Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly assess her son’s needs under the disabled facility grant process. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council’s Occupational Therapist (OT) failed to properly assess her son, Z’s, needs under the disabled facilities grant (DFG) process.
2. She says that Z and the family have been caused unnecessary distress by the Council’s actions. She says the family has also experienced a financial disadvantage because they have had to pay for the adaptations themselves.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’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 spoke to Mrs X and considered her view of her complaint.
6. I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided.
7. I wrote to Mrs X and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Disabled Facilities Grants

8. Disabled facilities grants (DFGs) are provided under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 to help towards the cost of adaptations to the home of a disabled person.
9. DFGs must be awarded if the council is satisfied that the works proposed are necessary and appropriate to meet the disabled person’s needs, and reasonable and practicable, depending on the age and condition of the property.
10. Mrs X lives in an area where there is a two tier local authority system. This means the District Council is responsible for administering the scheme. Where there is a need for the input of an OT, the District Council uses the services of the County Council’s occupational therapy team.
11. When a person wants adaptations, an OT will visit the applicant's home to assess their needs. The OT will then recommend suitable adaptations to the District Council.

What happened

12. The District Council administers the DFG scheme but uses the County Council’s OT service to carry out the assessment. This complaint concerns issues raised by Mrs X about the OT assessment. She has also complained about the actions of the District Council and they form the basis of a separate complaint.
13. Mrs X has a son, Z, who has autism. In March 2020, she submitted a DFG proposal to the District Council for an external building adjacent to her house to be converted into living space for Z.
14. At the end of June, an OT from the County Council carried out an assessment. This was over the telephone rather than on site because of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the time, Z was being home-schooled due to an incident that had occurred at school. Mrs X told the OT that Z needed a calm environment to study away from the family. Mrs X also said Z needed a separate bathroom because he was unable to share the one available to him and his sister.
15. Mrs X said if the external building was converted, Z would have separate space reducing the amount of sensory overload he currently experienced.
16. The OT submitted a report. This contained a detailed recording of Mrs X’s concerns and why she felt the external building should be converted.
17. The OT concluded:
• Z could access his bedroom which was a safe space;
• there was generous space downstairs from Mrs X’s description, some of which could be utilised to create a separate space for Z;
• the external building was not connected to the main house and the OT had concerns over how this would affect Z’s interactions with his family; and
• the family had never had any psychological or behavioural training within the home environment, which needed to be explored. Therefore, the OT would refer Z to children’s services.
18. The OT’s report stated they understood the benefits to Z in having extra space, but they were unsure whether this was deemed ‘necessary’ under the DFG criteria. The OT said they would seek advice from their manager, the housing standards team and the housing adaptation professionals’ group before making a recommendation.
19. An update recorded that, following discussions with the above professionals, it was considered children’s and specialist paediatric therapy services should assess Z’s immediate and long-term needs to determine how best to support him and his family. The OT’s report stated that if, following these interventions, Z’s behaviour could not be managed with the home environment with support from children’s services, then a reassessment for adaptations could be restarted.
20. The OT’s decision was not to make a recommendation for a DFG at that time.
21. In December, the OT carried out another assessment. The OT was unable to access the property because Mrs X said Z found it stressful meeting people he did not know. Therefore, Mrs X submitted floor plans and photographs. The OT’s subsequent report, dated December 2020, recommended a small, soundproofed room. The OT said this could be created within the footprint of the current house. The OT stated Mrs X had declined the proposed support and interventions from children’s services as she did not feel they were appropriate for Z or the family.
22. Mrs X responded to the OT’s recommendations. She said she had not refused help but had been told Z and the family did not reach the threshold for specialist therapy. They had been referred to family support and were waiting for an initial assessment.
23. Mrs X also stated the OT recommendation was unviable because:
• the space was too small because Z suffered from claustrophobia. It was also too small to accommodate two people when Z’s school tutor visited the home;
• the family would not be able to access the kitchen when Z was having lessons as this would distract him and the washing machine would cause vibrations and noise which would disturb him;
• it failed to address his need for his own bathroom; and
• building control had advised the OT’s proposal was contrary to building regulations.
24. In January 2021, the County Council responded to Mrs X. It said that following consultation with the District Council, the decision was made that the eligible need for a DFG was for a breakout area within the home. All other needs could be met by reorganising the home, including access to a bathroom of Z’s own and minimising disturbances from the washing machine. Issues relating to whether the breakout room was suitable for facilitating tutoring did not come under the DFG scheme but had only been a suggestion about how it could be used in the short-term. The County Council stated that because Mrs X had not allowed the OT access to the house, the recommendation had been based on floor plans and photographs Mrs X had sent.
25. The County Council concluded by stating the OT would send their proposals to the District Council who would require full access to the property to consider how the breakout area could be achieved. Any adaptation would meet all building regulations.
26. Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman. She said that the family had started work to convert the external building.

My findings

27. We are not an appeal body, so cannot comment on the merits of judgements and decisions made by councils in the absence of fault in the process. Our role is to review the process by which decisions are made, and, where we find fault, to determine what injustice it caused.
28. The June 2020 assessment determined that at that stage Z’s needs and the family’s should be explored and assessed by children’s services. In making that decision, the OT took into account Mrs X’s views, the information available from the telephone call and the opinions of other professionals. The OT made it clear in their report that if these steps were unsuccessful, they would reconsider whether Z had eligible needs under the DFG process.
29. The OT subsequently reassessed the situation, again taking Mrs X’s comments into account. They proposed a breakout area in the house. If these proposals had been accepted by Mrs X, they would have been submitted to the District Council’s property services to address issues such as building regulations. However, Mrs X did not accept the proposals and ultimately did not submit a DFG application. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I have completed my investigation. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman