Summary: Miss B complains about the way the Council considered her application for a hard standing and dropped kerb. Miss B says she needs parking next to her house due to her medical conditions. She says the Council was unprofessional and did not properly assess her application. The Ombudsman finds fault in the Council’s policy and how it considered Miss B’s request.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Miss B, complains the Council did not properly consider her request for funding for a hardstanding and dropped kerb. Miss B says parking in her area is very difficult and she cannot always get a space close to her home. Miss B is diagnosed with Raynaud’s disease and fibromyalgia and is undergoing investigations for a brain injury. She says that when her condition is bas she struggles to walk home when she is parked far away.
2. Miss B says an Occupational Therapist (“OT”) from the Council conducted a telephone interview and said she was not eligible. Miss B says the OT was rude and unempathetic and did not properly consider her needs. She says the Council has since continued to refuse funding.

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. I considered the information Miss B provided and spoke to her about the complaint, then made enquiries of the Council. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Miss B and the Council for their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and Guidance

7. Disabled Facilities Grants (“DFG”) are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (“the Act”). Councils have a statutory duty to provide grant aid to disabled people for certain adaptations. Before approving a grant, a council must be satisfied the work is necessary and suitable to meet the disabled person’s needs and also reasonable and practicable.
8. The Act says, ‘Grants are available from local housing authorities… towards the cost of works required for the provision of facilities for disabled persons (i) in dwellings, qualifying houseboats and qualifying park homes, and (ii) in the common parts of buildings containing one or more flats.’
9. The Act gives a list of reasons the Council may award a DFG. This includes for facilitating access by the disabled occupant to and from the dwelling.
10. Grants are only approved if the council accepts the work is necessary and appropriate to meet the needs of the disabled person. The assessment of need is usually completed by an occupational therapist (“OT”).
11. The Regulatory Reform (Housing Assistance) (England and Wales) Order 2002 gives councils the discretionary power to provide financial and practical help for repair, improvement and adaptation of homes. This can include providing additional assistance to disabled people outside the mandatory DFG system.

Background

12. Miss B has Raynaud’s disease and fibromyalgia and is undergoing investigations for a brain injury. She receives the lower mobility component of Personal Independence Payment (“PIP”).
13. There is parking on the road outside Miss B’s house, but she says the spaces are often taken and she has to park far away, sometimes having to walk up to 25 minutes home. Miss B says she suffers severe pain that often makes it difficult for her to walk back to her house.
14. Miss B says she applied for a disabled bay from the Council’s parking team, but they declined as it would interfere with a dropped kerb. In October 2020 Miss B instead requested funding from the Council for her front lawn to be converted to a hardstanding and a dropped kerb installed. The Council’s housing team agreed to install the hardstanding and dropped kerb for Miss B if she could secure funding for this. The Council said an OT would first need to assess Miss B.
15. Miss B had an initial telephone call with an OT. Miss B says the OT was rude, dismissive, and told her she was not eligible for a DFG. She said the OT did not ask any questions about her needs.
16. The Council has provided a case note of the call. It records that Miss B would not be eligible for a DFG. It says she has a place to park near her home, which she can manage. It says the fact local parking conditions make this difficult for her indicates that she needs to pursue a marked bay rather than a DFG and would first need to apply for a blue badge. It said Miss B was entitled to apply for an OT assessment but there would be a long delay and no guarantee they would recommend a DFG.
17. The Council emailed Miss B and said she was not eligible for a DFG based on the information currently provided. It said she had the option to look at a different location for the disabled parking bay.
18. Miss B made a complaint about the way the OT call took place. The Council’s complaint response reaffirmed that Miss B was not eligible for a DFG at this time. It said hard standings may only be recommended through a DFG where the person is a blue badge holder. It said dropped kerbs are not funded through a DFG as adaptions must be within the curtilage of the property. It said if Miss B had a blue badge, she could apply for a parking space outside her property.
19. Miss B was not satisfied with the response and made a further complaint. The Council responded at Stage 1 of its corporate complaint procedure in late November 2021. The response again reaffirmed the Council’s position.
20. In January 2021 Miss B escalated her complaint to Stage 2. She indicated that her circumstances had had changed in that she now had a blue badge and was undergoing neurological assessments. She said the Council had already refused a parking bay as the road was unsuitable. The Council acknowledged that Miss B had provided new information and requested a fresh OT assessment.
21. An OT telephoned Miss B to arrange an assessment. The Council has a case note of the telephone call. It records that Miss B questioned why an assessment needed to take place in person, given the coronavirus pandemic. It says the OT explained that a large part of the assessment would be observing Miss B’s transfers within the environment. It says Miss B reported being frustrated and fed up with the Council, who she said had all the information needed, and declined an OT visit.
22. The Council responded at Stage 2 of the corporate complaint procedure in early February 2021 and did not uphold Miss B’s complaint.
23. In mid-February 2021 a manager from the OT service wrote to Miss B. She said a solution could be the installation of a parking bay now she had a blue badge and encouraged her to apply to the parking team. The manager also recommended Miss B allow the OT to visit to carry out an assessment to gain a fuller understanding of her needs. She said, in relation to coronavirus, that the Council was still carrying out home assessment visits, would risk assess before visiting and wear appropriate PPE.
24. Miss B responded that parking had already declined the disabled bay and the road was not suitable. Miss B said she was angry with the way the Council had dealt with things and did not want anyone in her property now, especially during this pandemic.
25. In April 2021 the Council sent a Stage 3 response to Miss B. The Stage 3 response said the costs of hard standings and dropped kerbs were usually to be met by the householder. It said that on occasions a resident may be entitled to have the works funded through a DFG. It said a DFG is normally only for adaptions within the property but in exceptional cases may also be applied to the exterior plot. It said eligibility criteria for such works are clearly defined and an OT assessment concluded Miss B did not meet this criteria.
26. In its response to my enquiries the Council clarified that it has not conducted a full OT assessment and is happy to do so if Miss B agrees.

Findings

27. I find fault in the Council’s policy and in how it considered Miss B’s request for a hardstanding and dropped kerb.

The Council’s Policy

28. The Council has two policies that are relevant to this case:
• Private Sector Housing Financial Assistance Policy (“Housing Policy”)
• OT Manual Service Provision (“OT Policy”)
29. The Housing Policy sets out the Council’s general eligibility requirements and scope of works it will complete for DFG’s. It also sets out the scope of discretionary DFG assistance the Council provides. It says the Council may provide a loan of up to £15,000. The Housing Policy does not refer to any specific types of adaptions, such as a hardstanding.
30. I understand the OT Policy is guidance for OT’s on when they should recommend certain adaptions. In the section relevant to external adaptions, the wording of the policy is unclear and difficult to follow. It lists the following:
• Marked Space
• Parking Bay
• Hardstanding
• Dropped Kerb
31. Under marked space it says:
• ‘Occupational Therapists do not recommend marked spaces…
• In the case of the driver being a Blue Badge holder and only able to walk, or propel a wheelchair, for short distances outside the home. The driver should be suffering from a disability which results in reliance on a wheelchair or considerable difficulty in walking more than a short distance without pain or detriment to their condition.’
32. The policy says, ‘in the case of’, but not what will happen if that is the case. I gather from the Council’s correspondence with Miss B, that this means the Council will only allow a marked parking space if the person has a blue badge and is a wheelchair user or has considerable difficulty walking.
33. Under hardstanding it says:
• ‘As above except the parking space is recommended within the boundaries of the client's property. Can only be recommended when no other accessible space is available for parking’
34. There is a lot of text above and it is not clear from the wording of the OT Policy alone what part of that text it is referring to. However, again, I gather from the Council’s correspondence to Miss B, that it means OTs will also only recommend a hardstanding if the person has a blue badge and is a wheelchair user or has considerable difficulty walking.
35. I find fault with the OT Policy because it is unclearly written. I also find fault because is sets out prescriptive criteria for who will be eligible for a DFG.
36. I understand there may be overlap between the circumstances in which someone needs a blue badge or needs a hardstanding. If a person has a blue badge, is a wheelchair user or has considerable difficulty walking, it may suggest a hardstanding is appropriate. However, the blue badge criteria is specific to whether someone needs a blue badge. There may be reasons someone who is not eligible for a blue badge would need or benefit from a hardstanding near their property. Likewise, there may be reasons a hardstanding is necessary and appropriate for someone who cannot demonstrate considerable difficulty walking on a particular day, for example if they have a hidden disability or their condition is fluctuating.
37. The law says DFGs may only be granted where it is necessary and appropriate to meet the needs of the individual. By making it a requirement that a person has a blue badge and is a wheelchair user or has considerable difficulty walking, the Council is saying that a hardstanding is only necessary and appropriate for people who meet those criteria. This is fault. The OT should look at the full circumstances and decide whether to recommend that a hardstanding is necessary and appropriate to meet that person’s individual needs.

How it considered Miss B’s request

38. An OT telephoned Miss B for an initial discussion. This was not a full OT assessment. The OT did not record obtaining any information about Miss B’s medical needs and did not observe Miss B’s mobility. Following the discussion, the OT indicated that Miss B was unlikely to meet the criteria for a DFG but was entitled to a full OT assessment to consider this. The Council did not inform Miss B that she was entitled to a full OT assessment. It simply said she was not eligible for a DFG. This is fault.
39. The Council has a duty to properly consider and assess requests for a DFG. A dropped kerb may not fall under the scope of a mandatory DFG as it is outside of the curtilage of the dwelling. However, there is no reason a hard standing should not be considered when someone applies for a mandatory DFG. It is within the curtilage of the property and the purpose is to provide access into the property.
40. In this instance, a hardstanding would have been of little use without a dropped kerb. Even so, the Council should have offered Miss B a full OT assessment to consider whether these adaptions were necessary and appropriate. If it found they were necessary, and agreed to fund the hard standing, it could have then considered whether to provide any discretionary assistance for the dropped kerb or that she would need to self-fund this element. I note the Council has a policy that sets out the discretionary assistance it can provide. It should not have simply said she was not eligible as it could not make that decision without a proper assessment.
41. I note the Council did later offer Miss B a full OT assessment and Miss B declined this as she was concerned about Coronavirus. I understand Miss B’s reasons for declining a home visit at that time. I also understand that in order to assess Miss B the OT may need to observe her in person. It may have been good practice for the Council to clearly outline that Miss B could request an assessment again at any time, when she felt able to have someone in visit in person. Or to discuss if there were any other measures it could take to reduce any risk in the circumstances. However, I understand the offer does remain open to Miss B to request a full assessment if she wishes the Council to consider her for a DFG.
42. One other point of note is the difficulties in communication around Miss B applying for a marked bay.
43. Miss B says the Council declined because it would block other dropped kerbs on her road. The Council says it would only have declined because she did not have a blue badge. However, there is no evidence the Council checked with its parking team whether it did advise the road was unsuitable.
44. Miss B repeatedly told the Council she had already been rejected because the road was unsuitable. The Council’s responses always simply said she needed to apply again, giving the impression it was not really listening to what Miss B had said. Its emails did not clearly explain the reasons it wanted Miss B to go through the formality of applying again, once she had a blue badge, before it would consider a hardstanding. I am therefore of the view there was fault in the way the Council communicated with Miss B over this issue.

Consideration of Remedy

45. I have found fault for the following reasons:
• The Council initially did not offer Miss B a full OT assessment and simply said she was not eligible
• The Council did not properly communicate why it wanted Miss B to apply again for a marked parking bay
• The Council’s policy is unclearly written, and it is fault to include prescriptive criteria requiring a blue badge and wheelchair use or considerable difficulty walking.
46. The Council has now offered a full OT assessment to Miss B and I accept the Council may need to require this takes place in person. However, given the pervious difficulties in communication between Miss B and the Council, I recommend the Council write to Miss B again to offer a full OT assessment and discuss any measures it might take to address Miss B’s concerns.
47. I also recommend the Council pay Miss B £100 to acknowledge the distress caused by the fault in it not initially allowing a full OT assessment and in its communication with Miss B.
48. I recommend the Council reviews its OT procedure to ensure it is clearly written and does not include prescriptive criteria about who is eligible for a DFG for a hardstanding.

Back to top

Agreed action

49. The Council has agreed to, within a month of this decision:
• Apologise to Miss B for the fault identified at Paragraph 45
• Pay Miss B £100 to acknowledge the distress caused
• Write to Miss B again to offer a full OT assessment and discuss any measures it might take to address her concerns
50. The Council has also agreed to, within three months of this decision:
• Review its OT procedure to ensure it is clearly written and does not include prescriptive criteria that people must meet in order to be eligible for a DFG that includes a hardstanding.

Back to top

Final decision

51. The Council is at fault in its policy and how it considered Miss B’s request for a DFG.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman