Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to properly assess his eligibility for adaptations to his home for his disabled children. We have found the Council to be at fault because it relied previous occupational therapy assessments and did not consider relevant information. The Council has agreed to apologise and carry out a new assessment.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a disabled facilities grant to fund adaptations to his home (specifically underfloor heating and access to his cellar) to help his two daughters. He says the Council did not carry out a proper assessment in reaching its decision.
2. He says the Council’s decision will impact on his daughters’ development and quality of life.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. 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

6. I discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered the written information he provided. I made written enquiries of the Council. I took account of all the information before reaching a draft decision on the complaint.
7. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on this draft decision. I have considered all comments received before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Disabled Facilities Grants

8. Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG) are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Councils have a statutory duty to provide grant aid to disabled people for adaptations.
9. A grant can fund adaptations such as installing ramps, a stairlift or through floor lift, or adapting a kitchen or bathroom.
10. An occupational therapist (OT) usually carries out the needs assessment.
11. If a council refuses a grant, it must explain why. Reasons for which a council may refuse a grant can include where the council does not think the work is ‘necessary and appropriate’.
12. ‘Home Adaptations for Disabled People’ is key guidance on best practice in implementing DFG’s. It says assessments for DFG’s should take account of the views of the disabled child and their parents. Assessments should also consider the experience and expertise of professionals involved with the child.

What happened

13. I have set out below a summary of the key events. But it is not meant to show everything that happened.
14. Mr X has two disabled children. They are unable to walk. Instead, they crawl to move around the home. More recently they have been encouraged to use a walking frame at home as they do at school.
15. Since 2017 Mr X has been in negotiations with the Council regarding his application for DFG funding for major adaptations to his home. OTs has been involved with this application. They visited Mr X’s home in 2017, 2019 and 2020 to carry out assessments. These assessments identified a need for a through floor lift, ceiling hoists and a downstairs changing room.
16. In August 2021, Mr X asked the Council to increase the DFG to fund underfloor heating on the ground floor and a through-floor lift to the cellar.
17. In support of this request, he explained there was inadequate space on the ground floor to allow his daughters to mobilise on their bulky walking frames. He wanted to utilise his cellar for this purpose, and to access this space they would require a through floor lift.
18. He also explained the existing heating was insufficient to keep them warm while crawling on the floor.
19. In response, the Council said there was no need to use the cellar and that underfloor heating could not be paid for by a DFG.
20. Mr X challenged this decision and explained why he believed his request met the DFG eligibility criteria. He referred to facilitating access and providing suitable heating. He asked the Council to explain why this criterion did not apply to his circumstances.
21. In November 2021, an OT considered this request. She said she was unable to support the application because:

• underfloor heating was not something that would be recommended. The seating frames should be used if Mr X did not want the girls to have contact with the floor. She suggested Mr X may wish to consider using floor mats or fit a thicker carpet for when the girls were on the floor;
• the previous OT assessments had not identified heating as a need for the children because the existing heating arrangements met their requirements; and
• the standing frames could be accommodated and used in the existing living space. Access to the cellar was therefore not required.

22. Mr X continued to contact the Council about this matter, but its position remained the same. He made a formal complaint in September 2022.

Mr X’s complaint to the Council

23. He said the Council:

• failed to carry out a new OT assessment, specific to his requests for underfloor heating and access to the cellar;
• made its decision based on assumptions and outdated observations when his children were younger and smaller; and
• failed to give him the opportunity to be able to properly explain why the adaptations were necessary in the context of their growth and development.

24. In support of his position, he provided:

• a physiotherapy assessment that confirmed his daughters would benefit from extra space to use their walking frames; and
• a letter from his daughters’ hospital consultant that supported the use of walking frames at home because of health and well-being benefits. This stated, “the walking frames are quite large and do require a considerable amount of free space”.

25. In its final response, the Council said:
1. it was satisfied the two OT assessments in 2020 had reached a conclusion there was sufficient ground floor space to accommodate the walking frames and therefore it was not necessary to give access to the cellar;
2. Mr X had obtained the walking frames for use at home. This suggested he was satisfied there was sufficient space to use these; and
3. The OT had asked specific questions over the phone to determine there was sufficient space.
26. Dissatisfied with this response, Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

27. It is not for the Ombudsman to say what Mr X’s daughters’ needs are or what adaptations are required to the property. That is the council’s role. Our role is to determine whether there was any administrative fault in the way the council reached its decision.
28. A council is entitled to refuse a request for DFG funding if it is satisfied the adaptations are not necessary and appropriate. But a council must be able to demonstrate it has made this decision based on all relevant information. I am not satisfied it did so in this case.
29. In the context of adaptations for disabled children, the relevant government guidance states that assessments should take account of their views and those of their parents. The assessment 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. It also says consideration should be given to the need for space. On the evidence I have seen, the Council did not follow this guidance.
30. In this case, the Council based its decision on previous assessments. As part of my enquiries, I asked the Council to provide a copy of these. I would expect to see the assessments address Mr X’s concerns about inadequate heating and lack of space for mobility. Instead, they focused on other requests that had been made by Mr X for additional changing space and lifting equipment. I am not persuaded that any meaningful assessment about the heating or space to use walking frames took place.

Underfloor heating

31. In the assessments there are three references to heating:

• “in situ and working” (from an assessment in 2017).
• “GCH” (from an assessment in 2020).
• “the family spend most of their time in the back lounge. There is a gas fire in this room. On the initial visit this was the only warm room in the house” (from an assessment in 2020).

32. Based on these previous assessments, the OT said she would not support Mr X’s request. In my view, she was wrong to do so for the following reasons.

• there was an indication, within the previous assessment (bullet point 3 above) that the heating system may not be adequate. In my view this should have prompted further enquiries, at the very least.
• Having a heating that is “in situ and working” is not necessarily the same as having a heating system that meets the specific needs of the disabled person, in this case, where the Mr X’s girls are predominantly on the floor. There is no evidence this was taken into consideration during the previous assessments upon which the Council later relied.
• The government guidance expects councils to have a dialogue with parents of disabled children and consider their developmental needs. There is no evidence of this being done.

Through floor lift to the cellar

33. In the previous assessments, there were several references to Mr X’s daughters crawling on the floor.
34. However, Mr X has since been advised to encourage his daughters to use walking frames. In support of this, he provided the Council with supportive letters from a physiotherapist and hospital consultant.
35. I have seen no evidence that these letters were considered by the Council. They were submitted as part of Mr X’s complaint, but the Council has not referred to them. This leads me to conclude that relevant information from has not been taken into consideration.
36. The Council has said its decision was also based of questions asked over the telephone by the OT. Mr X disputes this and says he has never been given the opportunity to explain why he believes the adaptations are necessary. He says the Council failed to account of his views and life experience concerning his daughters’ needs. Mr X says this was particularly important because his daughters are unable to communicate and rely on their parents to advocate for them.
37. The law expects Council’s to take into consideration the developmental needs of children. In this case, both girls have grown and developed since 2020. I have not been provided with any records from the Council relating to phone conversation between the OT and Mr X or any other evidence that future development needs or Mr X’s concerns were properly considered.
38. Nor am I persuaded by the Council’s position set out at 25 (b) above. The fact Mr X had obtained walking frames does not mean he was satisfied the space was big enough. I have seen no evidence to support such an assumption being made. It is equally possible that it was only once he received the equipment that he realised the equipment could not be used on the ground floor.

Conclusion

39. Based on the evidence I have seen, I have found the Council to be at fault. The injustice to Mr X is that he cannot be satisfied the decision was made following consideration of all the relevant factors. It is entirely possible that the outcome would be the same, but that decision should be made in the right way and informed by an up-to-date assessment.

Back to top

Agreed action

40. The Council has agreed to take following action withing four weeks from the date of my final decision.
1. Apologise in writing to Mr X.
2. Reconsider Mr X’s request for DFG funding based on a new assessment that specifically addresses his concerns about heating and lack of space.
41. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

42. I have upheld Mr X’s complaint and the Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused. On this basis, I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman