The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her mother’s request for a level access shower. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
The complaint
Ms X complained, on behalf of her mother, Mrs Y, about the Council’s handling of her request for a level access shower, which the family said Ms Y needed to wash herself independently. Ms X said the Council advised her Mrs Y needed basic equipment and a carer to assist her with washing.
Ms X said Mrs Y had only been able to have strip washes for four years and that her inability to have a shower is affecting her physical cleanliness and wellbeing and increases the risk of skin infections.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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) 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 there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
2020 request Mrs Y’s GP asked the Council to assess if she needed help with washing in 2020. The Council carried out an assessment, which recorded that Mrs Y wanted to have a bath and it offered a bath lift to assist her.
Three months later, Ms X contacted the Council to say Mrs Y was fearful and not confident using the bath lift. The Council said its reablement service could support Mrs Y to become more confident, but Ms X declined this because she did not want care workers attending the house during the COVID-19 pandemic. She said she would consider installing a shower privately.
We will not consider this complaint further. We expect people to complain to us within 12 months of the events complained about. There is no evidence Ms X could not have complained to us sooner.
In any case, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement. This is because Mrs Y said she wanted to be able to have a bath and the Council suggested equipment to help with that, as well as support from its reablement service. There is no record of a request for the Council to assess for a shower but, even if there had been, it was appropriate for the Council to consider whether other options would meet Mrs Y’s disability needs.
2024 request A further referral was made in March 2024, which specifically stated Mrs Y would like access to a shower. Ms X told the Council she had approached her housing association about this and had been advised she needed an occupational therapy (OT) assessment.
The Council contacted Ms X by telephone. Its record stated Ms X said she was seeking permission to privately fund bathroom adaptations. The Council advised her she did not need an OT assessment if the adaptations were being privately funded. It went on to explain that, if it was carrying out an OT assessment, it would consider lower cost options initially, such as equipment and reablement services, before considering a major adaptation. Ms X was unhappy with that advice as she said Mrs Y wanted to be independent and needed a wet room. She said she would contact the housing association again and declined an OT assessment.
Ms X subsequently made a formal complaint about the Council’s failure, despite frequent requests, to take action to meet Mrs Y’s bathing needs. The Council declined to investigate as it said it related to the housing association.
Where a person applies for a disabled facilities grant (DFG) to fund or partly fund adaptations, the process usually requires an OT assessment to identify the persons needs and the adaptations they need to meet them. Before approving a grant, a council must be satisfied the work is necessary, appropriate for the disabled person’s needs, and is reasonable and practicable. This will include considering whether equipment or lower cost adaptations will meet the person’s needs. Therefore, it was not fault for the Council to say that these would be considered before an OT recommended a wet room, which would be considered a major adaptation.
On this basis, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation and no worthwhile outcome we could achieve by doing so.
Whilst I note the Council declined to respond to the complaint, we do not investigate a council’s complaints handling if we are not investigating the underlying matter complained about.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman