Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council not awarding an adaptations’ grant. It is unlikely we would find fault in its decision not to. And we are unlikely to significantly add to the remedy already offered for accepted fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms X, says the Council failed to carry out a robust Occupational Therapy (OT) assessment and provide adaptations to her home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X asked the Council for assistance in December 2019 because of her child’s disabilities. It completed a child and family assessment. It decided to get an OT assessment on her family’s housing needs. The OT provided their assessment in August 2021. The Council decided not to propose providing any short or long term adaptations. Ms X complained to the Council. She said the OT’s assessment was inadequate.
6. The Council agreed in March 2022 to pay for an independent OT assessment. This was completed in July 2022. The Council still refused to provide any short or long term adaptations. It said as Ms X is a tenant it needed the landlord’s proper consent. It says Ms X has not provided this nor the landlords full details. It also says Ms X told the OT that she did not intend to stay in the property for more than five years. The Council’s adaptations policy says this is a requirement.
7. The Council considered Ms X’s complaint within its Children Act statutory complaints’ procedure.
8. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. The accompanying statutory guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, explains councils’ responsibilities in more detail. We also published practitioner guidance on the procedures, setting out our expectations.
9. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
10. If a complainant is not happy with a council’s stage one response, they can ask that it is considered at stage two. At this stage of the procedure, councils appoint an investigating officer (IO) to look into the complaint and an independent person (IP) who is responsible for overseeing the investigation and ensuring its independence.
11. Following the investigation, a senior manager (the adjudicating officer) at the council should carry out an adjudication. The officer considers the IO report and any report from the IP. They decide what the council’s response to the complaint will be, including what action it will take. The adjudicating officer should then write to the complainant with a copy of the investigation report, any report from the independent person and the adjudication response.
12. If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation, they can ask for a stage three review by an independent panel.
13. The Council held stage three in November 2023.
14. In response to Ms X’s complaint, the Council accepted the first OT report was inadequate and took too long. It also accepted the complaints’ process was delayed. It offered £500 for the OT report issues, and £450 for complaint delays.

Analysis

15. It is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s decision not to award an adaptations’ grant. As Ms X is a tenant it cannot award a grant without the landlord’s consent or details. In addition, it is unlikely we would find fault for refusing to award a grant because Ms X did not meet the criteria for it being her intended home for more than five years.
16. It is unlikely our investigation could achieve a significantly different remedy than that already offered for the accepted fault.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault in its decision not to award a grant and we are unlikely to add significantly to the remedy already offered for the accepted fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman