The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of their application for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) between 2019 and 2022 which the Council’s case panel refused. There was no fault in the Council’s decision to refuse the DFG or for the time it took to take the case to panel. There was some fault in how the Council initially communicated timescales to Mr and Mrs X which did not cause them a significant injustice. There was also fault in how the Council handled Mr and Mrs X’s complaint however it has already provided a suitable remedy for any injustice that caused.
The complaint
Mr and Mrs X complain about the Council’s handling of their Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) application for a ground floor bathroom and bedroom between 2019 and present. Specifically, they complain: The Occupational Therapist (OT) provided them with misleading information about timescales after the initial referral in October 2019. They said their reliance on that information meant they went ahead with private kitchen work which is still unfinished.
About the Council’s decision to decline their DFG application in 2021 because the proposals did not meet building regulations.
Mr and Mrs X say the Council’s handling of the DFG application has caused a deterioration in Mrs X’s health and has caused them both distress, uncertainty and time and trouble.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I spoke to Mr and Mrs X’s representative, Mr Z about the complaint and considered information he provided.
I considered the Council’s response to my enquiry letter.
Mr and Mrs X had the opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered comments before I made a final decision.
What I found
Disabled Facilities Grants Disabled Facilities Grants are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (the Act). Councils have a statutory duty to give grant aid to disabled people for certain adaptations. Before approving a grant, a council must be satisfied the work is necessary, meets the disabled person’s needs, and is reasonable and practicable.
Councils will often consult an occupational therapist (OT) from the social services department to determine what is necessary and appropriate.
A council should decide a grant application as soon as reasonably practicable. This must be within six months of the application. If a council refuses a grant, it must explain why. Reasons for which a council may refuse a grant can include: the work is not practicable due to the condition of the property the applicant does not live in the property as their main home the applicant does not satisfy the means test the council does not think the work is ‘necessary and appropriate’.
A third-party organisation (the charity) is the registered social landlord. The Council contracts the charity to support the DFG application process following an assessment and referral from an OT. This includes organising a surveyor to visit the property, discussing options and drawing up plans and specifications. The charity will also engage with a contractor to carry out the work. Ultimately it is the Council which agrees the DFG funding and it remains responsible for the actions of the charity.
What happened Mr and Mrs X live together. Mrs X is severely disabled with a progressive neurological condition which affects her mobility. She uses a wheelchair and requires help to meet her personal care needs.
In October 2019 Mr X made a referral to the Council requesting an assessment for a DFG to pay for a downstairs bathroom for Mrs X. Mr X said an OT visited them to carry out the assessment. The OT emailed Mr X following the assessment and said they had completed an application for the DFG as a priority 1. The OT said this meant it ‘would be completed in approximately 3 months’. The OT however submitted the referral to the charity as a priority 2 which meant the case would go on a waiting list for allocation to a case officer and surveyor within 3 months.
Shortly after the OT assessment, records show Mr X contacted the charity and asked it to delay any works on the DFG until May 2020 because they were going to be away from home, with family. The OT informed the charity of Mr X’s request.
In June 2020 records show Mr X told the charity that he and Mrs X were living abroad and had been since the start of the COVID-19 lockdown. Mr X told the charity he would contact it when they returned to the UK.
In July 2020 Mr X contacted the charity and raised concerns that he was without a kitchen or heating. At this time the DFG referral was on hold. Mr X said he had carried out private works on his kitchen following the initial referral.
In August 2020 Mrs X signed the DFG application for the initial referral made back in October 2019.
In September 2020 an OT visited to reassess Mrs X’s needs. Records show the OT noted Mr X was manually lifting Mrs X and had concerns about how he was managing her needs. The OT reassessment led to a new DFG referral which included a Closomat toilet. Mr X declined any formal care support. The OT explained to Mr X that the DFG referral was a priority 2. Mr X asked the OT to put on hold any major work until May 2021 because he and Mrs X were going to stay with family and were then going abroad for a few months.
Between September and November 2020 Mrs X’s health deteriorated. Due to the change in Mrs X’s health the Council changed the DFG application to a priority 1.
In November 2020 the OT submitted a new DFG referral for Mr and Mrs X which included ground floor bedroom access and a ramp.
In February 2021 records show Mr X contacted the charity and said they were still abroad and would not be home for a few weeks as their flights were cancelled due to COVID-19 issues. Mr and Mrs X returned home from abroad in March 2021 and Mr X raised concerns that the DFG process was taking too long.
Between April and June 2021 Building Control officers and contractors visited Mr X, to provide quotes. However, records show the contractor wrote to Mr X and said it could no longer complete the works. The charity decided to look for a different contractor. Further concerns were raised that Mr X was continuing to manually lift Mrs X but was declining any formal care help. The charity said it provided Mr X with a list of contractors for him to choose from.
During June 2021 the surveyor identified issues with the proposed works. The surveyor said the layout as proposed with a ground floor bedroom would be a room within a room. Therefore, the proposals did not comply with fire regulations and a fire escape door would need to be included. The surveyor sent Mr X some revised plans which included fire escape measures. Mr X was unhappy with them and did not want a fire escape, believing cold would enter the house in the winter months.
Mr X told the charity he did not wish for any work to begin until at least April 2022. The charity advised Mr X that any quotes obtained now would be redundant.
Mr X complained to the Council. He complained about the delay in agreeing the DFG and starting the proposed work. He said the charity told him his referral was a priority 1 following the initial referral in 2019. Relying on this information Mr X said he commenced private works on his kitchen which are still incomplete because of the lack of progress from the Council. He also complained about a lack of interim measures and formal care support. The Council referred Mr X to the charity to respond.
The charity responded to Mr X, stating that it was Mr X’s wish for no work to start until April 2022. The charity said the length of time taken was mainly down to the availability of Mr and Mrs X and getting access to their home to obtain surveys and quotes. It said this was outside of its control. The charity said it was now awaiting Mr X to confirm he agreed with the proposed layout which included a fire escape and complied with building and fire regulations. The charity said it was Mr X’s decision to take out his kitchen before the DFG was agreed.
Mr X escalated his complained to stage 2. He asked again for an explanation of why the OT told him the initial referral was a priority 1. The charity provided a final response in October 2021. The charity reiterated much of its stage 1 response. It said the proposals must meet building regulations. It told Mr X it would progress the works once plans and a contractor were agreed.
Records show the charity scheduled visits with Mr X during October however records show these were cancelled or postponed at Mr X’s request. An agreement could not be reached between Mr X and the Council around the layout of the proposals.
In November 2021 the Council’s complex case panel considered Mr X’s DFG and the proposed plans. The Council suggested three layouts which complied with building control and fire regulations. Mr X submitted his own which included a window as a fire escape. A building control officer submitted a report to panel which concluded Mr X’s proposed plans were not appropriate because Mrs X could not escape through the window safely or independently. As no agreement was reached and Mr X did not agree with the Council’s proposed plans, the panel refused the DFG and did not agree to the funding.
Mr X remained unhappy with the handling of his complaint and complained to us in December 2021. Mr X said the charity failed to respond to his complaint about the OT telling him the initial referral was a priority 1 or around his complaint about a lack of interim measures. Mr X was also unhappy with the decision of the complex case panel to refuse the DFG. We asked the Council to respond.
The Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint as an appeal against the DFG decision and provided its response in May 2022. It apologised for not ensuring all of the issues Mr X raised were dealt with by either the charity or the Council. It offered Mr and Mrs X a total of £500 to recognise the time and trouble they were caused. It also acknowledged the OT incorrectly told Mr X the charity would deal with the initial referral as a priority 1. It said however, that it was Mr X’s decision to start private work before the DFG process was signed off, particularly where no guarantees were made around approval or timescales. With regards to formal care support, the Council said it had made numerous offers which Mr and Mrs X had declined.
With regards to the decision of the complex case panel to refuse the DFG the Council said it was the professional view of the OT that Mrs X would be unable to escape the property through the window safely, on her own. Therefore Mr X’s proposed layout was deemed inappropriate to meet Mrs X’s needs and it required a higher standard of fire safety.
Mr and Mrs X remained unhappy and asked the Ombudsman to consider the matter.
My findings
Mr and Mrs X’s application for a DFG has taken a long time. It was fault that the initial OT incorrectly told Mr X the referral was a priority 1. However, it was Mr X’s choice to undertake private building work without any proposal in place or guarantees about timescales. There is no evidence showing exactly when Mr X carried out the private works but to do so before the DFG and any timescales were formally agreed was Mr X’s decision and not something I can hold the Council accountable for. In any case, records show it was at Mr X’s request that the DFG process was put on hold until mid-2020 due to them being away from home. So, I cannot say this fault caused a significant injustice.
Mr and Mrs X were not living at home between October 2019 and mid-2020 and so asked the Council to put the case on hold. Records show that Mrs X signed DFG agreement in August 2020 as priority 2 but this was changed to priority 1 following a deterioration in Mrs X’s health in October 2020. New referrals followed which ultimately included a proposal for a ground floor bedroom. Mr and Mrs X were again out of the country until mid-2021 so, the Council could not progress the application which required a visit from building control and contractors to arrange quotes. It was not through Council fault that it could not progress the case during this period.
The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether anyone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
Mr X’s case went to the complex case panel in November 2021 after records show no agreement was made around the proposed layout. The panel considered all the proposals including Mr X’s but decided, based on the professional advice of the OT and building control, that Mr X’s proposed layout was not safe enough to meet Mrs X’s needs. There was no fault in the way it reached that decision.
The Council’s complaint handling in this matter was poor. There were delays and it should have ensured all the issues Mr X raised were dealt with in the charity’s response or via referral by the charity back to the Council to deal with. The Council has already apologised for this fault and offered Mr and Mrs X a total of £500 to remedy the injustice caused. I will not achieve anything more by investigating it further.
There is no doubt that Mrs X requires adaptations to meet her assessed needs. The records show the Council has made several offers to Mr and Mrs X to assess them for formal care and support, However, Mr and Mrs X declined these offers of support. It is open for Mr and Mrs X to approach the Council for formal help and to progress the DFG in line with the Council’s proposed layouts.
Final decision
I completed this investigation. There was no fault in how the Council decided to refuse Mr and Mrs X’s DFG application. There was some fault in how the Council initially communicated with Mr X and in complaint handling, however the Council has already remedied any injustice that caused.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman