Summary: Mr X complained about the suitability of his property which he moved into in October 2014. He said the property does not meet his needs as a disabled person and the Council has failed to carry out kitchen adaptations. The Council was not at fault. The Ombudsman has already investigated Mr X’s concerns about the suitability of the property. It is open for Mr X to apply for a tenancy transfer if he wants to move to another property. It is also open for Mr X to request a new Occupational Therapist assessment if he wishes the Council to further consider the kitchen adaptations.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the suitability of his property which he moved into in October 2014. Mr X said the property does not meet his needs as a disabled person. Mr X complains:
• The Council forced him into the property without the appropriate adaptations in place to meet his needs. Mr X said he is still waiting for the Council to carry out these adaptations.
• The property is a second-floor flat which limits his ability to go out when the lift breaks down. He says the entrance to his flat is too small to manoeuvre his wheelchair properly.
• The communal doorway is too heavy and makes it impossible for him to enter and exit independently.
• The Council have refused to move him to a suitable ground floor property which would better meet his needs.
2. Mr X says the property does not meet his needs and is causing him distress and uncertainty.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated how the Council has considered the suitability of Mr X’s property and the appropriate adaptations from 2018 onwards. I have not investigated the other elements of Mr X’s complaint because the Ombudsman has already investigated them, and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’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. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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. 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

8. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint.
9. I considered previous Ombudsman investigations into Mr X’s complaints.
10. I considered information from the Council in response to our enquiry letter.
11. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered the comments before I made a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Tenancy Transfer

12. If someone is a council or housing association tenant and wants to move to a different property they can apply for a transfer. A tenancy transfer is when the occupant applies to move to another council or housing association property and there is usually a waiting list.
13. Whether the council or housing association agrees to the transfer depends on why the person wants to move. People usually get more priority if there is an urgent need to move for example:
• The person needs to move to receive or provide support
• The person needs a larger home
• The person needs a different type of home, for example an adapted property.
• The home is not suited to the persons needs because they are ill or have a disability.
14. Anybody wishing to apply for a tenancy transfer can contact the council’s housing officer or their housing association to apply. They will be asked to fill in a form or register online where they can explain any special circumstances, for example a health condition that makes the current home unsuitable.

Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG)

15. Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG) are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Councils have a statutory duty to provide grant aid to disabled people for adaptations. Before approving a grant, the Council must be satisfied the work is necessary and appropriate to meet the disabled person’s needs and is reasonable and practicable
16. An occupational therapist (OT) carries out the needs assessment. The Council also carries out a means test of the disabled person to work out how much it can award. The maximum amount of a grant is £30,000.

What happened

Background

17. Mr X is disabled and uses a wheelchair and mobility scooter. In 2014 he moved into a property which is a flat on the second floor. The property is accessible via a communal door and then using a lift to the front door of the property.
18. Since 2014 Mr X has made several complaints to the Council and the Ombudsman about the suitability of the property. Mr X says it does not meet his needs as a disabled person. Mr X says he needs a property on the ground floor, with appropriate adaptations which enables him to live independently.
19. The Ombudsman has already investigated much of Mr X’s concerns about the property. As explained in paragraph three, I will not reinvestigate those matters as further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, and the matters are now too old. I will however make reference to them as appropriate to put context to matters looked at in this investigation.
20. Mr X continues to live at the property and continues to say it is unsuitable and does not meet his needs. Mr X wants the Council to move him to another property which is on the ground floor.
21. At the beginning of 2019 Mr X complained to the Council via a solicitor about his ongoing concerns about the suitability of the property. Mr X claimed the Council was in breach of the Equality Act. The Council provided a response to Mr X’s ongoing concerns and complaints in February 2019. I have therefore looked at the background of Mr X’s ongoing complaints and the Council’s current stance on the matters.

Mr X’s complaints

Suitability of the property

22. Records show the Council’s occupational therapist (OT) found the property was suitable for wheelchair users and had the potential for adaptations when he moved into it in 2014. The OT therefore found the property was suitable to meet Mr X’s needs.
23. Mr X says the property is not suitable because it is on the second floor within a block of flats. He says the lift regularly breaks down which prevents him both leaving his property or entering back into it. The Ombudsman has already investigated Mr X’s complaint into the suitability of the property. We found no fault in how the Council decided the property was suitable to meet Mr X’s needs.
24. The Council’s view outlined in its response letter in February 2019 is the property was a suitable offer at the time in line with Mr X’s medical recommendations. The Ombudsman has previously investigated this matter and found no evidence the Council pressured Mr X into accepting the property. The Council has told Mr X he can apply to the Council to be rehoused if he believes his circumstances have changed.

Bathroom adaptations

25. Records show the OT made recommendations in November 2014 for the bathroom to be adapted to a level access shower and for the Council to further explore adaptations to the kitchen. The Council agreed to a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) in 2015 which funded the bathroom adaptations. Mr X did not wish at the time for the Council to consider the kitchen adaptations as part of the DFG.
26. The Council carried out the adaptations to the bathroom in 2015 however Mr X was unhappy with the work and said the shower was too small. The Council agreed to make further improvements to the shower which the Council completed in 2016. Mr X said the floor is too slippery. The Council offered to visit Mr X in 2017 with a view to testing the floor however records show Mr X turned that offer down because he no longer wanted to stay in the property.
27. The Council said in its response letter in February 2019 that it has carried out multiple attempts to resolve Mr X’s outstanding issues with the bathroom adaptations and it has carried out its duties in line with the DFG. The Ombudsman has already investigated Mr X’s complaints about the bathroom adaptations. The Ombudsman found no fault in how the Council considered and implemented the bathroom adaptations.

Kitchen adaptations

28. Records show the Council did not progress Mr X’s OT assessment for the kitchen adaptations as part of the DFG in 2015 on his request. Mr X contacted the Council again at the end of 2015 and said he now wanted kitchen adaptations. Mr X said he wanted height adjustable worktops to make it easier for wheelchair access. Records show the Council carried out an OT assessment in early 2016, however decided it needed a medical opinion to ensure it had fully considered all his needs. The Council said Mr X did not provide it with consent for it to obtain his medical records and it therefore closed the referral.
29. Records show the Council did in fact receive Mr X’s medical consent form in 2016 and it has since apologised for the oversight.
30. Mr X contacted the Council again in late 2016 about the kitchen adaptations and it agreed for an OT to visit him again. Records show Mr X was not in when the OT visited. The Council said It made further offers for an OT assessment at the end of 2016 and the start of 2017 however Mr X declined the offers.
31. The Council said in its response letter in February 2019 that any adaptations to the kitchen must be based on a referral and recommendation from social services following an assessment by an OT. The Council said it remains open and willing to arrange a new OT assessment.

Entry and exit to the property

32. Entry to Mr X’s property is initially via a communal door which Mr X raised as a concern in 2015. Following this the Council obtained permission from the landlord to adapt the door. The Council carried out the adaptions in mid-2016 and the door is now fully automated. A previous Ombudsman investigation has already investigated Mr X’s complaints about the delay in dealing with this matter.
33. Mr X says the wall outside the front door of the property prevents him being able to safely manoeuvre his wheelchair. The Council said it cannot make structural changes to the property. It said Mr X should have raised the issue at the time the property was allocated.

My findings

34. The Ombudsman has already investigated Mr X’s complaints about the suitability of the property, the bathroom adaptations and the issues around his entry and exit to the property. The matters happened too long ago for further investigation into the matters which is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. I have therefore considered Mr X’s current situation and how the Council are assisting him with his ongoing concerns about the property and the relevant adaptations
35. I have considered the Council’s response to Mr X’s ongoing complaint about the lack of kitchen adaptations. The Council closed Mr X’s referral in 2016 when it said it did not receive his consent form to obtain his medical information. Since then, the Council told Mr X in its February 2019 response that it did in fact receive his consent form however it was not passed to the relevant department and it apologised for this. However, this did not cause a significant injustice because the records show the Council agreed to carry out another OT assessment eight months later at the end of 2016 and again in early 2017 which Mr X declined.
36. The Council has not carried out an OT assessment on Mr X for some time and the records show Mr X has declined offers of new assessments since 2016. The Council cannot carry out work to his kitchen without the appropriate referral from an up to date OT assessment, supported by funding from a DFG. The Council is willing to arrange a new OT assessment upon Mr X’s request and it is open for Mr X to request one. It is not the Council’s fault that adaptations to the kitchen have not progressed.
37. Mr X continues to complain that the property is not suitable to meet his needs as a disabled person. As explained above, the Ombudsman has already investigated the circumstances and Mr X’s complaints about the property when he moved in. Mr X can apply to transfer his tenancy if he believes the property is no longer suitable. The Council can then consider Mr X’s circumstances as they are now and decide whether he meets the criteria to move to a new property. The records show the Council has explained what Mr X needs to do and how to do it. There is no evidence Mr X has applied for a tenancy transfer, so therefore the Council has not considered moving him. Applying for a tenancy transfer remains the process Mr X must use if he wishes to move properties. I find no fault in how the Council has responded to Mr X’s concerns about the suitability of his property and it has given him the advice we would expect.

Back to top

Final decision

38. I have completed my investigation. The Council was not at fault for its actions and considerations of Mr X’s kitchen adaptations and the suitability of his property.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

39. I did not investigate Mr X’s complaints about the suitability of the property, the bathroom adaptations and the issues around his entry and exit to the property for the reasons explained in paragraph 34.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman