Summary: Mrs X says the Council unfairly refused to complete adaptations to her home for her disabled daughter, D. She says this caused her and D an injustice as D’s movements around their home are restricted by its current structure. There was some fault in the process the Council initially followed, for which it has apologised. This caused confusion and upset. But the Council has since proposed other reasonable adaptations to Mrs X’s home. There has been some unnecessary delay in implementing some of the adaptations Mrs X has agreed to. This has caused some injustice as D’s movement has been restricted. We have made some recommendations to acknowledge this and to help provide resolution. But the Council is not at fault in its approach in other respects.

The complaint

1. Mrs X says the Council:
1. Initially approved adaptations to her home and then suddenly reversed this decision;
2. Denied Mrs X’s reasonable request to remove a wall in the ground floor area of the property, which would give D the independence to move around their home.
3. Failed to take D’s wellbeing into account when putting forward other adaptation proposals. (She says the Council wrongly insist D can use a single bed and benefit from the installation of a lift, which Mrs X believes will inevitably lead to a loss of independence.)
2. Mrs X says these faults have caused her and D injustice in that the modifications D requires have not been carried out and Mrs X has suffered distress.

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. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the council knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the council of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5))
5. 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

6. I spoke with the complainant and read the complaint file.
7. I made enquiries with the Council and reviewed its response.
8. I researched the relevant law, guidance and policy.
9. Mrs X’s original complaint to the Council did not include her complaint about delays to her porch extension. However, I have looked at this issue as the Council has acknowledged the delay and given reasons for it in its response to this complaint. In our view, it would be unreasonable to make Mrs X go through the complaint process again, especially when speedy resolution is required for Mrs X and for D’s benefit.
10. Both the Council and the complainant had the opportunity to read and make comments on this draft decision. I have taken into account any observations made before issuing this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

11. Mrs X lives in a four-bedroomed council-owned property with D. D, who is 8, has cerebral palsy and uses a wheelchair. Normal movement patterns are difficult for her. D currently sleeps in a room upstairs where there is an accessible bathroom for her. Mrs X says that D sleeps in a double bed as she fears falling out of a single bed.
12. In early 2018, Mrs X asked the Council to look at making adaptions to her home to make it easier for D to move around the ground floor of the property. She reported that Mrs X had bulging discs in her spine and was finding it increasingly difficult to carry D up and down the stairs.
13. Mrs X also said that:

• She was keen for D to have as much independence as possible;
• D struggled to use all the rooms in the house because of the door widths (D uses a wheelchair);
• D climbed on Mrs X’s back to descend the stairs; and
• She did not want to be re-housed. She said she had already spent too much on the property to exchange it. She said she had created a home for D and did not want to uproot her.

14. Initially, following a visit from an occupational therapist, the Council suggested a number of changes to the property. Mrs X agreed to these changes on 10 October 2018. Principally, they were:

• The dining room was to be converted into a bedroom for D;
• Ramps to front and rear of property and ceiling tracks were to be installed;
• Conversion of the existing shower room and utility room to provide a wheelchair accessible wet room; and
• The installation of a shower chair in the downstairs toilet.

15. However, the Council then realised it had failed to follow its policy and put the request for adaptions to its scrutiny panel, before approval. When it did so, Mrs X’s request was turned down because the adaptations she sought would mean the property would be over-occupied by three bedrooms. The panel noted that a four-bedroom home is one of the rarest types of stock managed by the Council. The panel considered that Mrs X and D could be more appropriately housed in a suitable two-bedroom home. The Council apologised for the confusion and for the distress it had caused.
16. Mrs X had a right of appeal. She appealed the decision in January 2019. As part of her appeal, she wrote, “I struggle [to] carry [D]. I have proof of that as well.” Mrs X’s doctor supported her appeal.
17. Mrs X also told the appeal panel about home improvements she had made to the house to suit D’s needs and that a house move would not be appropriate because D did not like change.
18. The Council informed Mrs X that her appeal had been unsuccessful in March 2019. Mrs X’s MP wrote to the Council asking for a review of its decision. Her doctor also wrote to the Council. He repeated that Mrs X was finding it very difficult to carry D upstairs. He recommended a downstairs bathroom and other appropriate adaptations.
19. In April 2019 Council officers visited Mrs X’s home again with an occupational therapist. Officers conducted various conversations with professionals during the month in an effort to ascertain the best way forward.
20. On 23 May 2019, in response to Mrs X’s complaint about the way her case had been handled, the Council:
1. Apologised for telling Mrs X that the previously planned works would go ahead, twice. It accepted service failures.
2. Suggested other adaptions to the property, that included:

• A through floor lift from the lounge to the front bedroom;
• Conversion of the nearest rear bedroom upstairs into an adapted en suite bathroom;

21. On 13 June 2019, Mrs X called the Council. The records show that she was very upset about the proposed alterations and that she was concerned that D’s independence would be reduced by having a lift installed. She felt that physiotherapists did not need to be involved in decision-making. She said she knew what was best for D.
22. In response to Mrs X’s concerns the Council arranged for another physiotherapist to visit Mrs X’s home. She observed that D was able to use the stairs with support from Mrs X, when required.
23. Mrs X continued to disagree with the adaptions proposed. The Council suggested that it source a second opinion.

The second opinion

24. Another occupational therapist from another local authority, was asked to assess the situation. It was noted, in August 2019, that:

“[D] demonstrated going up and down the stairs on her knees and bottom. How long she is going to be able to do this is unknown. As [D] grows Mum will not be able to carry her up/down stairs and this is a risk for both parties.”

25. Because of this risk, the therapist recommended installing a lift because:

• This would meet current and future needs and would also manage fatigue, and
• It would utilise the bedrooms upstairs which would maximise the use of the property.

26. Two stages were recommended. It was suggested that the first stage could simply involve widening the kitchen door, removing a dividing wall between the lounge and the dining room.
27. The second stage, to be determined when D is older, perhaps after she is 10, would involve consideration of the installation of a lift.
28. Mrs X says she did not outright refuse this option but suggested a different proposal. She told me the Council did not respond to her proposal.
29. The records show that Council officers and occupational therapist met with Mrs X in early September 2020 to discuss some options.
30. The records show that Mrs X said she would only discuss knocking down the wall that separates the kitchen from the dining room. Officers advised Mrs X that this would not provide access to all the facilities that D requires. A compromise of enhancing existing downstairs facilities with a wet room and widening the downstairs doors to provide wheelchair access was suggested. Mrs X said she would consider that.
31. However, on a return visit to see Mrs X later that month, the records show that Mrs X said she did not want to go with any of the options presented. She was concerned that, if the Council provided a wet room with enough of a turning circle for D’s wheelchair, this would change the layout of the house to the extent that she would have to take her bins out through the house. She was concerned that this would mean she would have to carry dirty bins over the floor where D was usually situated.
32. The records show that an officer suggested Mrs X could leave her bins at the front of the house rather than the back. Mrs X would not accept this workaround.
33. On 29 October 2019, Council officers attended at Mrs X’s house again with three sets of plans drawn up by an architect. Mrs X was not happy with any of the plans. She says the Council itself accepted that one of the proposals was not workable. This appears to be borne out by the records I have seen.
34. Council records state that Mrs X did not want to discuss the future plans of installing a lift. This was partly because it would mean, to create enough room to install the lift, D would have to sleep in a single bed. The notes say Mrs X became upset when this was discussed and so officers left her to think over the options.
35. On 4 November 2019, the Council sent Mrs X a letter setting out the options again. It was noted that all options proposed included building on an extended porch area at the front of the property to allow easier access into the hallway, and that this would include any necessary ramping to the front entrance, and any necessary ramping to access the rear garden.
36. Mrs X remained unhappy with the options and contacted her MP.
37. At the end of the month, Mrs X had a meeting with Council officers again. They told Mrs X the Council would not provide funding to remove the wall between her kitchen and dining room because “…this would not meet the conditions of the grant which are for the applicant to have access to bathing facilities, a bedroom and access in and out of the property.”
38. Mrs X suggested a different arrangement for the downstairs shower room. She was advised this might not work because officers suspected it would not provide enough of a turning circle for D’s wheelchair.
39. On 4 December 2020, the Council received confirmation that Mrs X’s suggested option was not workable. A technical officer also confirmed that the lift installation would not work unless D used a single bed.
40. Mrs X says the Council did not tell her what they thought of her suggestion and that she never actually completely refused the two-stage option obtained through getting a second opinion.
41. I have seen a Council record which shows that an officer telephoned Mrs X on 10 December 2020 and informed her that her alternative suggestion had not been accepted. The record shows she was asked if she wanted the access, widening of doors and insertion of a door into the lounge to be considered. Mrs X said she only wanted access to be looked at but nothing else.
42. On 16 January 2020, at stage two of Mrs X’s complaint, the Council repeated the offer of making adaptations which included:

• Extending porch area to allow easier access to the hallway
• Ramping at front and rear of property, as required
• Widening of doorway between hall and lounge
• Installation of a through floor lift from lounge to front bedroom
• Provision of a wet room, by conversion of the rear bedroom into an en-suite bathroom

43. The Council said that if Mrs X was unhappy with this final offer, she could come to the Ombudsman.
44. On 28 January 2020, Mrs X said she wanted to proceed with the extended porch and the doorway between the rear of the lounge and the dining room. She registered her complaint with the Ombudsman on the same date.
45. A Council record on 29 January 2020 shows the Council told Mrs X that, “…nothing could be done until we had dealt with any Ombudsman investigation and bed assessment.”
46. On 21 July 2020, a Council officer told an architect that the Council planned to proceed with the extended front porch. The officer asked the architect if he would need to visit the property again. The architect replied on the same day saying he could proceed. On 30 July 2020, the Council asked him to proceed.
47. On 6 August 2020, the Council told Mrs X that there had been a delay to the porch extension because it had understood that another survey would be required which could not happen during lockdown.
48. In complaint correspondence, the Council said there was some delay because of awaiting the result of a bed assessment which did not take place until 12 March 2020. It says there was then a need to prioritise team responses in relation to the COVID health pandemic and the case was not progressed during that time.

Following our draft decision

The Council has confirmed that planning and building regulation approvals have now been obtained for Mrs X’s porch extension. It is hoped that work will begin in the new year, although this is subject to the availability of contractors.

The Bed assessment

49. In order to install a lift in the property, the Council had ascertained that D would have to sleep in a single bed. Mrs X was adamant this should not happen as D was frightened she would fall out.
50. On 17 January 2020, Mrs X’s doctor informed the Council that D would benefit from a three-quarter size bed.
51. On 28 January 2020, the Council wrote to Mrs X’s doctor and asked him why he thought this was necessary for D.
52. On 28 February 2020, the doctor confirmed that the use of a single bed would not affect the medical wellbeing of D.
53. There continued to be some further conversations about what bed was appropriate. An appointment was made for a bed assessment on 10 March 2020.
54. When the occupational therapist visited to complete the assessment, she noted that D would not go to the edge of the bed. However, she felt that a single bed with cot sides would be appropriate.
55. Mrs X does not want D’s bed to have cot sides as she feels this would have the effect of caging D in.

Following our draft decision

Mrs X’s doctor has supplied additional information to the Council. He now says, “…as [D’s] physical needs are increasing and she is not able to move her legs properly I would suggest that she would benefit from a three-quarter size bed.” He said that a single bed would not be suitable for D.

The Council says that following discussions with D’s doctor, he has confirmed that there is no clinical justification for a larger bed. However, he supports Mrs X’s request. The Council therefore plan to conduct a further review of the adaptation options offered to Mrs X.

56. The Council has said that if D can only sleep in a three-quarter size bed, the only option will be for adaptations to be made which will mean that the property would be over-occupied. This remains against Council policy. The Council has asked for an independent review of this view.

Analysis

The initial miscommunication

57. The Council has accepted it was at fault for initially telling Mrs X it had agreed adaptations to her home before they had been approved. This caused Mrs X an injustice as the Council’s correspondence was confusing. It is understandable that she found it distressing when ultimately, the works she wanted were not agreed. The Council has already apologised but I have added a recommendation to further acknowledge the distress caused.
58. However, I do not criticise the Council’s decision not to approve the works. Given the circumstances around overoccupancy and the Council’s consideration of resources, it was fair for it to suggest that re-housing should be considered at the outset. The Council also gave Mrs X the opportunity to appeal the decision, which she took.

Consideration of D’s wellbeing in Council considerations

59. Mrs X said the Council failed to consider the impact on her daughter’s independence and well-being. She feels the Council followed a rulebook, rather than consider how its proposals affected D in her everyday life. I do not agree.
60. The Council sought to make changes to the property under the 1996 Housing Grants Construction Regeneration Act. This Act sets out that grants for a disabled person may be given for the purpose of facilitating access to and from the property, access to the principal family room, access to a toilet and bathing facilities, access to a room for sleeping and access to garden. The works can be limited to such works as seem to be necessary to the local authority for that purpose. The Council has to show, when spending public money, that it is doing so in line with the relevant regulations.
61. The Council showed it listened to Mrs X’s concerns about D’s wellbeing. The evidence shows the Council also considered Mrs X’s wellbeing. Initially, the records show that D was not able to use the stairs without depending completely on Mrs X, who had a back condition. It was in consideration of possible future difficulties that a lift installation was suggested. Later, when it became apparent that D had started to be able to use the stairs with more independence, the Council recognised this and factored it into its considerations of potential solutions.
62. Because Mrs X was unhappy with its initial suggestions for adaptations, the Council sourced a second opinion.
63. The Council’s suggestion of a two-stage approach illustrated the consideration it gave to D’s independence by suggesting that a lift did not have to be installed until the second stage, when D was older and the situation could be reviewed.
64. When Mrs X pointed out that D would not have access to a wet room, the Council suggested a compromise and commissioned plans which would include the installation of a wet-room.
65. These plans meant that Mrs X would have to place her bins outside the front of her house rather than the back. Mrs X would not consent to that but I consider the Council had put forward a reasonable suggestion which would meet D’s needs. In my consideration, it is significant that the suggestions the Council put forward at this stage did not differ widely from those Mrs X had agreed to in 2018.
66. Mrs X says the Council failed to keep in contact with her and failed to inform her whether her suggested alternative would be viable. The evidence does not support this. The records show the Council contacted Mrs X but that she refused all options.
67. Therefore, on the evidence, the Council was not at fault in the way it responded to her requests for changes to be made. I consider it provided her with a variety of options and was flexible in its approach.
68. Understandably, Mrs X, as D’s mother, has strong views about what arrangement would work best for D. The Council’s approach showed it was sympathetic to Mrs X’s views, but her views could not be the only factor considered when making a decision on how to proceed. The Council employed professionals to assess the situation and to offer suggestions that would provide D with more freedom to move and better access to the house. It is not at fault in that regard.
69. Mrs X also disagrees with the outcome of the bed assessment. She says her doctor supported her position. But her doctor did not object to D using a single bed. I sympathise with Mrs X’s concern that D is frightened she may fall from a single bed. I understand her concern about using cot sides. But, ultimately, the evidence shows that professionals, while taking her concerns into account, considered that a single bed was a workable option. The Council reached its view on this issue by considering all views and taking D’s wellbeing into account. It was not at fault in its approach. It is now reviewing the options available to Mrs X following D’s doctor’s update.

Possible room for further negotiation

70. Mrs X says she did not refuse the two-stage option suggested by the second occupational therapist outright. The available evidence, however, indicates she refused all options. It also indicates that she was very upset. Shortly after the Council told Mrs X that her suggestion was not viable, it sent her a final offer. This included the lift installation.
71. Following receipt of our draft decision, the Council has confirmed it is still happy to proceed with the two-stage option, although of course, this may not be possible now that there is continued dispute about whether D can use a single bed or not.

Delay from January 2020

72. I find the Council was at fault for the delay in extending the porch to Mrs X’s house.
73. When the Council first assessed Mrs X’s house, in early 2018, it was agreed that D had unmet needs. She needed to move more freely around the house. I have found that the Council did what it could throughout 2019 to negotiate an acceptable design arrangement that would enable this to happen. It was unable to do this. But, one aspect of the designs that were put forward, the extended porch, was agreed on.
74. When the Council put forward the various options to Mrs X in November 2019, it told her that all options included the extension of the porch. Therefore, even if Mrs X and the Council were unable to agree about a lift installation, where the wet-room should go or whether D should use a single or double bed, there does not appear to be any good reason why the porch extension did not go ahead. The Council told Mrs X the delay was because it had considered another survey was required. If this was the case, it is not adequate justification for delay. Officers should have made enquiries before July 2020 to find out what was required.
75. The Council told the Ombudsman the delay was because it was awaiting the outcome of the bed assessment and because of the impact of COVID. The bed assessment need not have delayed work on the porch extension. COVID has had an impact on Council priorities but I am concerned that the Council told Mrs X that the work would not go ahead until after the completion of the Ombudsman investigation and the bed assessment. The evidence indicates that this was why enquiries were not made until July 2020. The Ombudsman is clear that our investigations should not prevent councils from providing services.
76. The Council is at fault for delaying progress on the porch extension. This has caused Mrs X and D an injustice. The porch extension has been determined as necessary to allow easier access into the hallway but no work had been done to begin work on this requirement, almost seven months after Mrs X agreed the work should go ahead. We are pleased the Council is now taking action to progress this work.

Recommended/ agreed action

77. At the earliest possible date or at least within a month of our final decision, the Council should:
1. Apologise to Mrs X and to D for its delay in progressing the agreed porch extension.
2. Pay Mrs X the sum of £200 to acknowledge the distress caused by the confusion and upset caused by the Council’s miscommunication to Mrs X in 2018 about adaptations that had not received approval.
3. Pay Mrs X the sum of £400 to acknowledge the distress and the prolonged inconvenience caused by the Council’s failure to action the agreed work on the extended porch after January 2020.
4. Contact Mrs X immediately to arrange the commencement of work on the extended porch, if this is still agreed.
5. Contact Mrs X to arrange a review of the options available to Mrs X and D following the updated information from D’s doctor. The Council should ensure any review addresses Mrs X’s request for a three-quarter bed and takes into consideration the renewed support from Mrs X’s doctor for a larger bed. If Mrs X still does not wish to agree to proposed works to improve the access available to D, the Council should consider what steps it needs to take in order to ensure that D’s needs are met. As D has had identified unmet needs since at least early 2018, the Council should consider how to meet these needs as a matter of urgency.
78. The Council should provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has completed all of the above.

Back to top

Final decision

79. I have found the Council to be at fault and that this fault caused injustice. I have suggested actions to remedy that injustice. I have now completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman