Summary: Ms X complains about how the Council handled her application for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) for home adaptations. We have concluded our investigation having made a finding a fault. The Council acknowledged delays in completing the necessary adaptations and failing to communicate effectively with Ms X throughout the process. While the Council has taken some steps to remedy the situation, there was scope to increase its remedy offer. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council unreasonably delayed the completion of her Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) works. Ms X also complains the Council failed to communicate with her effectively about the progress of the works and poorly handled her complaints. Ms X says that as a result of the Council's actions, she experienced distress, inconvenience, and a significant impact on her daily life, leaving her unable to fully access or use her home as needed. Ms X would like the Council to provide an apology, ensure that all works are completed to the required standard without further delay, and offer a remedy to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
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. When considering complaints 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information provided by Ms X and the Council. Ms X and the Council were offered an opportunity to comment on my draft decision and I considered any comments submitted before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant guidance and legislation

6. Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG) 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.
7. In March 2022 the government issued non-statutory guidance “Disabled facilities Grant (DFG) Delivery: Guidance for local authorities in England. The guidance identifies five key stages to delivering home adaptations:
• 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.
8. 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.

Back to top

What happened

9. I have included a summary of some of the key events in this complaint. This is not intended to be a comprehensive account of everything that took place.
10. In March 2023, Ms X was referred to the Council’s Housing Improvement and Assistance team for an assessment.
11. In April 2023, the assessment was carried out, and it was determined that Ms X required a stairlift, ramp, level-access shower, and level-threshold exterior doors. Ms X was sent a Disabled Facilities Grant application to complete.
12. In May 2023, Ms X was confirmed eligible for the grant, and the means test showed that she would have no contribution towards the costs.
13. Later in May 2023, the case was allocated to a surveyor, and plans for the works were sent to Occupational Therapy for approval. The tender process for the level-access shower and ramp commenced.
14. In June 2023, the tender process for the ramp and stairlift concluded, with contractors notified. The grant was approved, and the works were set to begin.
15. In August 2023, Ms X requested a change to the specification for the ramp. Permission was granted and the ramp was re-tendered.
16. Later in August 2023, the ramp was re-tendered.
17. In September 2023, the new contractors were appointed, and the grant approval documents were sent to Ms X.
18. In October 2023, Ms X raised concerns about the new door not being a like-for-like replacement.
19. In November 2023, the works for the level-access shower and other bathroom modifications were completed, but Ms X reported a leaking toilet. The contractor was contacted to rectify the issue.
20. In January 2024, the stairlift was delivered.
21. In February 2024, Ms X lodged a complaint stating she did not approve of further works due to the perceived poor quality of the bathroom works. The council maintained that the works met the required standards but agreed to investigate further.
22. In March 2024, the Council spoke with Ms X to address her concerns and agreed to investigate the quality of the bathroom works. The case was reassigned to a new surveyor to resolve the issues. The Council and surveyor reviewed the situation and identified aspects of the works that needed rectification.
23. In April 2024, Ms X continued to raise concerns about the bathroom. The Council said delay in responding to Ms X’s concerns was partly due to staff sickness.
24. In May 2024, Ms X expressed dissatisfaction with the progress on the bathroom remedial works. The Council again noted that delays were due to staffing shortages.
25. In June 2024, Ms X submitted a request for a stage 2 complaint review. Later in June 2024, Ms X submitted a new request for a Stage 2 complaint review. Towards the end of June 2024, the Council partially upheld Ms X’s complaint, agreeing that it would progress the remedial bathroom works.
26. In August 2024, after further delays, the case was transferred back to a particular member of staff for project management. Ms X agreed that the remaining works could proceed under this specific management arrangement.
27. In September 2024, a pre-start meeting was held at Ms X’s property with the new contractor.
28. In October 2024, the new contractor began the work with the estimated completion date set for November 2024. Later in October, the Council undertook two site inspections.
29. In November 2024, the Council confirmed that the remaining works were expected to be completed by the middle of the month with an inspection due to take place.

Response to Ombudsman enquiries:

30. As part of our investigation, the Ombudsman made enquiries to the Council. Of note, the Council said:
• It acknowledges it did not undertake a full chronological review of Ms X’s case. If this had been done, the Council would have identified that the delivery of Ms X’s Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) had exceeded target timescales.
• It accepts that there were unacceptable delays in Ms X’s DFG, which began before the dispute over the contractor’s quality of work arose. The situation stalled further due to complications in resolving the dispute.
• It acknowledges that its communication with Ms X regarding delays was poor, as was its handling of her Stage 2 complaint request. The Council attributes both the delays and poor communication to significant staffing shortages and sickness absences within the team.
• It offered Ms X an additional remedy of £200, on top of the £3,000 of goodwill remedies already provided. This offer reflects the harm or risk of harm Ms X experienced as a result of the lengthy delays to her necessary adaptations.

Evidence provided by Ms X

31. As part of our investigation, Ms X provided further correspondence between her and the Council. Of note:
• The Council acknowledges that as of November 2024, some of the work had not been completed to specification.
• The Council acknowledges that as of November 2024, sign off for some of the works had not been completed.

Back to top

Analysis

Delays in Completion of Works

32. The Council acknowledges that the completion of Ms X’s Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) works was unreasonably delayed, both before and after disputes arose regarding the bathroom adaptations. The chronology highlights significant periods of inaction, delays in retendering and approving the ramp, and further delays in progressing the stairlift and exterior doors. These delays left Ms X without essential adaptations for a prolonged period, compromising her ability to navigate her home safely and independently.
33. The Council attributes these delays to staffing shortages and sickness absences, which it acknowledges affected its capacity to deliver timely services. While these systemic issues provide some explanation, they do not excuse the Council’s failure to meet its obligations to Ms X, who required these adaptations to address her assessed needs.
34. The Council has also pointed out that Ms X requested a pause in works during the bathroom dispute, which contributed to the overall delay. However, I note the Council failed to resume the remaining works promptly once the dispute was resolved. The responsibility to ensure works were restarted and progressed lies with the Council. Its lack of effective oversight and project management resulted in further delays to the scheduled works.
35. The cumulative effect of these delays caused significant inconvenience and distress to Ms X, who was left without the necessary adaptations for an extended period. As Ms X describes, this caused her to feel trapped in her home, as documented in her complaint. These delays, particularly given their impact on Ms X’s quality of life amount to fault.
36. As per evidence provided by Ms X, it is understood the Council has acknowledged that further remedial work is required in order for the work to be completed in accordance with the specification. I have addressed this in my proposed recommendations below.

Communication Failures

37. Ms X complains that the Council failed to involve her in decisions about the products and layout of adaptations during the planning phase. There is no explicit acknowledgment in the Council’s response that it failed to consult Ms X about these decisions. The Council has stated it accepts that its communication with Ms X was poor, but this refers primarily to delays and updates, not to a lack of consultation regarding planning and product choices. However, on the balance of probabilities, I do not find the ultimate outcome would have been significantly different had consultation occurred, as the Council’s professional judgment was based on what was deemed necessary and appropriate to meet Ms X’s assessed needs.
38. Ms X also complains the Council failed to respond to her emails and phone calls in a timely manner and did not keep her updated about the progress of her DFG works. The Council accepts that communication with Ms X was inadequate, acknowledging missed updates, delays in responding to her complaints, and a failure to provide clear information about changes to the project.
39. I find the Council was at fault for failing to maintain regular communication with Ms X. This poor communication caused her distress and frustration, as she was left uncertain about the progress of her adaptations.

Complaint Handling

40. The Council acknowledges its handling of Ms X’s complaints was poor. It did not undertake a full investigation at Stage 2 of the complaint process and failed to identify how far outside the target timescales the works had fallen. The Council’s failure to respond to Ms X’s Stage 2 complaint in a timely and thorough manner represents further fault, which exacerbated her frustration.

Remedies and Learning

41. The Council said that as a good will gesture, it agreed to make some changes that were not included in the original specification so that Ms X could be satisfied with the bathroom. The Council says it also waived the Council Surveyor fees, totalling £3,000. The Council also says it has offered Ms X a further £200 for harm or risk of harm Ms X incurred due to the lengthy delays. However, given the significant impact of the delays and poor communication, I consider there is scope to increase its proposed remedy to the maximum recommended under our guidance for distress.
42. The Council states that it has learned lessons from Ms X’s case, including improving communication processes and ensuring complaint investigations include full case chronologies. The Council also notes that it is undergoing a major transformation in its complaint handling processes at present.
43. However, upon review of the evidence provided, I cannot see any clear service improvements that proactively tackle the core issue of delay. For example, there is no indication of any system or process in place to monitor cases on an ongoing basis to identify delays or potential blockages before they become significant issues. Without such proactive monitoring, the risk of delays continuing in future cases remains. This would seem to be a critical area for improvement, particularly in cases where vulnerable individuals rely on timely adaptations to their homes.

Back to top

Agreed action

44. To resolve this complaint and remedy injustice caused in this complaint, the Council will:
1. Apologise to Ms X for the injustice identified in this complaint. The apology should be in line with our Guidance on Remedies.
2. Increase its remedy offer for distress to £500.
3. Liaise with Ms X and arrange to sign off works completed to date.
4. Arrange to complete any outstanding works and inform Ms X of the timeline to do so.
5. The Council will review its DFG process with a view to implementing proactive case monitoring. This will ensure that cases are managed effectively, and that works are completed on time, preventing delay.
45. The Council will complete action points a to d within one month of the Ombudsman’s final decision and action point e within two months of the Ombudsman’s final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

46. We have concluded our investigation having made a finding a fault. The Council acknowledged delays in completing the necessary adaptations and for failing to communicate effectively with Ms X throughout the process. While the Council has taken some steps to remedy the situation, there was scope to increase its remedy offer. The Council agreed to our recommendations.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman