Summary: Ms B complains about the Council’s response to her request for a stairlift. We have identified fault in terms of delay in progressing the application and poor communication. We have not found fault in the way the Council decided to change the scope of the works.

The complaint

1. Ms B says:
• There were delays in the Council’s response to her request for a stairlift.
• The Council then told her it would carry out some rewiring of the electrical installation in her house as part of the installation of the stairlift but then changed its mind to save money. She says that the proposed works are unsafe.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the evidence that Ms B and the Council have provided, the relevant law, guidance and policies and both sides’ comments on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Disabled Facilities Grants are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Councils have a statutory duty to give grants to disabled people for certain adaptations. Before approving a grant, a council must be satisfied that the works are:
• necessary and appropriate to meet the disabled person’s needs and
• are reasonable and practicable depending on the age and condition of the property.
6. Councils must ensure that they have the right team of professionals to assess and recommend adaptions. This will include occupational therapists and surveyors and there should be good communication and interdisciplinary team work.
7. In March 2022 the government issued non-statutory guidance “Disabled facilities Grant (DFG) Delivery: Guidance for local authorities in England’.
8. The guidance identifies five key stages to delivering home adaptations and the timescales the councils should aim for in progressing through the stages. The timescales depend on the complexity and urgency of the case. I have provided the timescales relevant to Ms B’s application:
• Stage 1: First contact to assessment and identification of the relevant works. An occupational therapist (OT) will assess the person’s needs and potential solutions through home adaptations (20 working days).
• Stage 2: Identification of the relevant works to submission of the formal grant application. The person completes and submits the application form together with designs and costing for the works (50 working days).
• Stage 3: Grant application to grant decision. The Council will check the application and issue a decision letter. If a council refuses a grant, it must explain why (20 working days).
• Stage 4: Approval of grant to completion of works. The works are arranged and carried out and the necessary quality checks made (80 working days).

What happened

9. Ms B is an adult with physical disabilities. She lives in a house which she owns. The Council had previously adapted Ms B’s upstairs bathroom so that it met Ms B's needs.
10. Ms B contacted the Council on 29 December 2020 and said she had difficulties using the stairs and she wanted a stairlift to be installed. The Council has explained that, at the time, it had long waiting times for assessments because of the backlog created by the COVID-19 pandemic when Council officers were not able to visit properties as well as the increase in demand caused by the pandemic.
11. The Council’s assessment officer assessed Ms B on 27 May 2021 and noted:
• There were two rails in place on the stairs. Ms B appeared to be in pain and had difficulty holding on to the rails. Ms B used the stairs taking one step at a time and was very slow stopping numerous times.
• The assessor recommended the installation of a stairlift.
12. A feasibility survey was completed on 29 July 2021 and it was decided that the installation of a stairlift was feasible The Council had obtained a quote for the works and the Council’s Major Adaptations Panel approved the works on the same day.
13. The case was transferred to the Council’s technical team, whose role it was to progress the grant application and the works. An officer visited Ms B on 9 August 2021 to complete the grant application. The paperwork was signed off as correct on 7 October 2021 but a query was raised at the next check as the names on the Land Registry did not match. Once this was clarified, the DFG was approved on 1 December 2021.
14. The stairlift company arrived to do the works in January 2022 but encountered some problems. The consumer unit (the unit where the electrical wire enters the property from the mainline and is controlled and distributed throughout the property) was situated under the stairs and was in the way of the installation of the stairlift. The proposal was to move the consumer unit to the outside of the house.
15. An electrician (hired by the stairlift company) carried out an electrical condition report / risk assessment prior to the move of the consumer unit. The stairlift company emailed the Council and said the electrician had noticed that there were some issues relating to Ms B’s electrical installation in the house and these issues needed to be resolved before the works could be continued.
16. The Council’s officer sent an email on 20 January 2022 and asked the stairlift company to carry out some further investigation into the electrical installation and provide test certificates.
17. The electrician returned to Ms B’s property to carry out further investigations and the stairlift company emailed the Council on 11 February 2022 with the feedback:
• Some rewiring was needed to resolve the findings relating to the electrical installation. This would cost around £1,400 + VAT.
• There were further complications relating to the work with Electricity North West (ENW) as ENW had said that a raised flower bed had to be removed before ENW could excavate the outside supply cable. However, Ms B had said she would not agree to the removal of the flower bed unless the Council agreed to reinstate it.
• The flower bed could not be reinstated because of its size and height. To reinstate it was ‘potentially extremely unstable and a serious hazard should it fall.’
18. The stairlift company asked the Council how it wanted to proceed. The stairlift company chased the Council in March and May 2022 but did not receive a response.
19. The stairlift company chased the Council on 4 July 2022 and the Council’s officer responded on 11 July 2022 and said: ‘Could you carry out the remedial works that the electrician has listed?’, although the officer was referring to the electrician’s earlier email of 20 January 2022. The officer also said that there was still the unresolved problem with the flowerbed. He asked the stairlift company whether a site visit was needed to resolve that problem. The stairlift company did not reply and the Council did not chase the stairlift company.
20. On 17 January 2023 Ms B complained to the Council and said:
• There had been no progress in the works since a year ago and it had been two years since she contacted the Council to ask for a stairlift.
• The lack of a stairlift impacted her life significantly. Her bed was now in the living room and she was unable to use her upstairs bathroom.
21. The Council’s officer and a manager from the stairlift company carried out a site visit to Ms B on 3 February 2023. The conclusions were:
• The work could be carried out by cutting back, altering and extending the wooden cupboard that housed the electrical incoming main cable and the consumer units. (It is my understanding that there were going to be two consumer units, the existing unit and a new unit for the stairlift).
• This was a better option than moving the consumer unit to the outside of the house which would require involvement of Electricity North West and the removal of Ms B’s flowerbed which she objected to. And it would require a potential rewiring of the house.
• This new option would still require the relocation of the main consumer unit (inside the house).The Council’s officer would ask the electrician to carry out further testing on the wiring to determine if any rewiring had to be done before the consumer units were moved.
22. On 7 February 2023 the stairlift company emailed the Council and said that further testing was not needed. They had spoken to the electrician who previously visited the house and provided a quote for the works and said the work would require 2 electricians to work for 3 days which would cost around £2,500. On 8 February 2023 the Council’s officer replied by email and authorised the works.
23. The Council responded to Ms B’s complaint on 14 February 2023 and said:
• It outlined the actions the Council had taken to progress the case.
• It admitted that it had not progressed the case between July 2022 and January 2023. It said this was ‘not acceptable and certainly not the standard of service I would expect our citizens to receive’. The Council upheld the complaint of delay and apologised for the error.
• It set out what had been agreed at the meeting on 3 February 2023 (see above).
• It partially upheld the complaint about a lack of communication between the stairlift company and the Council.
24. The electricians were booked to attend Ms B’s house on 6 March 2023 but one of the electricians was ill so the Council re-arranged the visit for 14 March 2023.
25. The electricians visited Ms B’s house on 14 March 2023. The electricians moved the main consumer unit slightly and installed a new consumer unit for the chair lift. The electrician removed the box attached to the outside of the house where the consumer unit was going to be placed. The works were completed in half a day and the electricians did not do any rewiring of the existing electrical installation.
26. The electrician carried out a risk assessment and certified the works. The document stated: ‘Resite customer unit without disconnecting any cables. New customer unit for lift (illegible) for chair lift only.’
27. Ms B told the Council after the visit that she did not want the works to be continued. She complained to the Council on 6 April 2023 and said:
• When the electricians first arrived, they told her son that they were going to rewire the house which was going to require 3 days. However, the works were completed in half a day, after a telephone call with the Council.
• The electrician had told her the circuit was not safe. She was worried that the work the electrician had done would drain the electrics.
• The electricians who attended were not from ENW. She questioned why ENW was not carrying out the work as originally planned.
• A box attached to the outside of the property which was going to house the consumer unit was removed without her consent.
• She was not informed on 3 February 2023 that the Council was no longer going to carry out the works recommended in the original risk assessment and that it was no longer involving ENW. If she had known that, she would not have agreed for the works to go ahead.
28. The Council responded to Ms B and said:
• The electrician undertook a full test and inspection of the electrical installation at Ms B’s house on 14 March 2023 to ascertain the full extent of the required works.
• At the visit on 3 February 2023 the Council’s officer and the representative from the stairlift company discussed in great detail why a full rewire was no longer required. The Council had identified a less disruptive alternative scheme which was feasible.
• Ms B was fully informed regarding the change in the scope of the works that was suggested and was in full agreement with the suggestions.
• There were still problems with Ms B’s electrical installation however it was not the Council’s responsibility to fix those. Rewiring the house was Ms B’s responsibility and not the Council’s.
• ENW only undertook work to the incoming electrical cable on the outside of the house. Internal electrical works were not the responsibility of ENW.
29. In its response to the Ombudsman the Council clarified that certain types of works to the electricity supply require building regulations approval or self-certification by an appropriately registered electrician. The original plan was to move the consumer unit to the outside of the house and to integrate the electrical wiring for the stairlift into the existing unit. This would have required certification by the electrician and could not be done safely without some rewiring at the house.
30. However, the revised plan of installing a separate consumer unit and a minor relocation of the main consumer unit (without disconnecting the wiring) meant that the works to the stairlift could be done safely without the need for further rewiring and could be signed off by the electrician on that basis.
31. The works, including the electrical installation, for the stairlift were entirely safe. The installation of the new consumer unit had not affected Ms B’s existing electrical installation.

Analysis

Delay

32. In terms of the complaint of delay, I appreciate that the DFG guidance is non-statutory and is dated March 2022 so some of the events happened before the guidance. Nevertheless, it is helpful in setting some parameters in terms of delay.
33. There was some delay initially to start the assessment although I accept that this was caused by the COVID-19 backlog and the unusually high demand.
34. The survey was carried out in July 2021 and an officer visited Ms B in August 2021 to complete the grant application. However, the grant was not approved until January 2022, another four months later. I appreciate that there was some issue with the registered title of the land but I do not think that explains why it took four months to approve the grant. So there was some further delay at this stage.
35. Matters progressed again in January 2022 and the Council was going to install the stairlift but it was then faced with the problem of moving the consumer unit to the outside of the house and the implications of this. The Council did not progress matters between February 2022 and July 2022 and again between July 2022 and January 2023. This was fault.
36. The Council then progressed the works again in January 2023. In February 2023 the Council proposed the alternative solution and abandoned the proposal to move the consumer unit outside. The works to the electrical installation were carried out in March 2023 but Ms B has refused to allow the installation of the stairlift since then.

Change of the proposed works

37. Ms B’s main complaint is that the Council is refusing to carry out some rewiring to the property, which it had initially identified. I should clarify that it is not the Ombudsman’s role to carry out an assessment. The Ombudsman is not an occupational therapist, a surveyor or an electrician. The Ombudsman can only consider whether there was fault in the way the Council made the decision.
38. The Council encountered difficulties with the original proposed scheme to move the consumer unit outside because of the issues with the flowerbed. Ms B said she wanted the flowerbed reinstalled. The Council assessed the risk and said this could not be done. Therefore, an alternative solution had to be found.
39. The Council’s officer and a representative from the stairlift company visited Ms B on 3 February 2023 and assessed the house. They came up with a new solution which they discussed with Ms B. Ms B complained that the Council failed to inform her of the changes it was planning to make and that she would not have agreed to the changes if she had been informed.
40. I have read the notes of the conversation and Ms B was informed that the relocation of the consumer unit to the outside had been abandoned and that this meant that NWE were no longer required to be involved. Ms B was also informed that the rewiring that had previously been planned was no longer necessary. She was told that further testing would decide whether any rewiring was necessary.
41. So I find no fault in that respect up to that point. However, there was poor communication in the following weeks.
42. The Council initially (email dated 8 February 2023) agreed to carry out the electrical works without retesting the system. This was a change from what it said it would do at the meeting on 3 February 2023. It is not clear why the Council made this decision as the quote provided by the electrician related to the original works, not the revised works. Retesting was needed to decide what, if any rewiring was needed now that the decision had been made to install a second separate consumer unit. The new quote was also a lot higher than the original quote.
43. On 14 March 2023, the electrician then carried out the testing and completed the works and it was decided that no additional rewiring was needed. It appears to me that the decision not to carry out any further rewiring was made on the day, after the electrician did the testing and the works.
44. There was poor communication with Ms B regarding what was to happen on 14 March 2023. Two electricians had been booked for 3 days so Ms B expected the rewiring to take place. The Council should have explained to Ms B that, if the electrician determined that the works could be done without any further rewiring, then the works would go ahead on that basis. That was not explained to Ms B and should have been. This was fault.
45. However, I do not find fault in the way the Council made the decision. The Council had found an alternative proposal which Ms B agreed to. The Council then relied upon the assessment of a registered electrician to decide what the scope of the electrical works would be and how the works could be done safely.
46. The Council only had a duty to install a stairlift as these works had been identified as necessary and appropriate to meet Ms B’s needs. It is true that there were some problems on Ms B’s existing electrical installation in the house, but it was not the Council’s duty to fix all the problems in Ms B’s house. It was only its duty to install the stairlift and if it had found an alternative way to do so safely, then it could progress the works on that basis.
47. I also find no fault in the Council’s decision not to involve ENW in the revised works. ENW was only ever involved to relocate the electrical cable on the outside and as this relocation was no longer needed, ENW’s involvement was no longer needed. ENW was never going to be involved in doing the electrical works on the inside of the house, that was always going to be done by an electrician commissioned by the stairlift company.
48. I have also considered the injustice suffered because of the fault.
49. In terms of the communication about what happened on 14 March 2023, I accept that this would have caused distress and confusion on the day, but ultimately the outcome would have been the same. The Council would have made its decision about the extent of the works and Ms B would have disagreed with this decision.
50. In terms of the delay, I have identified significant periods of delay between August 2021 and January 2023. It should not have taken so long for the Council to approve a DFG for a stairlift. These delays caused Ms B great emotional distress and her physical disabilities increased during that time. Ms B has been living on the ground floor of her house which means that she does not have access to the bathroom upstairs which is adapted to her needs. I have also considered evidence provided by medical professionals involved with Ms B who have explained the impact of the lack of stairlift on Ms B’s mental and physical health.
51. However, I have also taken into consideration that the works have been stalled for almost a further year after the delay that I identified (up until January 2023) as Ms B refused to allow the installation of the stairlift to go ahead unless the Council agreed to carry out the further rewiring it had identified in the original proposal. So even without the earlier delay, the ultimate outcome would have been the same, except for the fact that Ms B may have taken the matter to the Ombudsman sooner.
52. I am of the view that a remedy of £500 would be an appropriate remedy in balancing these considerations. The Council has confirmed that its offer of the installation of a stairlift is still open and it is awaiting Ms B’s agreement to progress the works.

Back to top

Agreed action

53. The Council has agreed to take the following actions within one month of the final decision. It will:
• Apologise in writing to Ms B for the fault I have found.
• Pay Ms B £500 to reflect the distress caused by the fault.
• Remind relevant officers of the timescales for DFGs.

Back to top

Final decision

54. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed the remedy to address the injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman