Summary: The Council was at fault for delay installing disability equipment in Ms X’s home. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and make a financial payment to remedy the distress caused. It also offered to install the disability equipment.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council delayed installing disability equipment in her home. This has impacted on her disability and mental health. She also complained of poor communication and said she feels ignored and disrespected and the Council had ignored her reasonable adjustments, causing her distress. Ms X would like the Council to complete the installation without further assessment or delay, communicate with her effectively, train staff and improve the service.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

The Equality Act

6. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection, in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
7. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. They must also have regard to the general duties aimed at eliminating discrimination under the Public Sector Equality Duty.
8. The ‘protected characteristics’ referred to in the Act are:

• age;
• disability;
• gender reassignment;
• marriage and civil partnership;
• pregnancy and maternity;
• race;
• religion or belief;
• sex; and
• sexual orientation.

9. Reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities
   The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any body which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure that 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.
10. Service providers are 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 make them.
11. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.

The Council’s policies and procedures

12. The Council’s Occupational Therapist (OT) assesses people in their home and recommends any necessary work and appropriate equipment to support people to live in their property.
13. The OT refers the individual to the Homes Improvement Agency (HIA) to complete the necessary work in their home.
14. The HIA standard procedure is for operatives to visit customers at their home while working in the area. If the person gives consent and allows access, they can carry out the work. The operative will arrange an appointment with the individual to call back if the individual prefers this. If nobody is available or access is not possible, the operative will leave a calling card.
15. The HIA operatives prioritise work according to urgency.

What happened

16. I have summarised below the key events; this is not intended to be a detailed account.
17. Ms X has a physical disability.
18. Ms X self-referred herself for an assessment of need. The OT visited Ms X at home to assess her in February 2024. The OT recommended a new shower chair, a rail next to the toilet and sofa raisers.
19. The OT emailed Ms X in March 2024 and said they had referred the matter to the HIA. The OT said she was not sure how long it would take for the HIA to deliver the equipment and complete the work.
20. More than a year later, in April 2025, the HIA still had not completed the work. Ms X contacted the HIA to follow up but it had no record of her referral. She asked the OT to call her urgently.
21. The OT contacted Ms X and confirmed they had referred her to the HIA. They did not know what the issue was. They said they would prioritise Ms X because of the delay.
22. The OT’s manager said Ms X needed a new assessment for the shower chair as it was over a year since the previous assessment. They said they could install the other equipment. Ms X refused another assessment for the shower chair.
23. In the middle of May, an HIA operative telephoned Ms X and said they would visit the same day to complete the work (everything except the shower chair as a further assessment was needed). Ms X refused. The HIA also contacted Ms X the following week to arrange installation but Ms X refused. She said she did not want the work completing until the Council had dealt with her complaint.

The complaint

24. Ms X complained to the Council in May 2025. Her complaint letter stated ‘All communication for this complaint will have to be through email only’. Ms X complained she was still waiting for the HIA to install the equipment and had chased several times. She said she did not want to have another shower chair assessment. She said this impacted on her mental health and daily life. She said she felt intimidated and disrespected as the HIA visited her property to do the work without notice.
25. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint later in May. It upheld Ms X’s complaint about not providing the recommended provisions. It explained this was an error as it had not sent the request to the HIA.
26. The Council partially upheld Ms X’s complaint about needing to do a reassessment for the shower seat. It said it needed to do an assessment to be sure it still met her needs and it reviewed equipment every 12 months (which had now passed). It apologised this caused Ms X to feel intimidated and disrespected.
27. The Council did not uphold Ms X’s complaint about the HIA operative calling the same day to install the equipment, although it accepted this did not give her time to prepare. It said it highlighted Ms X’s request as urgent because of the delay and organised installation for the same day. When Ms X refused the first visit, it tried to arrange installation for a convenient time for Ms X the following week, which Ms X also refused.
28. The Council said it would arrange the reassessment for the shower chair and installation of the equipment. It asked Ms X to contact the Council when she was ready.

Analysis

Delay providing equipment and the offer to install the equipment

29. The OT assessed Ms X in February 2024, and she was still waiting for the equipment in April 2025. 14 months is a significant delay. This was fault, which the Council accepted in its complaint response. Ms X was without the disability aids she needed which made it more difficult to move safely around her property. It also impacted on her mental health and caused emotional distress. This was her injustice.
30. Once the Council was aware it had not provided the disability aids (excluding the shower seat), it asked the HIA to prioritise her case. The HIA telephoned Ms X and arranged to deliver these the same day. When Ms X refused, it offered to deliver the equipment the following week, giving Ms X five days’ notice for delivery, which Ms X also refused. The Council and HIA moved quickly and offered to remedy matters once aware of the delay. It could not provide the disability aids without Ms X’s consent. The Council was not at fault for any further delay, after the HIA offered to provide the equipment in May 2025.

Home Improvement Agency (HIA) unannounced visits

31. The immediacy of offering to provide the equipment caused Ms X distress. In its complaint response, the Council accepted it did not give Ms X time to prepare for the appointment and explained this was because the work had been prioritised. The HIA officer worked within standard procedures and allocated work according to priority. This was not fault.
32. The HIA operative also offered to come back and install the equipment at a later date, which complied with her request to make an appointment. The Council was not at fault.

Further assessments required

33. Ms X complained the Council wanted to complete a review before installing the shower seat. The Council reviews assessments for shower seats every 12 months to ensure the disability aid still meets the individual’s needs and to ensure their safety. As it had been over a year since the original assessment, the Council said it needed to do a new assessment for the shower seat. The Council was not at fault for wanting to do a further assessment before installing a shower seat as it followed its procedure to ensure Ms X’s safety.

Communication

34. Ms X received no communication between March 2024 and April 2025 due to the delay in her referral being actioned. I have already found fault for this above. From April 2025, the records show the Council responded to Ms X’s emails and requests for telephone calls, usually within the same day. There was no fault in the Council’s communication from this later period.

Reasonable adjustments

35. Ms X told me she asked for communication by email only and said this was a reasonable adjustment which the Council did not respect. She said failure to respect her reasonable adjustments was a breach of the Equality Act 2010.
36. The HIA noted Ms X preferred email contact; it did not have a record to say this was a reasonable adjustment. It would have been preferable for the HIA operative to email Ms X to arrange an appointment, as per her preference. As the work was marked as urgent and Ms X’s method of communication was noted as a preference and not a reasonable adjustment, the HIA operatives followed their standard procedures. The Council was not at fault.
37. The complaint team noted Ms X requested communication to be through email only in her original complaint. This was not highlighted as a request for a reasonable adjustment but stated as a preference. The complaint team communicated with Ms X using email. The Council was not at fault.

Summary of fault causing injustice

38. The Council has already accepted it delayed providing the disability equipment to Ms X. It has also apologised to Ms X for the distress caused by needing to do a further assessment due to the delay.
39. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it would provide the shower seat for Ms X once it was confident it was safe for her to use following a demonstration. It would also provide the other equipment at a time convenient for Ms X.
40. The Council also said it would review how the HIA provides information to individuals about what to expect when they first visit.

Back to top

Action

41. Within four weeks of the final decision, the Council agreed to:
• Apologise to Ms X and pay her £500 for the distress caused by the delay in installing the equipment. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.
• Write to Ms X and offer to complete the reassessment for the shower seat and arrange delivery of the other equipment on an agreed date. The letter should ask Ms X to confirm if she would like to proceed within four weeks.
42. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman