Summary: The Council was at fault for delay installing the level access shower Ms X needs. The Council was also at fault for significant delay responding to Ms X’s complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise, make payments to Ms X, and act to improve its services.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained that the Council took more than three years to install the level access shower she needs to meet her disability needs. She also complained the Council took too long to respond to her complaint about this.
2. As a result, Ms X says she was without the adaptations she needed, which affected her physical and mental health. She had to move out of her home for a period, and then returned still unable to access bathing facilities. She has experienced avoidable distress and frustration in following up her complaint.

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 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)
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. We make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
6. 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

What I have investigated

7. Ms X’s complaint concerns matters beginning in 2021. Part of the complaint is therefore late. I have exercised discretion to investigate because the Council’s poor complaint handling and lack of communication made it difficult for Ms X to pursue the matter and she did not allow the matter to rest for any significant period.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered the complaint and the information Ms X provided.
9. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
10. I referred to the Ombudsman's Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
11. Ms X and the organisation 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 adaptations

12. Disabled facilities grants (DFG) are provided under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Councils have a statutory duty to give grants to disabled people for certain adaptations. These include enabling the disabled person to access their home and essential facilities within the home, like bathrooms, bedrooms, and kitchens.
13. Before approving a grant, a council must be satisfied the work is necessary, appropriate for the disabled person’s needs, and is reasonable and practicable.
14. The process of applying for a DFG usually requires:
• An assessment by an Occupational Therapist or other qualified assessor to identify the person’s needs;
• A schedule of works setting out the adaptations to meet the identified needs. Complex adaptations might also need plans or technical drawings;
• Quotes from at least two contractors for the cost of the works; and
• Certificates and approvals from both a tenant and a landlord
15. Once the work is complete, the council must pay the grant in full within 12 months of the application date.
16. The court has said that where an application is for multiple adaptations, the Council must consider the tests in s23 and s24 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 in relation to each adaptation. (R (on the application of Gulrez (by his mother and litigation friend)) v Redbridge London Borough Council [2022] EWHC 2908 (Admin))
17. Disabled adaptations often involve more than one part of a council. Usually, both social care and a team in the housing department will be involved. Government guidance expects services to work well together to deliver adaptations in a timely way. (Disabled facilities Grant (DFG) Delivery: Guidance for local authorities in England 2022)

What happened

18. Ms X contacted the Council in March 2021 to ask about adaptations to her home. She explained that she had significant difficulty getting in and out of the bath and difficulty moving around her home. This is because of a disability which affects her mobility.
19. Ms X complained to the Council in May that she had not been assessed and no one had contacted her. The Council told Ms X in response to her complaint that someone would contact her within 14 days. Ms X told the Council in late June that she wanted to escalate her complaint. She said no one had contacted her. The Council told Ms X it had referred her case to an external agency to carry out the assessment. There is no evidence it considered her complaint at stage two of its complaint process.
20. In late June, Ms X’s landlord signed a provisional consent for works to the bathroom and to widen the doors in Ms X’s home. This was subject to it agreeing to the final plans.
21. An Occupational Therapist (OT) from the agency spoke to Ms X on the telephone at the start of July. The OT completed an assessment and recommended a level access shower and widened doorways. The report says the Council would need to visit Ms X to consider whether the works were feasible.
22. The Council’s adult social care (ASC) service signed off this report in late July. Ms X contacted the Council to say she had not heard anything since the telephone assessment at the start of the month. The Council told Ms X it would send a referral to the adaptations team.
23. In response to my enquiries, the Council said its adaptations service received an incomplete referral from ASC at the end of July for a level access shower, door widening, and works to create a new opening between the living and dining room. It is not clear from the records when or why ASC added this new recommendation. ASC sent a further amended referral in late August. The Council’s response to my enquiries says this referral was incomplete because it is the OTs and not the adaptations surveyor who should assess the feasibility of works.
24. In October 2021, the Council’s adaptations service wrote to tell Ms X it had received a referral. Ms X told the Council she wanted to make a formal complaint about delays and poor communication. There is no evidence the Council dealt with this complaint.
25. In November, the Council allocated the case to a surveyor. The surveyor visited Ms X’s home in early December. Following the visit, the surveyor noted that some works were possible, including to the bathroom. Other works, including widening the front door, were not possible. The Council decided the property was not suitable for Ms X and said rehousing was her best option.
26. In February 2022, the Council says an assistant OT from the adaptations service told Ms X the service was sending her case back to ASC for “an appropriate referral”. Until it had one, it could not move forward. It referred the case back to ASC a few days later.
27. ASC sent a new referral in mid-March. From the evidence I have seen, this was not substantially different from earlier referrals. The adaptations service allocated it to a surveyor in early April. Also in April, the Council wrote to Ms X’s landlord asking for consent to works. The landlord replied pointing out that the Council had not detailed what works it intended to do, nor had it provided any drawings.
28. The Council visited Ms X in June 2022 to take detailed measurements.
29. At the beginning of August, Ms X signed an agreement to the proposed scheme. In late August, the Council completed a schedule of works. It sent these out to three contractors for quotes. The Council says it also sent these to Ms X’s landlord however there is no evidence it did so at this time.
30. In September, Ms X went to live with her daughter so she could access bathing facilities. The Council received a quote from the winning contractor at the end of the month.
31. The evidence shows the Council emailed the landlord in early October with copies of the plans and proposed works. The Council chased the landlord for a response at the beginning of November. It followed up again in early January 2023 when the landlord had not responded.
32. The landlord told the Council in mid-January that it needed a report from a structural engineer before it could approve the proposed works to create a new opening between the living room and dining room. The Council replied at the end of January to say it did not consider such a report was necessary because its building control team would sign off the work.
33. In March 2023, Ms X had to move back into the property because her daughter’s own health declined and Ms X could no longer stay with her. This prompted Ms X to chase the Council again for updates. She said she was not kept updated on progress, and no one answered her calls or returned messages. She said it had been two years since she first approached, and she still did not have a usable bathroom. The Council acknowledged Ms X’s complaint and issued a complaint reference.
34. The Council wrote to the landlord again in late March asking for a response to its January email.
35. At the end of March, Ms X’s landlord consented to the bathroom works but not to any structural works to the ground floor.
36. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint in April. It said:
• It needed the landlord’s permission before it could do any works. This was the cause of the delay.
• The landlord had only agreed to the bathroom works and so the Council had to renegotiate with the contractor.
37. Ms X asked the Council to consider her complaint at stage two of its complaint process. She said:
• No one told her there might be problems with the proposed ground floor works until she chased in March
• The complaint response did not address her complaint about poor communication
38. At the end of April, the Council wrote to Ms X to say it had approved the DFG and provided details of the contractor. It said Ms X should contact the contractor about a start date for the works.
39. Ms X met with the contractor and the Council at her property in early May as a “pre-start meeting”. The contractor indicated works would start at the end of May.
40. In late May, Ms X wrote to the Council. She asked it to tell her when she could expect a response to her stage two complaint. She also asked when works would start. The Council told Ms X it was taking longer than expected to deal with her complaint but it would send her a response the next week.
41. At the beginning of June, Ms X followed up because she had not received a response.
42. The works to Ms X’s bathroom started in early June. The works were complete by the end of the month.
43. Ms X approached the Ombudsman because she had not received a response to her complaint. In mid-July, the Council told us it had “almost completed the investigation stage” and would issue a response by the end of August.
44. In late September, the Council told us its stage two investigation was ongoing.
45. Ms X came back to the Ombudsman in May 2024, because she still had not received a response to her complaint.
46. The Council told us it would send the response by 7 June.
47. On 14 June, we followed up. The Council said the lead officer was off sick and none of the necessary information was on a shared file.
48. We proceeded to investigate the complaint and made enquiries of the Council in September. The Council told us it needed longer to reply and we agreed an extension to early November. The Council responded to our enquiries in early December 2024.
49. The Council wrote to Ms X with a stage two response on 25 November. It said:
• It was sorry about the delay responding to the complaint. It said the delay was due to workload
• The original OT referral in 2021 said a feasibility assessment would be needed. This was not something the adaptations service had the “remit or resources” to do and so it sent the referral back to ASC for an OT to do this.
• The adaptation service thought, having sent the case back to ASC, the OTs would keep in touch with Ms X. However, it acknowledged that it had no procedure or process setting out who was responsible for keeping people updated.
• It acknowledged that Ms X had not therefore received regular contact. It accepted that it should have written to Ms X “clearly stating the reasons why there were delays and why the adaptation works would not meet your expectations” and that it should have done this earlier in the process.
• It was ready to proceed with works by October 2022 but because the landlord had not provided consent, it could not start.
• It agreed the works to Ms X’s property took a long time but did not think it could have acted more quickly because it had to go back to ASC when the referral was incomplete and it needed the landlord’s consent.
• Although “officers kept in occasional contact by phone, often as a result of [Ms X] contacting them, they could have provided a better written communications service to [her]”. It would ask the adaptations service to consider whether standard emails or letters giving progress updates would improve its communication.

My findings - adaptations

50. Ms X asked for an assessment in March 2021. The external agency did not assess Ms X until July. I recognise that the Council had a backlog of work as a result of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. This understandably added to the time taken to assess Ms X. However, the evidence shows Ms X made repeated requests for updates and received conflicting information about how long the wait would be. This poor communication was fault.
51. Between July 2021 and March 2022, the evidence shows confusion and conflict between ASC and the adaptations service about Ms X’s case. The use of an external agency to complete the initial assessment added to this, as the assessor was clearly not familiar with the Council’s process and the detail expected in the assessment. This was fault.
52. However, the agency assessor was not the only reason things went wrong. This is demonstrated by ASC repeatedly sending substantially the same referral to the adaptations service, still not having visited Ms X’s home to consider the practicality of its recommendations. This was further fault.
53. Government guidance expects social care and adaptations services to work together to deliver DFGs. The Ombudsman expects the same. The Council should have clear processes to delineate responsibility between social care and adaptations. Both services have roles to play. An OT or other assessor can identify what someone needs and suggest ways to meet those needs. They will be best placed to advise on matters such as turning circles and types of equipment. But it is the adaptations service which has responsibility to decide if works are necessary, appropriate, reasonable, and practicable. The surveyors in this team are those best placed to advise whether the OTs recommendations are feasible. In that sense, I do not understand the Council’s assertion that its surveyors do not have the remit to consider feasibility.
54. This statement is undermined by the fact that once allocated to a surveyor, who visited the property, it was the surveyor who established that some works would not be possible. In other words, the surveyors in the adaptations team did assess the feasibility of the recommendations. The evidence, therefore, is that it is the adaptations service which considers the feasibility of recommended adaptations. Absent evidence of a good reason for repeatedly returning the case to ASC, therefore, I find the Council at fault for not proceeding to assess the feasibility of the works in July 2021.
55. This added significant and avoidable delay to Ms X’s application for a DFG. This is a significant injustice to Ms X.
56. After visiting Ms X in December 2021, the surveyor decided rehousing was Ms X’s best option. However, Ms X did not want to move. The court has said that councils must consider each adaptation separately. A council cannot refuse to do an adaptation because other unrelated works are not possible or the property as a whole is unsuitable. DFGs are mandatory grants. The Council must approve them if the works are necessary, appropriate, reasonable, and practicable. The Council should have proceeded with the works to create a level access shower at this point. Failure to do so was fault.
57. The adaptations service reallocated Ms X’s case in April 2022 but did not visit her until June. This delay was fault.
58. In April 2022 the Council asked the landlord to agree the works but provided no information about what those works were. This was fault.
59. The Council completed the schedule of works in August. There is no evidence it shared it with the landlord until October. This delay was fault.
60. The delay between October 2022 and January 2023 was caused by Ms X’s landlord and so is not fault of the Council. Ms X complained separately to her landlord, which accepted fault for its part in the delay.
61. In January 2023, the Council disputed the landlord’s assertion that a structural report was necessary. However, there is no evidence it followed this up with the landlord until March. This was fault.
62. Ms X’s landlord provided signed consent to the bathroom works in March but the works did not start until June. This further delay was fault.
63. Overall, therefore, the Council should have:
• properly assessed Ms X’s needs at the outset;
• had a robust process between ASC and adaptations to manage applications and resolve issues with referrals
• communicated clearly with Ms X about who was managing her application and who she should contact with questions or concerns
• communicated earlier and better with Ms X’s landlord to seek approval for the works.
64. The Council knew by July 2021 that Ms X needed a level access shower. On balance, it should therefore have been able to install one by December 2021. She did not get one until June 2023. Throughout most of this period, Ms X could not wash properly. This is a significant injustice to Ms X. She resorted to moving out of her home between September 2022 and March 2023 so she could access bathing facilities. This is a significant injustice to Ms X.
65. Ms X also needs alterations to the ground floor to make it easier for her to get around her home. It is not the Council’s fault that the landlord did not consent to these works. However, the Council should have continued to discuss the need for a structural report with the landlord and sought to clarify the conditions on which the landlord would agree the works. Not to do so was fault.

My findings – complaint handling

66. Ms X told the Council multiple times in 2021 that she wanted to pursue her complaint to the next stage. There is no evidence the Council responded to these requests. This was fault.
67. Ms X asked the Council to consider her complaint at stage two in April 2023. The Council did not respond until November 2024. This is a period of 19 months. This significant delay was fault. The Council added to the avoidable distress and frustration this caused Ms X by repeatedly telling her it would respond by a particular day and then failing to do so. The Council made similar commitments to the Ombudsman, which it also failed to keep.

Back to top

Agreed action

68. To remedy the injustice to Ms X from the faults I have identified, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Ms X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology
• Pay Ms X £200 a month for each month she avoidably lived without access to bathing facilities in her home between December 2021 and June 2023, except the period from September 2022 to March 2023, when Ms X lived elsewhere. This is a period of 12 months and a total of £2,400
• Pay Ms X a further £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused because she had to move out of her home for six months to access bathing facilities
• Pay Ms X a further £500 in recognition of the significant and avoidable distress, frustration, and time and trouble caused by the Council’s poor complaint handling.
• Contact Ms X’s landlord to discuss the outstanding ground floor works and establish if the landlord’s structural concerns can be addressed to allow the works to proceed. Write to Ms X with the outcome.
69. The Council should take these actions within four weeks of my final decision.
70. The Council should also take the following action to improve its services:
• Produce a joint service agreement and/or operating procedure for social care and the adaptations service which clearly identifies how each service contributes to delivering DFGs and ensures services work together to provide a joined-up and timely service to Disabled people.
• Produce a leaflet or other form of information to provide DFG applicants which sets out the process and what the applicant can expect, likely timescales, the services involved and who has oversight or is the main point of contact throughout the application.
• Provide training or guidance to staff responsible for responding to stage two complaints about the Council’s expected timescales, keeping complainants informed, and giving complaints appropriate priority.
• Identify and implement a means of ensuring the Council keeps sufficient central oversight of complaints to identify and address delays responding.
71. The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action it has taken within three months of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

72. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman