Summary: Mr X complained about the outcome of an assessment the Council carried out to decide what adaptations to make to his home for his Disabled child, B. The Council was at fault for delay in arranging the assessment. The delay caused Mr X avoidable frustration, for which the Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment. It will also consider what steps it needs to take to reduce the wait time for an assessment. There was no fault in the assessment itself or the Council’s conclusions from it.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained a Council assessment for a disabled facilities grant only found his child, B, needed their own bathroom. Mr X felt the Council should have approved a bedroom with en-suite for B. He said the Council’s decision risks harming his family and caused him undue stress.

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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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 have considered:
• all the information Mr X provided and discussed the complaint with him;
• the Council’s comments about the complaint and the supporting documents it provided; and
• the relevant law and guidance and the Ombudsman's guidance on remedies.
6. 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 law and guidance

7. Under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (the Act), councils can award disabled facilities grants (DFGs) to people whose disability means their home needs adaptation for certain purposes. These purposes are as follows:
• To allow the Disabled person to access their property and move around their home and garden.
• To make a Disabled person’s home and garden safe.
• To provide a bedroom where an existing room cannot be adapted for that purpose.
• To make a bathroom accessible by a Disabled person.
• To allow preparation and cooking of food.
• To allow a Disabled person to use heating, power sources or light sources.
• To allow a Disabled person to move around their home in order to provide care to another person living there.
8. Councils should only approve grants for work they decide is necessary, meets the disabled person’s needs, and is reasonable and practicable. An occupational therapist (OT) usually assesses need. Government guidance (Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) delivery: guidance for local authorities in England) sets out that for complex but non-urgent adaptations, assessment of need should be completed within 35 working days. Where adaptations are for a child, the assessment should take the child’s view into account as well as the views of the child’s parents.
9. The Council has an agreement with the local NHS Trust which means the Trust provides some services on behalf of the Council. This includes OT assessments for DFGs. The Council retains overall responsibility for complying with the law and guidance on DFGs.

What happened

10. Mr X asked the Council to consider giving him a DFG for adaptations for his child, B, in August 2021.
11. In November 2021, the Council carried out an early assessment (triage). It noted Mr X’s home was overcrowded and he wanted an extension to reduce the overcrowding. The Council explained that was not what a DFG is for and placed him on the waitlist for a full OT assessment.
12. An OT carried out their assessment in October 2022. Council records show the delay arranging the assessment was because there was a large waitlist.
13. As part of their assessment, the OT considered several letters Mr X had submitted, including a letter from him which said the family was very overcrowded and they either needed an extension or to move to a bigger home. He said moving would distress B. Mr X also sent a letter from a medical specialist who said “B would benefit enormously from additional space where [they] could go to be alone and process [their] feelings”.
14. Another OT spoke to the medical specialist, who said B attended a mainstream school where they benefited from access to a calm sensory space. The specialist said B would be able to cope with any potential extension works and moving home if the family chose to do that instead.
15. During a visit to Mr X’s home, the assessor OT spoke to B, who was unable to express what their difficulties were at home but could have a general conversation and appeared calm throughout the visit.
16. The OT also spoke to Mr X, who said he wanted an extension with a bedroom and bathroom. He explained B needed their own bathroom because they took a long time doing personal care and could become very upset if asked to get out by a family member.
17. Mr X said B needed a bigger bedroom because their existing room did not have enough space to allow them to cope with meltdowns and their sensory issues. He also said B needed more space for their desk. The OT explained if B needed more space they could swap into a larger bedroom shared by two of their siblings. The OT also said B could have a raised bed with a desk underneath it, freeing up more space in the room.
18. The OT confirmed they would speak to colleagues about B’s needs before coming to a decision about potential adaptations.
19. The OT consulted with colleagues and in late January 2023, recommended a private bathroom for B, which could be provided by converting an existing toilet. The OT did not recommend the Council fund an extension with a new bedroom and bathroom.
20. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s decision and appealed it in late July 2023. He said B’s existing room was too small and they could not swap with the two siblings in the larger room because the siblings would hate B. Mr X enclosed two letters from medical professionals with his appeal.
21. The Council heard Mr X’s appeal the next month. It considered Mr X’s appeal request, the information he had provided and the Council’s policy on adaptations for Disabled people. It also considered information the OT had prepared, which included their rationale for only recommending a bathroom for B. The OT said an extra bathroom would give B time and space to do personal care but a bedroom was not necessary because B already had one to themselves. The OT referred to the size of the bedroom in setting out their rationale.
22. The panel approved the OT’s recommendation because it was necessary and appropriate to meet B’s needs. It found Mr X’s request for an extension with bedroom and bathroom was not reasonable or practicable. The Council issued its decision on Mr X’s appeal in October 2023.
23. The Council told me that since Mr X complained to the Ombudsman, he had agreed to apply for a DFG for the bathroom conversion.

Findings

24. The Council unreasonably delayed in carrying out the assessment of B’s needs. It did not complete the OT assessment until October 2022, more than a year after Mr X first asked it to consider a DFG. This caused Mr X avoidable frustration.
25. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. We cannot question a council’s decision if it was made without fault.
26. There was no fault in how the OT assessed B or came to their recommendations. The OT considered the records of the conversation their colleague had with the medical specialist, spoke to Mr X and B and considered the information Mr X supplied. This was in line with the government guidance. Mr X is clear he feels an extension is the only way to meet B’s needs. However, the OT used their professional judgement to conclude, based on the information they had seen, that B’s bedroom met their need for a private space and their remaining needs could be met through converting a toilet into a bathroom. The OT also noted action Mr X could take to increase the amount of space B has in their bedroom, albeit Mr X does not feel those solutions are feasible.
27. There was no fault in how the appeal panel heard Mr X’s case. It considered relevant information, including Mr X’s appeal letter, the Council’s policy and the OT’s view on the case. The panel properly applied the tests for a DFG; whether an adaptation is necessary and appropriate and whether it is reasonable and practicable. In his appeal documents, Mr X reiterated that his home is overcrowded and the family needs more sleeping space. This is not the purpose of a DFG, which can only be made for the reasons set out in paragraph seven.
28. Because there was no fault in how the OT or panel considered Mr X’s case, I cannot question their decisions.

Back to top

Agreed action

29. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council will take the following actions.
1. Apologise to Mr X for the frustration he felt due to the delay assessing B for a DFG. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology.
2. Pay Mr X £200 in recognition of that frustration.
3. Consider the effectiveness of its agreement with the local NHS Trust to deliver adult social care occupational therapy assessments on behalf of the Council, and whether any steps could be taken to reduce the wait time.
30. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to personal injustice. I have recommended action to remedy that injustice and prevent reoccurrence of this fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman