Summary: Mrs Y complained about the way the Council handled her application for a disabled facilities grant. We have not found fault by the Council in the way it dealt with her application or responded to her complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I am calling Mrs Y, complains about the way the Council dealt with her application for a disabled facilities grant (DFG). She says:

• The Council did not notify her, in 2017, her application for a DFG to replace her outside stair lift had been refused or that she could appeal this decision. Had she been told this, she would have appealed in 2017;
• She does not recall receiving the Council’s letter of 22 July 2021 telling her the application for a DFG in 2017 had been refused because funding for lift repairs was not eligible for a grant. In any event this letter did not tell her she had the right to appeal the 2017 decision or that she could pursue a complaint with us if she was not satisfied with the Council’s response;
• The Council has delayed dealing with her subsequent applications for a DFG for a replacement outside lift. It did not properly consider the evidence provided showing the existing lift was beyond repair; and
• It has not provided an accurate response to her complaint about its contact with her at the end of last year regarding the financial assessment or apologised for this.

2. Mrs Y says the existing lift has been unsafe and out of use for a number of years now. The failures and delays in the Council’s handling of her application for a DFG for a replacement lift have stopped her from being able to safely leave and access her home. This has caused her distress and inconvenience.
3. She wants the Council to replace the lift free of charge and pay financial redress for the upset and impact on her wellbeing caused by her inability to leave and access her home safely.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

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. Mrs Y contacted us about her complaint in January 2023. But my view is Mrs Y knew in 2018 the Council could not fund the repairs to the external step lift through a DFG, and that an application for a DFG to replace the external stair lift had not yet been made. The evidence I have seen shows:

• The Council’s Occupational Therapist (OT) team’s referral in 2017 to the Council’s Housing Adaptions team was for a DFG to fund repairs to Mrs Y’s external step lift, not a replacement.
• The Council’s housing adaptions team (which administers DFG applications) told OT it could not accept the referral because under the law, a DFG can only be used to fund capital expenditure and cannot be used to fund repairs. OT then spoke to Mrs Y on 15 November 2017 to tell her the step lift could not be repaired through a DFG and OT would agree to fund the repairs. Mrs Y contacted OT in January 2018 to ask when the repairs would be carried out. The repairs were carried in 2018; and
• OT spoke to Mrs Y on 9 November 2018 in which Mrs Y reported the lift had broken down again and asked it to pay for a further repair. It told her it had only funded the last repair as a goodwill gesture. A new DFG referral could only be made if the lift was obsolete.

6. In my view, if Mrs Y was unhappy about what happened in 2017 and 2018 she could have complained to the Council and then to us at the time. I don’t consider there are good reasons for us to investigate this part of her complaint, or what happened before January 2022, now.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

7. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these.
8. 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)
9. 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

10. I have spoken to Mrs Y, read her complaint and the Council’s response to our enquiries, together with all the other information Mrs Y and the Council provided about the complaint.
11. I invited Mrs Y and the Council to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered their responses before making my final decision.

What I found

What should have happened

Disabled Facilities Grants

12. Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs) are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Councils have a statutory duty to give grant aid to disabled people for certain adaptations. Before approving a grant, a council must be satisfied the work:

• is necessary;
• meets the disabled person’s needs; and
• is reasonable and practicable.

13. An applicant may have to make a contribution towards the cost of a DFG funded adaptation. Councils must carry out a financial assessment to check whether an applicant is required to make a contribution, and if so, how much.
14. A council should decide a grant application as soon as reasonably practicable. This must be within six months of the application. If a council refuses a grant, it must explain why. Once the work is complete, the council must pay the grant in full within 12 months of the application date.

What happened

15. I have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened. It is based on my review of all the evidence provided about this complaint.
16. I am only investigating Mrs Y’s complaint about things that happened from January 2022. But I have set out some background about what happened before this as context for my investigation.

Background

17. The Council says:

• Mrs Y’s external step lift and indoor stairlift, funded by a DFG, were installed in 2008. Both came with an extended warranty, providing cover for a five-year period, also funded by the grant;
• Once DFG works are completed, it sends a letter to the client explaining the five-year extended warranty was funded through the grant; and
• It also confirms that when the warranty expires, the client is responsible for arranging the service and maintenance of the lift privately.

18. I have set out what happened in 2017 and 2018 in paragraph 5.
19. Mrs Y contacted OT at the end of July 2020 to report the step lift had broken down. She asked for a DFG for a new lift.
20. OT had discussions with Mrs Y about a repair or replacement of the step lift in January 2021. Her OT was unable to make a home visit until May 2021 because of Covid-19 safety issues. It was agreed, following this visit, OT would make enquiries about the cost of repair, or if this was not possible, replacement of the step lift.
21. Mrs Y sent a complaint to the Council’s housing adaptions team in July 2021. She said she had initially been told she would get a DFG for a new lift. She was then told the lift would not be replaced but repaired. She was unhappy about this because the repairs only worked for a short time before the lift broke down again. She hadn’t pursued the matter over lockdown because she did not want visitors to the house. She had been told by a lift engineer who had recently visited the house most councils replaced lifts after 10 years.
22. Housing adaptations referred Mrs Y’s complaint to OT. They also replied to Mrs Y on 22 July 2021 and confirmed:

• They had received an enquiry about a DFG in 2017;
• After the financial assessment it was established OT’s referral was for repairs to the lift and so not eligible for DFG funding; and
• It had cancelled the grant enquiry and referred her case back to OT.

23. An Occupational Health team manager spoke to Mrs Y on 29 July 2021. Mrs Y asked why the lift had not been replaced. The manager advised although a lift lifespan is around 10/15 years they are not automatically replaced. The decision is made based on a lift’s condition and mechanics. They confirmed OT was working on a plan to look at the replacement of both the external and internal lifts if necessary.

January 2022 to May 2022

24. OT had asked Mrs Y’s consultant for information about her condition and treatment plan. This was relevant to the decision they had to make about a referral for a DFG for the replacement of Mrs Y’s lifts. OT chased the consultant for a response.
25. OT spoke to Mrs Y in March about her treatment plans. Mrs Y said she would ask her consultant to provide the information requested.

June 2022

26. Mrs Y had made a further complaint about the situation with the external step lift. In their response to this an OT manager said:

• OT funded the repair to the step lift in 2017 as a goodwill gesture. The reason for not replacing the step lift then was because an equipment review indicated the lift still had sufficient working mechanism to warrant repair rather than replacement;
• Mrs Y had contacted OT in July 2020 about continuing issues with the step lift and issues with the internal stair lift. Her case was allocated to an OT in January 2021, but Mrs Y had not been able to arrange for the OT to complete the home visit needed for her assessment until May 2021;
• This established Mrs Y was awaiting surgery and further treatment. OT could not make recommendations about adaptions for her long-term needs until this had been completed;
• OT asked Mrs Y about her ongoing treatment in July and September 2021. In December 2021, OT asked her consultant to confirm whether the treatment had been successful and for their opinion about her long-term condition;
• Mrs Y had said she might consider moving house if the outcome was an internal stair lift might not be suitable for her in the long-term. It was decided to wait for the consultant’s view before making a recommendation about the external step lift; and
• It had now been confirmed the treatment had been successful so far. OT had been trying to contact her to discuss the way forward.

July 2022

27. OT obtained quotes for the replacement of the internal stair lift and external step lift and referred the request for their replacement to the Council’s panel for approval.

August 2022

28. OT made a referral to housing adaptations for a DFG to replace both the internal and external lifts. It recommended these adaptions were deemed appropriate and necessary.

Mrs Y’s application for a DFG grant: August 2022 to January 2023

29. Housing adaptations told Mrs Y on 25 August it had received her application.
30. The Council arranged for one of its officers to carry out a financial assessment for Mrs Y to check whether she was required to make a contribution towards the cost of the replacement lifts.
31. There was an issue regarding the first officer’s contact with Mrs Y about a home visit to obtain information needed for the financial assessment. Mrs Y disagreed with and complained about the officer’s account of their contact with her.
32. The Council then arranged for another officer to carry out the home visit and complete Mrs Y’s financial assessment. It wrote to Mrs Y on in January 2023 confirming it had assessed her contribution towards the cost of the lift replacements would be £16,500.
33. Mrs Y told the Council she did not want to proceed with her application because the contribution was too high. Her application was cancelled as requested.

Mrs Y’s complaint to the Council

34. Mrs Y complained to the Council in August 2022 about the way it had handled her request for a DFG in 2017 and its response to her reports about the lift breaking down and requests for a replacement since then. She said she wanted the Council to replace the lift now, at a zero charge to her as it had assessed her contribution as nil in 2017. The Council did not uphold her complaint.
35. She also complained about the first officer’s account of their contact with her about the home visit. The Council had initially said Mrs Y had not phoned to cancel the first appointment, although it later accepted that she had. Mrs Y complained the Council had not addressed the officer’s other inaccurate and incorrect statements about their contact with her. In its final complaint response the Council said the outcome of her complaint about the officer’s statements regarding their contact with Mrs Y was inconclusive.

My analysis – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

The Council’s handling of Mrs Y’s request for a replacement step lift

36. I am only considering whether there has been fault by the Council in the action it took to progress Mrs Y’s request during the period from January 2022, for the reasons explained in paragraphs 5 and 6.
37. But I note the process for the application made in August 2022 was started in July 2020. I appreciate it took some time, but the Council was in contact with Mrs Y about this throughout 2021 and there were delays at points for reasons outside of the Council’s control.
38. I consider the Council took prompt action from January 2022 to obtain the information OT needed to assess Mrs Y’s request for a DFG for the replacement of both lifts, and to make the recommendation and referral for a DFG to the housing adaptions team once it had this information.
39. The housing adaptations team received the referral from OT in August 2022. I do not consider there was any delay by the Council in responding to this referral and progressing Mrs Y’s application for a DFG. It began the financial assessment promptly and completed this within the appropriate timescale.
40. I understand Mrs Y was very disappointed with outcome of the financial assessment. But, based on the evidence seen, I have not found fault by the Council in the way it dealt with her request for a DFG for a replacement lift in the period from January 2022.

The Council’s response to Mrs Y’s complaint about the officer’s statements

41. I understand Mrs Y is very clear about the contact she did and did not have with the first officer and that the officer’s statements are incorrect.
42. But I have not investigated the accuracy of the officer’s statements. It would not be proportionate to do so. And even if the officer’s statements were incorrect, I do not consider this inaccuracy caused Mrs Y any material inconvenience. Any further investigation of their accuracy would not in my view achieve any worthwhile outcome.
43. I am not in a position to comment on the accuracy of the officer’s statements, But the Council looked into her concerns about this and provided her with its view about the outcome. I appreciate Mrs Y was not satisfied with this, but I do not consider there was fault in the way the Council responded to her complaint about the statements.

Back to top

Final decision

44. I have completed my investigation. I have not found fault by the Council in the way it dealt with Mrs Y’s application for a DFG grant or her complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman