Summary: Miss X complains about the handling of her application for a disabled facilities grant. Miss X says it does not meet her child’s needs, and the Council has refused to consider new information. We find fault with the Council for delaying confirming the funds, and for its complaint handling. The Council has agreed to pay Miss X a distress payment and carry out service improvements.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of her application for a disabled facilities grant. Miss X says the proposal from the Council does not meet her son and her family’s needs and the Council refused to reassess despite her son’s change in needs.

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

What I have and have not investigated

5. Part of Miss X’s complaint is that the issue of the current DFG assessment and funding is still ongoing, and the Council is delaying settling funding following assessments done in August 2024. I am not investigating this part of the complaint as it is a new and separate issue that arose following the issuing of the Council’s final complaint response.
6. I have exercised discretion to consider Miss X’s first complaint, despite it being late. This is because I have considered Miss X’s personal circumstances and the other ongoing investigations that were taking place during the time complained about.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have considered Miss X’s complaint to the Council and information she provided. I have also considered information from the Council.
8. I invited Miss X and the Council to comment on my draft decision and considered any comments received.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and guidance

Disabled Facilities Grants

9. 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.
10. Councils only approve grants for work they decide is necessary. An occupational therapist usually assesses need. Where a borough council is responsible for DFGs, the occupational therapist may work for a county council. Borough and county councils should work together to provide a well-coordinated DFG service.
11. 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 under the other legislation set out below.
12. The guidance also says other charges incurred as part of the works are eligible for grant funding such as architects’ and surveyors’ fees and charges for planning permission or building regulations approval.
13. 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.

The Statutory complaints procedure

14. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. The accompanying statutory guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, explains councils’ responsibilities in more detail. We also published practitioner guidance on the procedures, setting out our expectations.
15. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
16. If a complainant is not happy with a council’s stage one response, they can ask that it is considered at stage two. At this stage of the procedure, councils appoint an investigating officer (IO) to look into the complaint and an independent person (IP) who is responsible for overseeing the investigation and ensuring its independence.
17. The Ombudsman would normally expect a council and complainant to follow the full complaints procedure. The guidance sets out the circumstances in which a complaint can be referred to the Ombudsman without completing all three stages. This can only happen when the stage two investigation is robust with all, or all significant complaints upheld. Councils must show they agree to meet most of the complainant’s desired outcomes and have a clear action plan for delivery.

What happened

18. Miss X’s son has several disabilities. Miss X applied to the Council for a disabled facilities grant to make adaptations to her property to meet her son’s needs.
19. The Council carried out the DFG assessment in January 2023. The assessment found that Child Y needed a bedroom and bathroom downstairs. It proposed to change the layout of the downstairs, partially converting Miss X’s dining room into a bedroom and bathroom for Child Y, and levelling the garden.
20. Miss X was unhappy with the result of the assessment. She felt the assessment had not properly considered the layout of the home, and the space that was needed for the rest of the family to be able to function. She did not feel the Council should ask that part of the family space be converted to a bedroom for her son. She said this would impact everyone’s living and make it difficult for her son to sleep. Miss X felt the best outcome would be for the Council to extend the property to the side and create a new room, rather than converting an existing one.
21. Miss X complained to the Council on 5th April 2023. In her complaint she said;

• The proposed adaptations would mean the family lose a room in their house.
• The Council had changed its original plans for a bigger room for her child.
• The proposed adaptations would compromise family space.

22. The Council considered Miss X’s complaint under the statutory complaints process. It issued its stage one response on 19th April 2023. In its response it said;

• The OT assessment carried out had identified the need for a downstairs bedroom and bathroom for Child Y.
• The proposed plan allows more space than the alternatives to still allow a dining area for the family. The Council felt the proposal met Child Y’s clinical needs and was in line with DFG guidance.
• Adaptations to the dining area would be made, but this would not impact primary family room, which was the living room.
• The Council had previously discussed alternatives with Miss X, but this was before receiving further professional advice about Child Y’s needs, and the previous alternative would no longer be suitable.
• The Council was not obligated to ensure the family had a dining room, and there would still be space for a dining table, as the living room would be made larger.
• The Council did not agree that a change in approved plans was needed as the current offer was within DFG guidelines. However, it could discuss an offset DFG with Miss X where it would provide some funding towards adaptions if Miss X did not agree with the plans.

23. Following the Council’s stage one response, Miss X told the Council she wished to pursue further assessments that she believed would change the result of the DFG assessment.
24. The Council met with Miss X to discuss the proposed plans and the choice of an offset DFG. The Council provided Miss X with more information about an offset DFG if she wanted to arrange plans for her own adaptations. Miss X confirmed there were new assessments underway for Child Y.
25. Miss X also asked if levelling the garden could go ahead without the rest of the DFG for the time being. The Council told her that it could start the work on the garden while the rest of its plans and proposals were finalised.
26. It later again met with Miss X to clarify some of the details of an offset DFG, and to discuss the further assessments carried out.
27. The Council considered the new sensory assessment in June 2023, but decided the information in the assessment would not change the DFG proposals. It offered to send the DFG proposal out for tender to arrange the work starting.
28. Miss X replied to the Council and said she wished to pursue the offset DFG and would arrange for the work to be carried out according to her preferred layout.
29. In December 2023, the Council told Miss X the amount it was hoping to contribute to the offset DFG, and that it was hoping to apply for some extra funding. However, it needed to wait for estimated costs from providers and once this was approved, it would be able to confirm when the money would become available. It also told Miss X that it would not be able to release separate funds for levelling the garden, as it was its policy to pay offset DFG funds in one go.
30. In January 2024, Miss X told the Council that Child Y’s needs had changed further.
31. An occupational therapist spoke to Miss X and provided advice and guidance for the challenges Child Y was presenting, and some equipment that would be ordered to support both Miss X and Child Y.
32. Also in January 2024, the Council continued to try and seek quotes from providers so it could assess how much it could provide to the offset DFG. Miss X could not progress the work as she was awaiting to see how much would be granted by the offset DFG.
33. The Council recorded there were continued delays in getting quotes and figures for the DFG in February 2024.
34. In March 2024, Miss X expressed her frustration with the Council that it had delayed providing a figure and confirming the DFG amount which meant that she could not start the adaptions. On 15th March 2024, the Council told Miss X the final figure it would be able to contribute via the offset DFG.
35. In April 2024, the Council confirmed to Miss X an added top up it could provide towards the adaptations. The Council also received contact from Child Y’s GP who asked for an update about the adaptations. The Council explained to the GP why the sensory report had not changed its original proposals.
36. The Council told Miss X it had spoken to the GP. It said that while it wouldn’t be carrying out a new assessment, it had considered information when it was received, and was satisfied the assessment still accurately identified and reflected Child Y’s needs.
37. Miss X wrote to the Council on 8th May 2024, 13 months after receiving the stage one complaint response. She asked to escalate the complaint to stage two as she had provided new information which she believed would change the result of the assessment, and therefore the proposed plans.
38. The Council responded to Miss X on 16th May 2024. It said;

• It would not undertake a new assessment, as Child Y’s care and involvement was part of an continuing assessment of need, and would be updated as new information became available.
• The Council was not aware of any new information that hadn’t been considered, but it would consider any further information Miss X had.
• It rejected Miss X’s request as it had already considered the information provided.
• Miss X complained to the Ombudsman in May 2024. She said she had concerns about the Council’s DFG proposals and that it had failed to consider information about a change in Child Y’s needs.

Analysis

January 2023 – April 2023

39. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
40. 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. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
41. In carrying out the DFG assessment and delivering the proposed plans, the Council took account of the relevant DFG guidance, information from professionals, its own policies and information from Miss X. The Council explained several times to Miss X why it had finalised the proposal that it did, and how it met the DFG criteria. I appreciate Miss X disagrees with the Council’s reasoning for its findings. However, the Council has been able to show it followed the appropriate procedures when making this decision and I cannot therefore criticise it.

April 2023 – May 2024

42. There was delay by the Council in progressing and getting the quotes needed to confirm and arrange the funds for the offset DFG. I appreciate that some of this was down to third parties on behalf of the Council, but it does not change there was delay. This was a service failure by the Council, causing Miss X distress and uncertainty. It meant that she could not arrange or confirm the work to her house and lost the opportunity to start the adaptations for her son sooner.
43. In response to my draft decision, the Council has confirmed that since the Council merged with other Council’s in 2023. Since this happened, the Council has reviewed its processes for calculating offset grants which has removed the need to rely on third parties for Council. I am satisfied the Council has addressed the reason for delay and take suitable action. I am therefore not recommending further service improvements.
44. Part of Miss X’s complaint is the Council has not considered new information about Child Y’s needs and refused to reassess them. I have reviewed the Council’s notes and its conversations with professionals and Miss X. I am satisfied the Council has been able to show that it considered information about Child Y’s needs when it was received. It was up to the Council to decide what weight it gave the information and whether it warranted a reassessment, and in this case, the new information did not give cause for this. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make.

Complaint handling

45. The Council initially considered Miss X’s complaint through the statutory complaints process. This was the correct process for her complaint.
46. When Miss X requested a stage two 13 months later, the Council told her it rejected her request as it had already considered the information.
47. The Ombudsman asked the Council to clarify why it had given Miss X this response. This is because, according to the guidance, the complaint should progress to stage two if the complainant remains unhappy after stage one and asks to escalate.
48. The Council told the Ombudsman that Miss X had escalated her complaint 12 months after the complaint response, and therefore it was out of time for consideration under the statutory process. It had considered whether it could provide a response under the corporate process, and this is why it had told her it had considered the information available.
49. There is no time limit for complainants to request escalation following a stage one, however the guidance recommends that Council’s impose a time measure of 20 working days. The Council has no timescale, policy, or information which it gave to Miss X telling her there was a deadline to escalate. This was fault by the Council.
50. The Ombudsman understands the need for timescales to effectively investigate complaints, but the Council should have been clear with Miss X about a timescale and the reason to decline. It should not have interchanged the statutory and corporate complaints process.
51. The Council has recognised to the Ombudsman there was fault in its communication with Miss X about her complaint, and that it would ensure a timeframe was given to complainants in future. This is the most suitable remedy for this part of the complaint. I do not consider that Miss X was caused injustice, as she bought bring her complaint to the Ombudsman who investigated her concerns.

Back to top

Agreed action

52. Within four weeks the Council has agreed to

• Write to Miss X and apologise for the delay in confirming and arranging the DFG funds.
• Pay Miss X £250 for the distress and uncertainty caused by the delay.
• Carry out changes to its letters to complainants to ensure those who pursue the statutory complaints process are aware of the Council’s timescales for escalation.

53. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

54. I have completed my investigation. I find fault causing injustice.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman