Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision not to initially award him a disabled facilities grant for his kitchen before subsequently approving him on reassessment. Mr X says this caused a delay in his grant application being approved. From the evidence seen, the Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council’s initial decision not to award Mr X a disabled facilities grant. However there was a delay in reassessing Mr X following the receipt of further medical evidence. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £300 to acknowledge the avoidable distress caused by the delay in reassessment.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X complains about the Council’s decision not to initially award him a disabled facilities grant for a new kitchen before subsequently approving him on reassessment.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated the Council’s decision on Mr X’s application for a DFG in 2017 and actions up until the Council approved his application in 2019. I have set out at the end of this statement the issues I have not investigated.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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. 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

6. As part of this investigation:
• I considered the complaint made by Mr X and the Council’s response.
• I discussed the complaint with Mr X over the telephone.
• I made enquiries to the Council and considered the information I received in response.
• I sent a copy of this decision to Mr X and the Council and considered comments received in response.

Back to top

What I found

7. Councils have a duty under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 to award a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) to help meet the cost of adapting a property to meet the needs of a disabled person. The maximum amount of a mandatory DFG grant is £30,000.
8. A council may decide it is not ‘reasonable and practicable’ to provide major adaptations to a property. This could be because it is not cost effective or the layout of the property makes it impractical.
9. The Council’s policy for the provision of major adaptations says to be eligible for a DFG the customer must have a limited range of movement and cannot access their kitchen safely due to their disability.
10. The major adaptation process should only be started if there is an identified need which cannot be met by a minor adaptation or equipment and the eligibility criteria are fully met.

Background

11. In October 2017 the Council carried out an occupational therapy assessment following Mr X applying for a DFG to adapt his kitchen.
12. The occupational therapist’s assessment notes show Mr X found bending difficult but could reach for items high up in the kitchen. The occupational therapist informed Mr X the Council would consider his request for a DFG at the DFG Panel. The occupational therapist left Mr X with a perching stool to use to support him in the kitchen.
13. In November 2017 the DFG Panel considered Mr X’s application. The occupational therapist explained Mr X’s medical conditions and the impact of these. The Panel decided Mr X would unlikely meet the criteria for kitchen adaptations.
14. The Council wrote to Mr X to tell him his application for a DFG had not been granted. The Council recognised Mr X was permanently disabled but considered his needs could be met with the interventions already provided to him so did not qualify for major adaptations.
15. In February 2018 Mr X’s GP contacted the Council to give some details about Mr X’s medical conditions. The Council sent the GP’s response to its occupational therapy service and suggested this should be reviewed.
16. The Council and an occupational therapist visited Mr X again in March 2018 as Mr X was not happy with the occupational therapists input regarding his application for kitchen adaptations. The notes from this meeting show Mr X discussed the issues he was having with the kitchen. The Council and occupational therapist confirmed Mr X did not need kitchen adaptations as decided in Mr X’s earlier application for a DFG.
17. Following this visit the Council contacted Mr X’s GP to confirm the severity and whether a particular illness Mr X suffered with was permanent. Mr X’s GP responded to the Council in April 2018 to confirm Mr X’s condition was a condition he was stuck with.
18. Mr X contacted the Council in July 2018 to say he wanted the Council to reassess him for kitchen adaptations.
19. The Council contacted Mr X in October 2018 to ask him to provide supporting medical evidence about his disabilities.
20. In October 2018 Mr X raised a complaint. He said the Council were blocking kitchen adaptations to his property. The Council provided a response in November 2018. The Council said when the occupational therapist assessed Mr X in October 2017 there was not enough evidence to justify an award of a DFG. The DFG Panel therefore chose not to progress the application.
21. The occupational therapy service received the emails between Mr X’s GP and the Council in December 2018 and decided to present Mr X’s case to the DFG Panel.
22. Mr X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response to his complaint. The Council provided Mr X with a final complaint response in early January 2019 confirming the outcome at stage one. However the Council agreed to present his case to the DFG Panel.
23. In early January 2019 the DFG Panel considered Mr X should have a further occupational therapist assessment for the kitchen adaptations. The occupational therapy assessment took place in mid-January 2019. The notes from the assessment show Mr X experienced falls in the kitchen in the last 12 months when using his oven and lower cupboards. The occupational therapist’s view was Mr X would benefit from some adaptations.
24. After the occupational therapist presented Mr X’s case to the DFG Panel the Panel agreed to the DFG for kitchen adaptations.

Analysis

25. When considering complaints, we may not act like an appeal body. We cannot question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer any opinion on whether or not we agree with the judgment of the Councils’ officers. Instead, we focus on the process by which the decision was made.
26. In 2017 Mr X applied for a DFG for kitchen adaptations. The Council visited Mr X with an occupational therapist to assess his needs. From the evidence available, the occupational therapist considered Mr X’s difficulties in the kitchen and presented these to the DFG Panel. The Panel decided Mr X did not meet the criterial for a DFG at this time. While I recognise Mr X disagrees with this decision it was a decision the Council was entitled to make.
27. In relation to Mr X’s later reassessment for kitchen adaptations there was fault by the Council. From the evidence available the Council’s occupational therapy service received a referral to reassess Mr X in July 2018. The occupational therapy service asked Mr X for medical information, however Mr X’s GP had already provided this to the Council’s housing service in April 2018.
28. The Council’s housing service did not pass all of the GP information to the occupational therapy service until December 2018, despite receiving it in April 2018. At this point the occupational therapy service reassessed Mr X, and the DFG Panel approved his application.
29. As I have found fault I now need to consider whether this caused an injustice to Mr X. The Council approved a DFG for Mr X on reassessment. On balance this would have likely been granted sooner had the Council’s housing service passed the GP information to occupational therapy after it was sent in April 2018 or after Mr X was referred for reassessment in July 2018.

Agreed action

30. Within one month of my final decision the Council agreed to carry out the following and provide evidence to the Ombudsman it has done so:
• Apologise to Mr X for the delay in passing his GP information to the occupational therapy team.
• Pay Mr X £300 to acknowledge the avoidable distress caused by the delay in providing the medical information to occupational therapy. In coming to this figure I have considered the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies and the impact on Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council which caused injustice to Mr X. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused to Mr X.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

32. I have not investigated events following the approval of the DFG application in 2019 as Mr X has not raised a formal complaint about this with the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman