X’s physical limitations. The Council considered this did not future-proof Mr X’s property given the likelihood of Mr X’s physical state worsening and risk of fall.
• It would encourage Mr X to reconsider the through-lift in the lounge or rehousing.
46. Mr X responded to the Council to decline the through-lift in the lounge or rehousing.
47. Mr X’s GP contacted the Council in December 2021 to request the Council considers Mr X’s request for a smaller lift in the same location. The OT spoke with Mr X’s GP who confirmed Mr X’s prognosis of likely deterioration. The GP told the OT that it had advised Mr X not to purchase a stairlift himself because of surgery he was about to undergo.

Analysis

48. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s proposals to install a through-lift into his lounge or rehousing. Mr X has asked the Council installs either a stairlift or a smaller through-lift in the hallway. This decision is a matter of the OT’s professional judgement.
49. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body, so cannot comment on the merits of judgements and decisions made by councils in the absence of fault in the process. Neither are we a court, and so cannot determine or define the law.
50. Decisions about what is a suitable adaptation to a person’s home to meet their care and support needs is a decision for the Council to take on the merits of the case. The Ombudsman cannot substitute his or her own judgement on what would be right for what a council has decided. We must consider whether there was fault in the way a council reached its decision.
51. The Ombudsman must decide if the Council has considered the relevant legislation and followed the correct process when making its decision. If the Council has done this and reached a suitable decision, the Ombudsman cannot find fault.
52. The Council has considered Mr X’s requests for a stairlift or replacement through-lift on many occasions since 2018. The Council has completed five separate joint feasibility visits with four different lift companies.
53. All four lift companies have told the Council they cannot install a replacement through-lift in the same location Mr X’s lift with most referring to safety or fire regulations. The Council has made repeated visits and engaged with different companies to decide a replacement lift in the same location is not possible. The Council has taken suitable steps in making this decision and I do not find fault.
54. All four lift companies have also told the Council they could install a through-lift in the lounge for Mr X. Mr X has repeatedly declined this option along with rehousing. This is Mr X’s choice and not pursuing these options is not a fault of the Council.
55. The Council has also repeatedly considered Mr X’s request for a stairlift, and latterly a sit-in or standing through lift. The Council decided it could not agree to these options given the risks these presented to Mr X and the likelihood of deterioration in his physical state. The Council has considered Mr X’s medical history, observed him through many assessments and more recently spoken directly with his GP in reaching this conclusion.
56. It is clear Mr X feels the options proposed by the Council are not as suitable for his needs as those that he is proposing. However, when deciding how best to meet an individual’s needs, the Council must consider a person’s current and future potential needs as well as a person’s stated preferences. The Council is entitled to consider the most cost-effective way in which a person’s needs can be met now and in the future, if this will meet the identified needs in an appropriate manner. The Council has done this and put forward various solutions to Mr X which he has declined.
57. I have found no fault with how the Council decided not to recommend a stairlift or sit-in through lift. Without fault, I will not question the merits of that decision 
58. The Council’s records show there were some delays in handling this matter. But I do not consider this has affected the outcome as the Council is reaching the same conclusion in 2022 that it did in 2018.

Back to top

Final decision

59. I have completed my investigation as there was no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman