Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council decided what adaptations to carry out to Mr B’s property and the Council progressed matters in a timely matter. There was fault as the Council should have told Mr and Mrs B that the works to a rear gate exceeded the approved grant figure before it started the works. There was also fault in the Council’s communications once Mr and Mrs B had complained. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay a symbolic sum to reflect the distress caused by the fault.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs B needed adaptations to their property. They complain that the Council delayed the adaptations, failed to inform them that the adaptations would exceed the £30,000 budget which meant a £2,500 charge to repair a gate on the property would be required. They also say the Council then later denied it had ever approved the works to the gate.

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 provided by Mrs B and the Council, the relevant law, guidance and policies and comments on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law, guidance and policies

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. The maximum grant payable by a council is £30,000. A council can award other discretionary help if it thinks it is necessary.
8. In March 2022 the government issued non-statutory guidance “Disabled facilities Grant (DFG) Delivery: Guidance for local authorities in England’.
9. The guidance identifies five key stages to delivering home adaptations:
• Stage 0: First contact with the service. Councils should ensure the public has access to information and advice about the DFG process.
• 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.
• 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 (where necessary).
• 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.
• Stage 4: Approval of grant to completion of works. The works are arranged and carried out and the necessary quality checks made.
10. In approving any grant, loan or other form of assistance, authorities are required to set out a list of information which includes an estimated cost of the works and any associated fees or charges.
11. The guidance says that urgent and complex works should be completed within the following timescales:
• Stage 1 – 20 working days
• Stage 2 – 45 working days
• Stage 3 – 5 working days
• Stage 4 – 60 working days

Council’s adaptations policy

12. The Council’s adaptations policy said:
• An occupational therapist (OT) must determine what is necessary and appropriate to meet the disabled person’s eligible assessed needs and the surveyor must consider what is reasonable and practicable. The most modest solution is recommended and the OT and surveyor are required to differentiate between the ‘needs’ and ‘wants’ of the service user.
• The Council has a Special Needs Housing Panel which reviews emergency and larger adaptations over £15,000.
• If the costs of the adaptation exceed £30,000, the Council may in exceptional circumstances award discretionary funds, which must be approved by the Council’s Executive Adaptations Board. The additional grant will always be subject to an interest-free charge. The Board can also hear appeals about the Panel’s decision within two weeks of the notification of the decision.

What happened

13. Mr B has a terminal illness which affects his mobility and eyesight. He and his wife, Mrs B own a house.
14. The Council received a referral requesting an occupational therapist (OT) assessment for Mr B on 24 August 2022. The OT visited Mr B on 1 September 2022 and carried out the assessment. Mr B had difficulty going up the stairs where his bedroom and the bathroom was. The OT recommended that a downstairs shower room with a level access shower should be created.
15. Mr B was waiting to receive a manual wheelchair as he had difficulty walking. Mrs B said they had also applied for an electric wheelchair.
16. Mr and Mrs B’s house was on the corner of two busy roads, roads 1 and 2. The front of the house was on road 1 near a roundabout. Mr and Mrs B said the care workers were unable to park their car on the driveway so they asked whether the Council could lower the kerb to enable off street parking to the front. Mr and Mrs B would also like to park their car there. The OT said she would make some enquiries.
17. On 20 September 2022 the OT emailed Harrow Highways team to find out if they would approve a crossover (dropped kerb) on road 1.
18. Harrow Highways responded on the same day and said Mr and Mrs B would have to apply for a new vehicle crossing which a Highways Safety Inspector would consider. The social worker informed Mrs B and forwarded the email from the Highways team to Mrs B.
19. On 27 September 2022 the surveyor visited Mr and Mrs B’s property to assess the feasibility of the proposed works to the ground floor of the house.
20. On 28 September 2022 the OT made a referral to the DFG team for off street parking.
21. The DFG’s surveyor contacted the Highways team on 5 October 2022. He explained that he worked in the DFG team and wanted to know whether an application for a vehicle crossing would be approved for Mr and Mrs B’s corner house. He received a response on 7 October 2022 which said: ‘No chance of a crossing on road 1 or road 2 and they have a garage already to the rear so any application received will be refused.’
22. The OT informed Mrs B of the response from the Highways team on 10 October 2022.
23. The grant for the bathroom works was approved on 25 October 2022 and the surveyor held a pre-contracts meeting at the property with the builder and Mr and Mrs B on 1 November 2022.
24. Mrs B sent an email to the OT on 14 November 2022. She said she had spoken to the officer at the Highways team and he had told her he was not aware that the application for a crossover was made as part of a DFG and said that, now this had been clarified, he was ‘willing to talk the surveyor through the process.’
25. The officer in the Highways team contacted the surveyor. There was already a crossover and a parking area at the back of Mr and Mrs B’s property on road 2, at the back of the garden, but Mrs B had told the Highways officer that they did not have access to this crossover. The surveyor discussed the possibility of a new crossover close to the back at the house (more to the front of the garden), however, this would cross a bus stop. The Highways team officer said there was a small chance this would be approved but it would require consent from Transport for London, the Highways team and a planning application. This would take around 6 months and only had a slim chance of approval.
26. As the cost of the works would exceed £20,000, the works would require approval from the Council’s Special Needs Housing Panel. On 6 December 2022, the OT made a recommendation for a ground floor shower and special toilet and for a new crossover at road 2 to the Panel. In her application she stated: ‘In terms of accessing the property with a car, [Mr and Mrs B] are unable to use the back driveway because they have to cross land that doesn’t belong to them.’
27. The Council’s Panel considered this application on 21 December 2022. The Panel discussed the possibility of new crossover road, but noted the difficulties. The Panel noted that Mr and Mrs B said they did not know who owned the parking at the back of their property. The Panel said it needed more information before it could make a decision as it needed clarification whether Mr and Mrs B had permission to use the existing crossover and parking. The Panel decided that:
• The OT should carry out a further site visit to review and assess Mr B’s needs.
• The OT should bring the case back to Panel once all the information had been gathered.
28. The OT informed Mr and Mrs B of this decision. Mr and Mrs B were not in agreement with the proposal to use the existing crossover at the back of their property as they felt it was a long distance to take Mr B via the garden to the car.
29. The surveyor contacted the Land Registry on the same day to find out who owned the parking area at the back of Mr and Mrs B’s garden.
30. The OT and her manager visited Mr and Mrs B on 9 January 2023 to carry out the review. Mrs B said the existing crossover at road 2 had a border with a private property which had garages and they had no permission to use the neighbour’s land. Mrs B also said she could not push Mr B’s wheelchair over the grass in the garden as it would get stuck due to water excess.
31. Mrs B said she still wanted a new crossover on road 2, closer to the house. This would mean she could get Mr B to the car safely and he would not need to be pushed in his wheelchair for a long distance. She said she had spoken to Harrow Highways and the Council’s surveyor needed to make an application. The plan was for the surveyor to speak to the Highways team again.
32. The surveyor contacted the OT on 17 January 2023 and said he had obtained the plans to Mr and Mrs B’s house from the Land Registry. These showed that part of the land at the back of the garden belonged to Mr and Mrs B so it would be possible to create a hardstanding at the back of the garden with an access path to it.
33. The surveyor emailed the Highways team on 18 January 2023 and asked the team to provide detail on what agencies should be consulted to obtain a new crossover and what the timescales would be so that he could inform the Panel of the feasibility of this proposal.
34. The Highways team said a crossover would not be allowed on road 1 because of the proximity to the roundabout and the busy road. They said there was a bus stop next to Mr and Mrs B’s house on road 2 so the new crossover would need to go over the bus stop. This would require permission from Transport for London, the Council’s Transportation team and then planning permission. He could not guarantee that these agencies would give permission and it would take 4 months at least.
35. The OT took the matter back to the Panel on 1 February 2023. She still recommended the possibility of a new crossover at road 2, but noted the uncertainty whether permission would be granted because of the bus-stop.
36. The Panel said it was their understanding that the crossover and parking at the back could be used by Mr and Mrs B but they would need the neighbour’s permission to carry out adaptations. The manager said he had asked Mrs B whether he could contact the neighbour to obtain the permission, but Mrs B had not answered the question. The Panel looked at the Land Registry’s title plan for the property and considered the location of the bus stop and the existing crossover. The Panel considered the timescales to apply for a new crossover and the uncertainty of approval.
37. The Panel noted that the existing crossover already had an electric gate so that it could be opened remotely rather than manually, but Mrs B had said this gate did not work sometimes. The surveyor said the repair to the gate’s electrics could be grant funded.
38. The Panel decided that the option of a new crossover should not be pursued and said the following options should be discussed with Mr and Mrs B:
• Create a ramp at the front.
• Fix the electric gate if the neighbour would give their permission to do so.
39. The social worker informed Mr and Mrs B of this decision. Mr and Mrs B were angry and dissatisfied. They said the proposal did not meet Mr B’s needs because:
• It was too far for Mrs B to take Mr B in the wheelchair to the existing crossover at the back of the garden and it was unsafe.
• They would not receive permission from the neighbour.
• They still wanted the Council to pursue a new crossover on road 2.
40. Mr and Mrs B complained to the Council via their MP on 7 February 2023. They said:
• They did not agree with the Council’s reasons for rejecting their preferred option of a new crossover on road 2.
• Several months had already passed so the Council was not acting in a timely manner and the Council’s proposal was not faster than the application to the Highways team would have been.
41. The Council responded and said:
• An application for a new crossover on road 2 would require planning permission and there was a backlog in planning permissions which meant it could take longer than 6 months for the application to be decided. The total process including TFL, Highways and planning permission would take 4 to 6 months at least and it could take as long as 9 months.
• A ramp at the front door would provide access for Mr B to go outside and would meet his needs. This could be installed within 4 to 6 weeks.
42. Mrs B questioned the Council’s response and the Council explained that, because of the location of the house on the corner a new crossover on road 1 or 2 would not be possible. The best short-term solution was to provide a ramp at the front of the property and this could be done swiftly. In the meantime the Council would continue to explore the possibility of a hardstand at the rear of the garden if they could access that area through the existing gate.
43. The OT, the manager and the surveyor visited Mr and Mrs B’s house on 21 March 2023 to find a solution. An agreement was reached which was confirmed in a letter to Mr and Mrs B dated 28 March 2023. The works included a ramped access from the front to the back of the house, works to the side gate on road 2 and a concreted area in the garden which would allow Mrs B to drive the car close to the house from the car parking area. The letter also said: ‘The rear sliding gate to the property on [road 2] will be made functional.’
44. The notes of the visit do not set out the reasons why this decision was made. In its response to the Ombudsman the Council said the decision to agree the works was a compromise solution. The Council said Mr and Mrs B admitted at this visit that they owned the rear gate at the back of the house and this is where they usually parked. Mrs B said that because of a deterioration in her health she was unable to push Mr B’s wheelchair to the car parking area. She also struggled with opening the gate.
45. The Council received a cost estimate for the works on 4 April 2023.
46. The works were started on 11 April 2023. On 3 May 2023 the surveyor sent an email to Mrs B and said he was still waiting for the final costing of the works and he would let her know whether a charge would be required on the property.
47. Mrs B replied and said that a charge on the property had not been discussed previously and she and Mr B would not agree to a charge.
48. All the works, except for the works to the gate, were completed on 11 May 2023.
49. The Council wrote to Mr and Mrs B on 16 May 2023 and said that the works had reached £30,000. The Council could approve a discretionary grant for the remainder but would need Mr and Mrs B's approval for a charge on the property.
50. Mrs B complained to the Council on 19 May 2023 and said:
• The works that had been done were never the preferred option of her and Mr B.
• The Council should have known the costs before presenting the proposal and before starting the works.
51. The Council responded and said:
• ‘It was implausible that the bus stop would be removed to accommodate a dropkerb…’
• ‘Awaiting quotations would have delayed things further bearing in mind, had the OT been advised by yourself of the ownership of the gate, the adaptations would have commenced sooner.’
• It listed the works it had agreed to carry out but did not include the works to the rear sliding gate in that list.
• All works had been completed and Mrs B was able to access the external environment from the garden using the car.
• As the rear sliding gate was ‘not an aid to independence and does not hinder access from the property, no further works will be carried out on the gate and all essential adaptations have been provided.’
52. Mrs B responded and said:
• There was never any discussion about moving the bus stop.
• The Council received quotations in the weeks between the meeting on 21 March and the start of the works on 11 April 2023.
• The Council had confirmed in its letter dated 28 March 2023 that the works to the rear gate had been approved for DFG.
• The works were not completed as she was unable to open the rear gate. So this was still a hindrance to independence.
53. The Council said:
• The quotations were not final when the Council decided to start the works. The Council did this to expediate the works to enable Mr B to access the outside.
• A list of agreed works was sent to Mrs B on 5 April 2023. This list did not include the works to the rear gate.
• However, the Council acknowledged that the works to the rear gate were included in the letter it sent on 28 March 2023. It said it had a duty to adhere to its DFG policy which said that works over £30,000 required a charge on the property. It said: ‘It is noted that the gate in question was in use before, during and after Harrow Council’s involvement with adapting your property.’
• If the calculations of the cost had been completed before the works starting, the outcome would still have been the same. Only essential works would have been completed.
54. In its response to the Ombudsman added:
• The Highways team had told the surveyor that, once the Council established that Mr and Mrs B owned the back gate and already had a crossover, the Council would not consider a second crossover.
• I asked whether the Board had approved the discretionary grant above £30,000 and whether the Council had informed Mr and Mrs B of the appeal right to the Board. The Council said it had not informed Mr and Mrs B of the appeal right as an appeal would not have made any difference to the Council’s duty to expediate the works. The Board had not yet approved the discretionary grant as Mr and Mrs B had refused the charge.
55. On 1 August 2023, the OT went to the property to inspect the works that had been completed. In terms of the ramp, the OT said she was able to take Mr B outside in his wheelchair to the back of the garden safely without any difficulty. The OT was also able to use the rear sliding gate quite easily and identified no major issue. Mrs B said the OT was a lot younger than her which made a lot of difference. The OT said the Council would pay to fix the gate but would require a charge over the property and this was the reason why ‘the goal hasn’t been achieved fully.’

Analysis

56. It is not for the Ombudsman to carry out assessments. The Ombudsman cannot question the merit of a decision if there is no fault in the way the decision is made. The Ombudsman can only investigate whether there is any fault in the way the Council has carried out its assessments and progressed the application, in line with the law, guidance and policies.
57. Mrs B’s first complaint relates to the delay in processing the DFG application. I have not found fault in that respect.
58. The Council received the referral on 24 August 2022.
59. The Council had to assess whether the works were ‘appropriate and necessary’ and ‘reasonable and practicable’. The Council appointed an OT and surveyor to consider these matters. The OT assessed Mr B on 1 September 2022 and the surveyor attended the home on 27 September 2022. That was well within the timescales and there was no indication of delay at this stage.
60. The main works related to the ground floor of the house, which was to be converted to allow for a ground floor bathroom. I have not gone into detail about these works as Mr and Mrs B’s complaint does not relate to this. However, I have taken into consideration the fact that the Council was progressing these works.
61. I note the OT progressed Mrs B’s request for a crossover after her visit. She tried to contact the relevant agencies and also appropriately liaised with the surveyor about the crossover early on. That was in line with the guidance and good practice.
62. The surveyor liaised with the Highway team 7 October 2022. The Highways team said there was ‘no chance’ that a crossover would be approved because of the location of the house and the existing garage at the rear of the house. This indicated that, if Mr and Mrs B already had an existing crossover and parking, a second crossover would not be approved. I also note that the surveyor told the Highways team that he was from the disabled adaptations team so the surveyor knew this when he was giving the advice.
63. The works to the bathroom started on 7 November 2022. Therefore, there is no fault in the Council’s progressing the disabled adaptations at this stage. I presume that, in terms of the crossover, it was the Council’s understanding that a crossover was not an option and the matter was therefore not pursued further. I find no fault in that respect.
64. On 14 November 2022 Mrs B then asked the surveyor to speak to the Highways team again as she had spoken to them. It was Mrs B’s impression, from her conversation with the Highways team, that the crossover was still possible.
65. The surveyor spoke to the Highways team again and the Highways team said there was only a slim chance of approval and he explained the different agencies which would have to give approval and the timescales.
66. The OT then took the matter to Panel as the costs would exceed £20,000. She recommended the new crossover for approval to the Panel on 6 December 2022. The Panel considered the proposal on 21 December 2022 but said it could not decide without further information. I find no fault in the Council’s actions up to that point.
67. The Panel was aware that there was an existing crossover and parking at the back of the house so it was good practice to find out whether this crossover could be used, rather than pursue a plan of a new crossover which was unlikely to be approved and would take a long time. The Panel could ask for more information if it did not have enough information to make its decision.
68. The OT and her manager revisited Mr and Mrs B’s home on 9 January 2023 as recommended by the Panel. The surveyor contacted the Land Registry on 17 January 2023 and spoke to the Highways team again.
69. The OT and surveyor provided the Panel with the additional information. The Panel decided on 1 February 2023 that the best option would be to offer Mr B a ramp at the front of the house with the understanding that Mr and Mrs B would use the existing crossover at the rear of the house. The Council also offered to fix the electrics to the rear gate to the existing crossover.
70. I find no fault in the way the Council made this decision. The Council considered the information that was available and explained its reasoning. There was an existing crossover which could be used once a ramp to the front door was installed. The Council weighed that up against the option of an application for a new crossover which had long timescales and was unlikely to be approved.
71. I also note the Council’s comments that a second crossover would not have been considered by the Council if the Council had known, from the outset, that Mr and Mrs B owned the gate and already had a crossover they could use. The Council said a lot of the debate and the need to gather further information at the first and second Panel meetings could have been avoided if the Council had known that information from the outset.
72. Mrs B made her complaint as she still wanted a new crossover. The OT and surveyor revisited Mrs B on 21 March 2023 and reached a compromise which included some additional works. I find no fault in the decision. The Council and Mr and Mrs B agreed that the proposed works would meet Mr B’s needs.
73. However, I am of the view that it would have been helpful if the Council had kept better records at this stage on how the decision was made. Mr and Mrs B were of the view that all the works were necessary to enable Mr B to get out of the house and thought the Council agreed with the works on that basis. The Council’s later communications said it agreed that the works to the garden were necessary to meet Mr B’s needs, but not the works to the rear gate.
74. Once a decision had been agreed on the works, the correct process was for the Council to obtain the quotes before the works started and then agree the amount of grant. The Council failed to do this and started the works before knowing what the final costs would be. The Council said it did so because it wanted to avoid delay. I appreciate that this may be the case but it was still fault. The Council should have obtained the quotes before starting the works and its failure to do so was fault.
75. In any event, I note that the Council received a quote for the works on 4 April 2023, a week before the works started. So the Council knew, at that stage, that there was a possibility that the cost would exceed £30,000. Even if the Council did not have the final figures, it should have alerted Mr and Mrs B to the fact that there was a possibility that a charge may be required. The failure to do so was fault.
76. There was also some fault in the Council’s communications once a complaint was made. The Council should have told Mr and Mrs B about the appeal right. The Council’s complaint response regarding the funding of the gate was also not clear and contradictory. The Council had previously approved the works to the gate as part of the DFG so it should not then later say that it had never approved those works. I accept there was a lack of clarity on the reasons why the works to the gate were approved, but the works were approved.

Injustice and remedy

77. Once the Ombudsman has found fault, it considers whether the fault has caused an injustice and, if so, whether the injustice can be remedied. The aim of the remedy is to put the complainant in the position they would have been if the fault had not happened.
78. In terms of the failure to inform Mr and Mrs B of an appeal right, I note that the Council says this would have not made any difference. That may be the case but the Council still had a duty to inform them so the injustice is the distress from uncertainty whether it would have made any difference.
79. The main fault I have found is the Council’s failure to inform Mr and Mrs B that a charge of around £2,500 would be placed on the property before it started the works. The Council made the problem worse by then claiming that the works had never been agreed as part of the DFG.
80. This clearly caused Mr and Mrs B a lot of distress, but I do not think that the overall outcome was significantly affected by the fault. In other words, even if the Council had informed Mr and Mrs B of the possible charge before the works started, the outcome would still have been the same. Mrs B said she was unable to take Mr B out of the house without the works to the garden and the gate so the works had to be done. The works would have still cost the same and the charge would still have been placed on the property. But Mr and Mrs B would have known about it beforehand.
81. So I am of the view that the Council should apologise to Mr and Mrs B and pay them a symbolic amount to reflect the distress caused by the fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

82. The Council has agreed to take the following actions within one month of the final decision. It will:
• Apologise in writing for the fault.
• Pay Mr and Mrs B £250 for the distress caused by the fault.

Back to top

Final decision

83. 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