Summary: The Council’s failure to deal properly with Mr X’s application for a Disabled Facilities Grant caused avoidable delays of 32 months. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment to Mr X, and take action to improve its services.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council took too long to deal with his application for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) to meet the needs of his disabled child.
2. Mr X says the delay affected the physical and mental health of the whole family.

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 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)
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 provided by Mr X’s representative.
7. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
8. I referred to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
9. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Disabled Facilities Grants

10. Disabled Facilities Grants are financial grants to adapt a home to meet the needs of a disabled person. Where the disabled person is a child, the grant is not means tested. The maximum DFG a council can award is £30,000. It may also make discretionary ‘top-up’ grants.
11. Disabled Facilities Grants are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. 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.
12. The kinds of adaptation funded by a DFG are specific to the needs of the disabled person but could include:
• Installing ramps or rails
• Converting bathrooms into wet rooms or installing level access showers
• Reconfiguring the layout of a property or building an extension

DFG applications

13. To proceed with an application for a DFG, the Council requires applicants who are homeowners to:
• Complete a formal application form
• Provide a certificate of title for the property
• Provide an owner’s certificate for the property
• Provide estimates or quotes from two contractors

Background

14. One of Mr X’s children, whom I will call Y, has a disability. This affects many aspects of Y’s daily life. Of particular relevance to this complaint are Y’s difficulties with toileting.
15. Y has limited communication skills and is not aware of when they need to use the bathroom. Y has a toileting schedule to follow at home and at school. Y needs support with wiping and getting dressed.
16. Y’s needs mean that Mr and Mrs X often have to give Y a shower, sometimes several times a day. After an accident, Y tends to be upset and will resist going in the shower. This means Mr and Mrs X must carry Y to the bathroom. As Y gets older, this has become more difficult.

What happened

17. In 2016, the Council identified that Y would benefit from some adaptations at home. Y’s social worker made a referral for an OT (Occupational Therapist) to assess Y’s needs.
18. In April 2017, an OT assessed Y at home and identified the following needs:
• Gates at the top of the drive to prevent Y from running into the busy road
• Downstairs wet room to enable Mr and Mrs X to support Y to adhere to the toileting programme
• Changes to the stairs to prevent Y climbing or falling
19. The OT referred the case to the Home Improvement Team to proceed with an application for a DFG.
20. The OT produced a ‘design brief’ which recommended converting an existing cupboard at the front of the house into a wet room.
21. In May 2017, the Council’s Disabled Adaptations Panel met and approved the proposal. The Council says it sent the design brief and panel approval to Mr X in May. Mr X says he did not receive it until October.
22. In October, the Council sent Mr X a DFG application pack. This included a schedule of works for the scheme.
23. In March 2018 Mr X told the Council he was finding it difficult to get quotes for the proposed work and asked for some more time to complete the application.
24. In October 2018, Mr X submitted a formal application form, owner’s certificate, and estimates for the work. He also provided a report from a contractor explaining that the proposed scheme, with the wet room at the front of the house, was not feasible because of the drainage layout.
25. A contractor advised that a conversion at the rear of the property would be feasible and provided an estimate for this work.
26. The Council says Mr X then suggested the wet room could go where their conservatory was.
27. In September 2019, the Home Improvement Officer wrote to Mr X accepting that the wet room would need to be at the back of the property. Mr X says the new schedule sets out that the wet room will be where the conservatory was.
28. The Council says it asked Mr X to provide drawings of this scheme. It says Mr X provided a plan showing the existing conservatory converted into a kitchen. The existing kitchen would then be converted into the wet room.
29. Mr X says that the Home Improvement Officer told him that it would be better to put the wet room where the kitchen was and move the kitchen to the conservatory. He says this is why he instructed an architect to produce plans showing this scheme.
30. The Home Improvement Officer left the Council and it allocated a new Officer in April 2020. The Council says since it “found no Panel decision or OT design brief to move [the] wet room to [the] back of [the] property and with the best use of Public funds in mind, continued with only scheme [it] had agreement of which was at [the] front of [the] property.”
31. In May, Mr X told the Council he was unhappy that the scheme had reverted to the original proposal.
32. Mr X complained to the Council in August.
33. In September, the Council asked the OT service for a copy of the panel decision approving the new scheme. The OT service said it had no record of a panel decision to change the scheme.
34. In October, the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint at stage 1 of the complaints process. In its response, the Council:
• apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint and in progressing the DFG.
• acknowledged that its records about the change of scheme in September 2019 were incomplete.
• said that the Home Improvement Team would liaise with an OT and Surveyor and that “this will not take any longer than is necessary”.
35. In November, the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint at stage 2 of its complaints process. In its response, the Council:
• confirmed that it sent a revised schedule of works to Mr X in September 2019 moving the adaptation to the back of the property.
• accepted it had failed to keep adequate records of the OT assessment which “has led to an overall delay in reaching a decision on an approved scheme.”
• said Mr X had added to the delay “as a result of delayed information and documentation requests.”
36. In December, an OT visited to do a new assessment of Y’s needs. The assessment identified needs for the same adaptations as in 2017.
37. In January 2021, the Council’s Building Surveyor confirmed that the original scheme with the wet room at the front of the house was not feasible.
38. The Panel agreed to the new scheme the same week.
39. In May, the Council received updated estimates for the works from two contractors. It approved the DFG grant. It also agreed to provide an additional £12,000 as a discretionary grant to prevent further delays.
40. In June, the Council reimbursed Mr X for the cost of the architectural plans he had obtained in 2019.
41. The contractor began work at the end of August.

My findings

42. The Ombudsman will not usually investigate things that happened more than 12 months ago unless there is a good reason the complainant could not have come to us sooner. The issues in this case began in 2017. However, Mr X and Mrs X were regularly in contact with the Council to ask for updates. They were caring for Y, whose needs are significant, as well as their other young children. I consider this to be a good reason Mr X could not have complained sooner.

Delay

43. An OT first assessed Y in April 2017. The Council did not approve a DFG until May 2021. This is a period of over four years. This delay occurred for different reasons at different times.
44. The Panel approved the OT’s recommendation in May 2017 but the Council did not send Mr X an application pack until October. This is a delay of five months and is fault.
45. Mr X told the Council he had difficulty getting quotes and the Council agreed to an extension of time for Mr X to submit the application. Mr X did not then submit the application until October 2018. This delay is not the fault of the Council.
46. The Council says it established that the original scheme wasn’t feasible in January 2021. This is 27 months after Mr X gave the Council the report from the contractor explaining that the drainage at the property made a wet room at the front infeasible.
47. Mr X says the Council accepted the need for a different scheme in September 2019 and then reversed or forgot this decision. The Council’s complaint responses accept that it wrote to him in September confirming the change of scheme.
48. In either case, the outcome was that the adaptations Y needed were significantly delayed.
49. The Council should have reviewed the feasibility of the original scheme in October 2018. Its failure to do so was fault. This avoidably delayed the adaptations Y needs by at least 25 months.
50. After Mr X complained in August 2020, the Council allocated a new OT, who visited Y along with the Home Improvement Officer and a Building Surveyor in December. The Panel approved the new scheme in January 2021.
51. Were it not for the earlier fault and delay, the Council would not have needed a new OT assessment of Y. The Council has not explained why it took two months from the Council allocating a new OT in October, to the assessment in December. Absent an explanation, I consider this further delay to be fault.
52. Mr X submitted new quotes in May 2021 and the Council approved the DFG a week later. The period between the panel approving the scheme and Mr X submitting the necessary estimates is not the fault of the Council.
53. I find fault by the Council caused avoidable delays of 32 months. The injustice to Y is significant. The purpose of the adaptation was to support Y’s increased independence with toileting and this has been significantly delayed.
54. Y was a small child in 2017 when the Council first identified the need for adaptations. As Y got older, the lack of necessary adaptations made it increasingly difficult for Mr and Mrs X to manage Y’s toileting needs. Mr X says both he and his wife have suffered back pain from carrying Y upstairs to the bathroom. Therefore, I find the injustice to Mr X and the rest of the family increased over time.

Communication and records

55. Mr X says the Council approved the new scheme in line with the architect plans he provided in 2019. The Council has no record of the Panel approving this. However, the Council accepts that it wrote to Mr X in September 2019 with a new schedule of works to move the scheme to the rear of the property. That the Council failed to keep proper records about this decision is fault and contributed to the delay and confusion.
56. In any event, Mr X had provided evidence from a contractor that the original scheme was not feasible. Despite this and the new schedule of works from 2019, in April 2020 the Council reverted to the original scheme to put the wet room at the front of the property. To continue with the original scheme in these circumstances was fault.
57. The Council should have communicated with Mr X about the situation. Mr X may have been able to provide the necessary evidence of the Council’s agreement to change scheme. Alternatively, the Council could have agreed to review the feasibility of the scheme before proceeding any further, thereby avoiding any more delay.
58. As well as avoidable delay, this fault caused Mr X significant frustration and confusion. This is an injustice to Mr X.

Complaint handling

59. Mr X complained to the Council in August 2020. The Council did not respond until October. The Council’s complaints policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 days. In Mr X's case, it took the Council 41 days. This is a delay of a month and is fault.
60. The stage 1 complaint response apologises for the delays but does not suggest how the Council will remedy this. It says the Council will do a new OT assessment but does not set out a timescale for this. It does not offer a remedy for any injustice or identify any learning for the Council to improve its services.
61. Mr X complained at stage 2 in October. Under the Council’s complaints policy, it had 20 days to respond. It took the Council 27 days to respond. This is a delay of a week and is fault.
62. The stage 2 response again accepts the delay and poor record keeping. It does not, however, say whether it upholds the complaint or identify any remedy or service improvements.

Back to top

Agreed action

63. The Council says it approved an additional £12,000 in discretionary funding as a remedy for the impact of the delay. It says this discretionary grant is usually not for this type of adaptation. The Council has also reimbursed Mr X for the cost of the architects plans.
64. I consider this to be a suitable remedy for the injustice caused to Y and the rest of the family because of the delay.
65. However, Mr X has also experienced quantifiable financial loss because of the delay. The cost of materials increased significantly in 2021. Evidence from the Office for National Statistics shows that the cost of works in 2021 is at least 20% higher than in 2019. This is an injustice to Mr X.
66. To remedy the injustice to Mr X and his family, the Council should also:
• Apologise to Mr X
• Pay Mr X £500 to acknowledge the avoidable frustration caused by its failure to keep proper records and delays in complaint handling
• Pay Mr X £4,960 in recognition of his financial loss caused by the delay.
67. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
68. The Council should also take the following action to improve its service:
• Share this decision with staff in the relevant departments
• Produce an action plan showing how the Council will prevent the delays in this case happening again. These should be measurable actions with timescales for achievement.
• Remind relevant staff of the importance of meeting the timescales in the complaints policy.
• Remind relevant staff that complaint responses should clearly indicate whether a complaint is upheld, and if so, what the Council will do to put things right. The Council should provide further training as needed.
69. The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action it has taken within three months of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

70. I have completed my investigation. The Council is at fault. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman