Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed in providing replacement equipment for his son Mr G’s specialist bed, and delayed in completing adaptations in the bathroom of their house agreed under a disabled facilities grant. The Council delayed in completing the adaptations, and in providing the replacement equipment. The Council will make a symbolic payment to recognise the injustice caused to Mr G and Mr X, and complete the outstanding adaptations.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council delayed in providing replacement equipment for his son Mr G’s specialist bed, and delayed in completing adaptations in the bathroom of their house agreed under a disabled facilities grant. Mr X said the delay in providing the specialist equipment put Mr G at risk of harm, and the delay in the bathroom adaptations meant Mr X and his wife Mrs X were at risk of injury from lifting and carrying Mr G, and resulted in a loss of dignity for Mr G. Mr X wanted the Council to make service improvements in how it procured replacement specialist equipment and to complete the agreed bathroom adaptations without further delay.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
4. 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

5. I read the documents Mr X provided and discussed the complaint on the phone with Mr X and Mrs X.
6. I considered the documents the Council provided in response to my enquiries.
7. 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

Relevant legislation and guidance

Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG)

8. DFGs are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Councils have a statutory duty to give grants 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.

DFG Process

9. There are five key stages to delivering home adaptations under a DFG:
• Stage 1: First contact with the service. Councils should ensure the public has access to information and advice about the DFG process.
• Stage 2: First contact to assessment and identification of the relevant works. An occupational therapist (OT) will assess the person’s needs and potential solutions through home adaptations.
• Stage 3: Identification of the relevant works to submission of the formal grant application. The person completes and submits the application form together with designs and costing for the works (where necessary).
• Stage 4: Grant application to grant decision. The Council will check the application and issue a decision letter. If a council refuses a grant, it must explain why.
• Stage 5: Approval of grant to completion of works. The works are arranged and carried out and the necessary quality checks made.
10. A council should decide a grant application as soon as reasonably practicable. In addition, the timescales for moving through the stages will depend on the urgency and complexity of the works required. The guidance gives the following timescales:
• Urgent and simple works – 55 working days
• Non-urgent and simple works – 130 working days
• Urgent and complex works – 130 days
• Non-urgent and complex works – 180 working days

What happened

Background information not subject to this investigation

11. Mr G lives at home with his sibling and parents, Mr and Mrs X, in a property owned by a housing association. Mr G has a range of medical, physical and learning disabilities which mean he is unable to stand or walk on his own and needs support to move from one place to another. Mr G also needs support in all areas of his life including self-care.
12. In 2010, the Council arranged for Mr G to have a specialist profiling bed. This bed has mesh cot sides to prevent Mr G falling out of bed.
13. Mr X contacted the Council about a DFG for adaptations to the property to meet Mr G’s needs in 2015 when Mr G was a child.
14. In 2016 the Council’s Occupational Therapist (OT 1) recommended adaptations including a through floor lift, a ceiling track hoist system on the first floor including bedroom and bathroom and the downstairs toilet, and the installation of a disabled changing bench in the bathroom. The Council agreed to a DFG to fund the adaptations.
15. In 2021, following a complaint to the Ombudsman (19020651), we found the Council had delayed in completing the work it had agreed under the DFG application. We recommended it discuss and agree the outstanding work and complete it within four weeks – allowing for COVID-19 restrictions where relevant. The Council completed the through floor lift and ceiling hoist in the bedroom. It was not able to complete the work in the bathroom due to a flood in the property.

New events subject to this investigation

DFG adaptations

16. The Council agreed it would hold the adaptation work in the bathroom in March 2022 while Mr X sorted a damp problem with the housing association (HA).
17. Mr X contacted the Council at the end of March 2023. He said he had met with a new housing manager at the HA. He said everyone was keen to progress the hoist and bathroom bench adaptations. The Council said it is likely its head of service at the time attended a meeting with Mr X and the HA, but it had no record of it.
18. The Council assigned a new Occupational Therapist (OT 2) who conducted an assessment and met with the HA and Mr and Mrs X in May 2023. The record of that meeting said:
• There had been a flood in the bathroom previously and the wall intended for the changing bench was still damp.
• It had existing quotes for the hoist track in the bathroom.
• There were options for the changing bench that needed to be considered by OT 2 and Mr and Mrs X.
• The HA said it would manage the works with funding from the DFG and OT 2 would discuss this further with the Council and agree with the HA.
19. OT 2 spent May and the beginning of June researching and trying to source an appropriate changing bench with safety sides. OT 2 was in contact with Mr and Mrs X about the bench as they had not found anything suitable, and discussed with them about the HA managing the works. Mrs X sought assurances around the timescales and overall responsibility for the work.
20. Mrs X told OT 2 that she had not been able to find an appropriate changing bench at the end of June and to avoid further delay OT 2 could book in the necessary surveys with Contractor A (the construction company that had completed the previous adaptation work) and Contractor B (a lift and hoist firm). She asked for confirmation of when the works would be completed. OT 2 told Mr and Mrs X he would hand over their case to a new OT.
21. The HA told the Council in June 2023 it wanted the Council to manage the adaptations from start to finish, it would pay for the flooring, and would complete any work needed in the bathroom due to the flood. Mr and Mrs X were not informed.
22. OT 2 handed Mr G’s case to OT 3 in July 2023. The Council records showed the summary of the case to be:
• Mr and Mrs X still needed to make a decision on the shower bench.
• Mr and Mrs X said the wall needed repairing from water damage before adaptations could be completed.
• The extent of any damage would not be known until Contractor A surveyed it.
• Contractor A said, from its previous knowledge, Mr and Mrs X were in a legal dispute with the HA and would not let anything be done until it was settled, and that was confirmed by the Council’s adaptations surveyor.
• Contractor A did not think a track hoist was suitable based on site visits it did in 2021 and 2022.
23. OT 3 contacted Mr and Mrs X in August 2023 and reviewed the progress of the case based on the handover from OT 2. Mr and Mrs X said the handover was not correct as they had agreed for the Council and HA to progress the works.
24. Mr and Mrs X contacted a Councillor in August with their concerns about the ongoing delay in the adaptations to their property. The Councillor contacted the Council.
25. The Council responded to Mr and Mrs X in mid-September. It said Mr X had told OT 2 in June there were unresolved repairs and legal action and they were hesitant about the HA leading on the repairs. The Council said it was unclear whether they wanted the HA or the Council to lead on the works. It asked if Mr and Mrs X would now agree to a meeting with OT 3, the surveyor and contractors to agree a way forward.
26. The Council visited Mr G and Mr and Mrs X at the end of September 2023. The record of the meeting showed:
• The bathroom wall would need reinforcing.
• The bathroom hoist would be dependent on feasibility which Contractor B (a lift and hoist firm) would decide.
• A suitable changing bench had been identified.
27. The records show the next actions were for a site survey visit with Contractor A and Contractor B and then to devise a schedule of works. The Council told Mr and Mrs X it would do this as soon as possible.
28. Contractors A and B visited Mr and Mrs X’s property at some point in October or November 2023 to complete the surveys for the outstanding work. There is no record of that visit.
29. The Council met with Mr and Mrs X at the beginning of November to discuss their complaint. There is no record of that meeting. The Council emailed Mr and Mrs X and said a date had been proposed for home adaptations. It is unclear what that referred to.
30. The Council met with Mr and Mrs X again in December 2023. It discussed potential dates for the work to be completed in February, April and August. It provisionally agreed August 2024 as this was the most suitable for Mr G and Mr and Mrs X as they would need to move out for four weeks while the work was completed. It agreed it would meet with Mr and Mrs X every month to discuss the progress being made: 31 January 2024, 28 February 2024 and 27 March 2024.
31. OT 4 visited Mr G and Mr and Mrs X at home in January 2024 and completed a further home assessment that confirmed the adaptations were still needed. The record shows OT 4 would attend the planned monthly meetings where possible to keep Mr and Mrs X updated and ensure the work went ahead as planned.
32. Mrs X contacted the Council asking for an update on the planned works in mid-February. She stated no-one had provided answers to the questions she had raised in December 2023 and at the meeting in January 2024.
33. At the end of February Contractor A sent the Council a schedule of works to be completed in the property.
34. The Council did not have a record of the monthly meetings in January and February 2024. Mrs X stated they occurred but no progress was made and no actions were detailed as a result of them.
35. The Council shared a work plan with Mr and Mrs X in March 2024. It set out the remaining actions which included:
• A site visit by the OT and surveyor to confirm and review equipment options, proof the contractor’s drawings and measurements and update any OT assessment (March 2024)
• Review drawings and measurements by the OT and surveyor and share with Mr and Mrs X and the contractor (May 2024)
• Develop project plan with contractors and subcontractors for work to be completed in August (May 2024)
• Pre-site visit with contractors, sub-contractors and Mr and Mrs X (July 2024)
• Work to commence with surveyor oversight (August 2024) and complete within four weeks and by 5 September 2024.
36. Mrs X responded and stated she was concerned the Council still did not have a schedule of works and was not considering the previous drawing, measurements and survey information already gathered.
37. In response to my enquiries the Council said delays in the DFG process had occurred due to high demand and the Council prioritising very urgent cases. It said it had recently recruited three additional adaptations surveyors to reduce waiting lists.

Replacement Equipment

38. Mr X order a new mesh cot side for Mr G’s bed from the Council’s supplier in June 2023. At the end of June Mr X complained to the Council that the supplier’s technician was supposed to be coming to look at the cot sides but cancelled without notice or arranging another visit. He told the Council Mr G’s bed needed repairing.
39. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint at the end of June. It apologised that the contractor did not deliver the cot sides and did not contact Mr X to rearrange. It said this was due to the contractor misunderstanding what part should be ordered. It said OT 2 had placed another order and would order a spare cot side to be kept at home to avoid any issues with reordering in the future. It said it would be in contact about the timescales.
40. Mr X asked the Council to escalate his complaint in August as he had still not received the cot sides and Mr G was still in a bed in a state of dangerous disrepair and the Council had not kept him updated. Mr X said he could order the sides himself for delivery within five days and would like to do so and the Council could reimburse him. The Council did not respond.
41. Mr X ordered and paid for the mesh cot sides in August and received them within a week.
42. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint about the delay in providing the mesh cot sides at the end of August. It said:
• It took responsibility for the delay which was caused by the Council’s supplier being out of stock.
• It offered sincere apologies for the frustration and risk of harm this caused to Mr X and Mr G.
• It apologised for its lack of communication about the matter.
43. Mr X received the mesh cot sides from the Council in mid-October. The Council also reimbursed Mr X for the cot sides he had bought direct from the supplier. It told Mr X to keep the spare set at home, and to let the Council know when the spare set was used so it could order another set and avoid any delay in the future.

My findings

DFG

44. We have already investigated and found fault with the Council for the delay in completing the adaptations agreed under the DFG up until 2022. As the adaptations were agreed in 2016 the timescales set out in paragraph 10 cannot still apply. The work should have been completed as soon as possible.
45. The adaptation work in the bathroom was paused due to a flooding. Mr and Mrs X liaised with the housing association about the flooding, that is not part of this investigation.
46. Mr X told the Council in March 2023 that work could go ahead, and the Council’s OT met with Mr and Mrs X and the HA to discuss the work and the details of the adaptation. The Council should have carried out the works without further delay. It did not which was fault. The work has not been completed 12 months on.
47. The Council suggested in its complaint response the delay was caused by a legal dispute between Mr and Mrs X and the HA. However, although that may have been the case prior to the period I have investigated both Mr and Mrs X and the HA wanted to progress the adaptations in March 2023. There is no record after that date of a legal dispute, other than Contractor A referring to it.
48. The evidence shows the drift and delay was caused by:
• The case being handled by three different OT’s with delay in the handover and each wanting to complete a home visit with further assessments.
• The Council misinterpreting Mrs X’s request for reassurance the work would be completed, as a refusal to allow the HA to lead the adaptation work.
• The Council delaying in arranging Contractor survey visits after Mrs X agreed they should go ahead in June 2023, until October or November 2023.
• The Council accepting information from Contractor A that there was a legal dispute, and the track hoists were unsuitable, despite Contractor A not having been involved since 2022 and not being responsible for the feasibility of the track hoists.
49. There is no evidence Mr and Mrs X contributed to the drift and delay in the DFG adaptations. Mr and Mrs X did agree for the work to be completed in August 2024, rather than an earlier date due to the family having to leave the house for four weeks.

Council communication and record keeping

50. The Council’s communication with Mr and Mrs X was poor. It did not keep them updated on the progress of the adaptations nor did it clarify information with them, such as the alleged dispute with the HA, that could have eliminated some of the delay. Its complaint response referred to points that were not supported by its own records. There is no evidence the Council informed Mr and Mrs X that the HA no longer wanted to lead on the DFG adaptations, that the OT assigned to the case would be changing after OT 2, or that it provided them with a copy of the schedule of works it received from Contractor A in February 2024. The poor communication is fault.
51. The Council’s record keeping is inconsistent. It has no record of some meetings and site visits. The Council had agreed to hold monthly meetings with Mr and Mrs X to keep them updated and ensure the work was completed, however it has no record of those meetings, and actions identified as a result. The failure to keep clear, accurate and complete records is fault and likely contributed to the drift and delay in this case.
52. The Council states the delay was caused by high demand and prioritising urgent cases. The Council has recently recruited new staff to alleviate that pressure. I therefore did not make further service improvement recommendations, and we will continue to monitor the timeliness of DFG adaptations through our investigations.

Injustice (DFG adaptations)

53. The adaptations were needed to meet Mr G’s ongoing and significant needs and were first identified as required nine years ago. Without the track hoist and changing bench Mr and Mrs X must carry and lift Mr G, who is now an adult. Mr G is changed on the floor. This causes Mr G a loss of dignity and autonomy.
54. It also put Mr and Mrs X at risk of injury and makes caring for Mr G more difficult than it needs to be. The drift and delay has also caused Mr and Mrs X frustration, distress and time and trouble in following up with the Council.
55. The Council has now agreed the work will be completed by September 2024.

Replacement equipment

56. Mr X told the Council that Mr G’s bed needed new mesh sides in June 2023 and that he was at risk of harm. Mr X did not receive the replacement from the Council’s supplier until October 2023. The delay of four months in providing an integral part of the safety of Mr G’s bed was fault. The Council has already acknowledged the fault and apologised. It has also reimbursed Mr X for the set he purchased, and provided a spare. It has arranged with Mr X to order a new set when the spare is used. This is an appropriate remedy to avoid the same fault occurring in the future.

Injustice (equipment)

57. Mr G was at risk of harm without the cot side. As Mr X was able to order and receive a cot side within five working days I find that Mr G was at risk of harm from the beginning of July until Mr X obtained the new mesh side in August 2023.
58. The delay in receiving the cot side and reimbursement, and the necessity of ordering the part directly cause Mr X frustration and time and trouble. Although the Council had already apologised I recommended a further remedy below.
59. The Council identified the fault and the injustice this caused, and I have recommended appropriate remedies below, I did not investigate this point further. Further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Agreed action

60. Within one month of this decision the Council will:
• Pay Mr G a symbolic amount of £1000 to recognise the loss of dignity and autonomy caused to him by the Council’s delays in progressing the DFG adaptations and in obtaining new cot sides;
• Write to Mr and Mrs X, apologise and pay them a symbolic amount of £1000 to recognise the risk of harm, frustration, distress and time and trouble caused to them by the Council’s faults. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation will consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.
• The Council will consider if there is a reason it cannot share the schedule of works from Contractor A with Mr and Mrs X. It will share this document if there is no valid reason to withhold it.
61. The Council will continue to hold the monthly meetings with Mr and Mrs X and the agreed Council Officers until the adaptations are complete. It will minute the meetings and actions from each and provide Mr and Mrs X a copy of those minutes.
62. The Council will complete the adaptation works in line with the workplan it has identified, ensuring work is completed by 5 September 2024.
63. Within one month of this decision the Council will:
• remind relevant staff members to keep clear, accurate and comprehensive records, and to ensure there is a clear record of any meeting held; and
• share the learning from this complaint with relevant staff members including the OTs and adaptation surveyors.
64. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

65. I have completed my investigation. I found fault causing injustice and the Council agreed to my recommendations to remedy that injustice and to avoid the same fault occurring in the future.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman