Summary: Ms X complained about the handling of her Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) application. She says the proposed adaptations to her property are not fit for purpose and do not create sufficient space for her family. Mrs X complained the Council did not consider her family holistically or take account of their social and emotional needs. The Council’s failure to demonstrate how it took account of Ms X and her children’s views and needs is fault. As is the delay in completing an assessment of needs. These faults have caused Ms X an injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms X, complained about the handling of her DFG application. She says the proposed adaptations to her property are not fit for purpose and do not create sufficient space for her family. Ms X complained the Council did not consider her family holistically or take account of their social and emotional needs. She says the plans will result in her children being isolated in their rooms.

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. 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)
4. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Ms X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• Ms 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

DFG Process

6. Under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, councils can award Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG) to people whose disability means their home needs adaptation. If the person applying meets the qualifying criteria the council must award the grant.
7. Councils only approve grants for work they decide is necessary. An occupational therapist usually assesses need. For disabled children and young people, assessments should take account of their views and those of their parents. Assessments of disabled children should consider the developmental needs of the child and their progress towards maximum independence, the needs of their parents as carers and the needs of other children in the family.
8. The maximum amount of mandatory grant is £30,000. Grants for children are not means-tested. Councils can decide to give more help if they think it is necessary. If an adaptation is required to meet an assessed need and the cost of the works will exceed the maximum grant available, the remainder should be met either by the borough/district council using its discretionary powers or by social services departments at the county council.
9. A council must decide if the proposed works are necessary and appropriate to meet the needs of the disabled person. It must also be satisfied it is reasonable and practicable to carry out the works given the condition of the property to be adapted. In cases where major adaptations are required and it is difficult to provide a cost-effective solution, councils may consider the possibility of supporting a person to move to a more suitable home.

What happened here

10. Ms X has three children, E, F and G. E has a diagnosis of Autism and F has a diagnosis of ADHD and is waiting for an autism assessment. Ms X believes it likely that G will also require and autism assessment.
11. In September 2022 Ms X requested an Occupation Therapy (OT) assessment as she wanted to apply for a DFG to extend the ground floor of her property. E and F were no longer able to share a bedroom as their varying sleeping patterns meant they were disturbing each other.
12. An OT discussed Ms X’s request and confirmed they would pass her case on for an OT assessment. The OT advised Ms X there was a waiting list for assessments.
13. The Council allocated Ms X’s case to an OT in early March 2023. The OT visited Ms X and conducted an assessment in early April 2023. They noted F was using a temporary loft conversion, accessed via a ladder, but this was not safe to sleep in. Ms X was sleeping on the sofa so that her children could have a room each.
14. The assessment concluded the family needed an extra bedroom and an additional toilet, ideally with a shower, if space allowed.
15. The OT made a DFG recommendation and arranged for a technical officer to visit to assess the suitability of the recommended adaptions. The technical officer advised a loft conversion was not structurally possible and considered other solutions. Their initial plan suggested an extension to create a new bedroom and additional toilet on the ground floor.
16. When the OT shared the plans with the service manager for approval the manager queried whether changes could be made within the existing footprint. They suggested, if there was no clinical need for the dining room, the current lay out could be altered to provide an additional bedroom without extending the property.
17. The technical officer produced a revised plans showing the existing dining area as a bedroom and a new toilet in part of an existing utility room. They also confirmed the measurements of the new living room. The Council’s records show the service manager initially had concerns the living room would be too small and asked for a mock-up of where furniture would fit in. The technical officer altered the plans to reduce the proposed new bedroom slightly and produced new plans showing the new rooms with indicative furniture to give an idea of the size. The service manager approved these plans in late July 2023.
18. The OT then contacted Ms X to discuss the proposed plans. They sent Ms X copies of plans of the existing and proposed layouts and arranged a meeting for late August 2023.
19. Ms X did not consider the proposal was practical and felt reducing the living room to the proposed size solved one problem by creating another. The proposal meant there would be less space for her children to mix and socialise with each other. Ms X asserted the Council had not taken account of the family’s social and emotional needs and that confining two teenagers with complex social needs to their bedrooms would cause long term harm.
20. As an alternative, Ms X asked whether it would be possible to use the budget for the proposed works to get an outside office which she could sleep in so that the living room space was not reduced. The Council confirmed the grant could not be used in this way.
21. Ms X made a formal complaint asserting the proposed adaptations were not fit for purpose and did not create sufficient space for her children. She also complained the Council had not awarded sufficient funds for the adaptations. The Council’s response set out how it had considered Ms X’s referral and assessed the need for an additional bedroom.
22. The Council explained there was no minimum bedroom size in legislation for existing properties. However, national guidance for new build properties was that a single room should be a minimum of 6.5m2. The Council said it was also part of the OT assessment to identify if a space is sufficient, considering the need for specialist equipment, moving and handling, access, and sensory needs.
23. It considered the proposed plans to create a separate bedroom of a minimum size of 6.5m2 would meet E and F’s needs. It also meant the living room would maintain a sufficient size of 12.3m2, which was suitable as it would fit a three-person sofa, armchair and other necessary items, and electronics.
24. The Council acknowledged Ms X would like additional space and that her preference was to have an extension for an additional bedroom. But it concluded the needs identified through the OT assessment would be met by the proposed adaptations being offered. And that sufficient space would be created.
25. In addition, the Council explained that as part of the OT process for triage, assessment and provision, a holistic and multifaceted assessment takes place. It said the OT assessment looks at a range of needs including physical, sensory, cognitive, and psycho-social. And information is sought from other services and professionals where possible.
26. The Council was satisfied a thorough assessment took place and noted the case was also discussed in detail by the OT and Service Manager to ensure all needs were considered. It said the recommendation for the additional bedroom was acknowledgment that additional social and emotional needs were identified, with a solution proposed via the recommended adaptation. It says consideration was given to all family members, with each person having their own bedroom space. And consideration was given to ensure the living room is of sufficient size for use by the family. The Council noted it also created space for a ground floor toilet while maintaining a utility area.
27. In terms of funding for a DFG, the Council said there is no set figure a person is automatically entitled to for adaptations. Funds are only calculated once an approved set of plans are created and have been out to tender to contractors. Ms X’s case had not progressed to this point, so the exact cost of the works was not known.
28. The Council advised it had a duty to consider the most reasonable and practicable way to meet the identified need. Although the Council had accepted the most cost-effective solution it was still on the basis that it met the assessed needs. As the plans had been developed following a robust assessment of needs the Council did not consider an alternative solution was appropriate.
29. Ms X was not satisfied by the Council’s response and asked for her complaint to be considered further. She asserted that although the proposed bedroom met minimum standards it would not provide sufficient space for F who was an extremely active child. They struggled to sit still and were constantly on the go. In addition, Ms X maintained the proposed living room was not fit for purpose. There was nowhere to put a television, and only enough room for the children to sit. She said the limited space would cause significant friction as the children had sensory needs and would literally be sat on top of each other.
30. Ms X was concerned the plans would result in the children isolating themselves in their bedrooms which was detrimental to their social and emotional needs. There was also nowhere for the family to eat, which would again reduce valuable social interaction time. Ms X asserted the Council has not taken account of E and F’s views and needs.
31. The Council advised Ms X it would not escalate her complaint to stage two of its complaints process as it did not feel there would be a different outcome. The service felt the offer met its statutory duties. Ms X remains dissatisfied and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaints.
32. In response to my enquiries the Council has reiterated the OT assessment looks at a range of needs and considers the needs of the whole family. In this case it considered additional evidence in the form of F’s Psychiatric assessment report and their Education Health and Care Plan. It says this was to ensure it captured F’s needs and the impact the rest of the family have on their needs.
33. The Council says Ms X was involved throughout the assessment process to ensure she could share her own views and voice the needs of her children. It says it considered Ms X’s preferences when making the recommendation but also ensured it adhered to DFG legislation and best practice.
34. It notes it has also offered to explore the possibility of an ‘offset DFG’ which would allow Ms X to use the funding for assessed eligible needs towards her preference as a family.
35. In relation to the suitability of the proposed living room, the Council refers to Government guidance: Disabled Facilities Grant Delivery: Guide for Local Authorities in England. It refers to provisions for a disabled person to be able to access a room suitable for use as a living room and also that access to the principal family room should allow the disabled person to socialise with their family.
36. The Council considered the proposed plans suitable as the core living room space was unaffected by the creation of a bedroom in what is the current dining room. It states the DFG guidance does not stipulate the need for a separate dining room. The Council says it sought additional information as part of the assessment to ensure there was no clinical need of a dining area. There is no evidence of a need from its assessment, or from any supporting evidence provided.
37. The Council says the living room can suitably accommodate a three-person sofa and an armchair to allow the family to use the room together and socialise. It says if behavioural challenges are too prevalent to make the space suitable each child has their own bedroom space to utilise. The Council says increasing the size of a single living space would not be suitable solely to manage behavioural challenges.
38. Although the focus was on F as the referral was in their name, the Council says it completed a holistic assessment of the whole family. By meeting their needs around having their own bedroom space and a separate toilet, the Council says the whole family’s needs were considered.
39. Although sensory needs are prevalent for the children the Council says the assessed need and reason for the referral was for issues around siblings sharing bedrooms and F occupying the bathroom for prolonged periods. The proposed plans would address these issues and meet all assessed needs. It says it did not identify any additional needs for any of F’s siblings during the OT assessment.
40. The Council says that although its case notes do not specifically record that it considered the family’s views at various stages, this is interwoven into the fabric of its core assessment method. It is also embedded throughout its practice and overall decision making.
41. In response to the draft decision the Council has highlighted its attempts to discuss the adaptation plans with Ms X in August 2023. It says that as soon as it had a proposed solution it attempted to discuss this with Ms X. The Council says it is at this stage that it would have discussed the plans and other options as well as addressing any concerns Ms X had. As Ms X declined to meet with the OT or discuss the adaptation plans it did not have this opportunity.
42. The Council asserts it followed the DFG guidance and tried to consult with and involve Ms X and her family so that the OT can recommend which solution is appropriate. However, Ms X chose not to engage in this process.
43. The Council has also explained how qualified OTs triage all cases within two days to ensure risks are identified and managed. Where a case is awarded Priority 1, there is no wait for an OT assessment. For low-risk cases there is a wait, but families are advised of this. The Council endeavours to ensure cases do not wait excessive amount of time and feels this case was appropriately triaged and managed.

Analysis

44. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide what Ms X’s children’s needs are or what adaptations are needed to their home; that is the Council’s job. Our role is to consider whether the Council assessed application correctly and to determine whether there was any administrative fault in the way the Council reached its decision.
45. There is no dispute the family needed an extra bedroom and an additional toilet. However, Ms X and the Council disagree on how these adaptations can and should be made. Ms X asserts the property needs to be extended to accommodate another bedroom whereas the Council considers changes to the ground floor lay out would allow the works to be completed within the existing footprint.
46. While the Council can consider the more cost-effective method to achieving an outcome, it should have regard to the views and preferences expressed by Ms X and her children. I am not satisfied the Council has done so in this case based on the evidence I have seen.
47. The Council says Ms X was involved throughout the assessment process and was part of all discussions. And that she had the opportunity to share her own views and those of her children. However, there is no evidence Ms X was involved in any discussion regarding the creation of a bedroom in what is currently the dining area, or of the size of room that would be suitable.
48. Ms X applied for a DFG to extend the ground floor of her property to provide an additional room. At the time of the assessment the OT noted F was using a temporary loft conversion. The OT recommendation suggested an additional bedroom may be possible as a loft conversion. There is no evidence of any discussion with Ms X at this stage that ground floor layout could be changed to create a new bedroom.
49. Having ruled out the possibility of a loft conversion the technical officer prepared plans for an extension to create a new bedroom and additional toilet on the ground floor. These plans were not shared or discussed with Ms X.
50. The Council notes the DFG Guidance does not stipulate the need for a separate dining room. However, the Guidance does state it is important that the assessment considers the need for the disabled child to be able to participate in all aspects of family life. It gives the example of ensuring that dining space is available to enable all members of the family to eat together.
51. The DFG Guidance also states that adaptations should provide a sustainable, effective, and individualised solution. And that council’s should follow the nine guiding principles identified in research into the needs of older and disabled people consider important when being assessed. These include the particular needs of children: to provide for growth and change; and the need for space.
52. The Council considers the living room is large enough to allow interaction and socialisation as a family, but there is no evidence of how it reached this decision. The Council’s records suggest the sole consideration was whether the new space could physically accommodate four seats. The case records show the service manager agreed the plans as they met needs in terms of:
• extra bedroom,
• maintains WC and utility,
• living room with sufficient furniture.
53. There is no record of any consideration of the family’s ability to interact or socialise or whether the space was large enough to meet the family’s needs.
54. The Council has not in my view provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate proper consideration of the family’s needs, views, or preferences when designing the adaptation plans. The records do not demonstrate that the plans were designed or tailored to meet this family’s specific needs. This is fault.
55. I recognise the Council attempted to discuss the adaptation plans with Ms X once complete in August 2023. The Council says it would at that stage have discussed options and addressed any concerns Ms X had with the plans.
56. This was not possible as Ms X declined to meet with the OT or to discuss the proposed plans. Ms X immediately raised concerns about the difficulties the size of the reduced living room would cause her family. The OT acknowledged Ms X's concerns but advised the Council had to meet the need in the most cost-effective way. They offered to visit to go through the plans, but there was no indication the plans could be amended.
57. Nor did the Council offer any alternative options. In response to Ms X’s queries it confirmed it could get a cost for the scheme it was proposing, and Ms X could put that money towards an extension. It also confirmed the grant could only be used for permanent structures, attached to the house. The grant could not be used to purchase an outside office which Ms X could also use as a bedroom.
58. It is unclear whether, had Ms X met with the OT to discuss the proposal, a resolution could have been found. I note the Council’s response to Ms X’s complaint does not suggest it was open to alternative options. Rather, it says that as the plans have been developed following a robust assessment of needs, an alternative solution is not considered appropriate.
59. The length of time taken to deal with Ms X’s DFG application is also a concern. Although there are no timescales detailed in legislation to complete an OT assessment, the Ombudsman expects a council complete the assessment within a reasonable timescale. In addition, the DFG Guidance sets out target timescales for each stage of the process. These timescales will vary depending on their urgency and complexity of the adaptations required. The maximum target timeline for triage and assessments is 55 working ways.
60. Ms X asked for a DFG in September 2022. Her application was triaged within a couple of days but was not allocated to an OT until early March 2023 and the assessment was completed the following month. This is significantly outside the target timeline. Delays of this nature are clearly unacceptable and amount to fault.
61. Having identified fault, I must consider whether this has caused Ms X and her family an injustice. Ms X has experienced frustration, distress, and uncertainty as she cannot be satisfied the Council’s decision-making took account of her own and her children’s needs, views and preferences.

Back to top

Agreed action

62. The Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Ms X for the injustice caused by the faults identified in this statement. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Pay Ms X £300 in recognition of the frustration distress and uncertainty caused to her by the faults identified in this statement;
• Reconsider Ms X’s request for DFG funding to identify, in collaboration with Ms X’s, the potential solutions for adapting her home and meeting her family’s need. The Council should clearly document how it has considered Ms X’s family’s views and needs when identifying and recommending the most appropriate solution.
63. The Council should take this action within one month of the final decision on this complaint and provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

64. The Council’s failure to demonstrate how it took account of Ms X and her children’s views and needs is fault. As is the delay in completing an assessment of needs. These faults have caused Ms X an injustice.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman