Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of her disabled daughter, Miss Y that the Council did not carry out a proper Occupational Therapist assessment of her needs before approving further Disabled Facilities Grant funded works. Ms X also complained the Council did not take sufficient account of her views regarding her daughter’s needs. We found fault by the Council and the Council has agreed to provide an apology and a financial remedy.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained on behalf of her disabled daughter, Miss Y that the Council did not carry out a proper Occupational Therapist assessment of her daughter’s needs before approving further Disabled Facilities Grant funded works. Miss Y is non-verbal and was unable to communicate her needs directly to the Council. Miss X says she has to speak on her daughter’s behalf, but complained the Council did not take sufficient account of her views and experience regarding her daughter’s needs.
2. Ms X also complained about the Council’s actions regarding the adaptations to her home dating back to 2019.
3. Ms X would like the Council to commission a further occupational therapist’s assessment and for this to be carried out with her involvement. She would also like the completed works to meet the occupational therapist’s recommendations.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

4. I have investigated the complaints referred to in paragraph one. I have not investigated the complaint referred to in paragraph two because this complaint is late.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
7. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
8. 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

9. I discussed the complaint with Ms X and considered the information she provided.
10. I made enquiries to the Council and considered the information it provided.
11. Ms X and the Council have had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I have considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and Guidance

12. 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 grant aid 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.

Background

13. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
14. Ms X lives with her daughter, Miss Y. Miss Y is disabled and non-verbal and relies on Ms X to advocate for her. Ms X is also Miss Y’s carer.
15. In 2019, Ms X applied to the Council for a DFG to make home adaptations for Miss Y. The Council carried out an occupational therapist’s (OT) assessment as part of the DFG application. The OT made several recommendations, including adaptations to Ms X’s downstairs and upstairs toilets for the benefit of Miss Y.
16. In early 2020, Ms X asked the building contractor to stop work on the adaptations because she considered the work being carried out did not meet the specifications of the OT recommendations. Ms X says she felt she was being pressured into accepting the works even though she considered they did not meet Miss Y’s needs.
17. The Council commissioned a further OT assessment in March 2020 which resulted in some amendments to the recommendations. This included adaptations to the bath and toilets.
18. Ms X contacted her Councillor later in the year because she considered the works undertaken at her home did not meet the OT’s specification. The Council responded to the Councillor’s enquiry and provided information regarding the adaptation works.
19. Ms X remained dissatisfied with the works carried out and contacted her Councillor again in 2021.

What happened

20. The Council agreed to visit Ms X’s home in 2022. On 13 April 2022, an OT, a surveyor and the contractor visited to assess and discuss the required adaptations. Ms X and Miss Y were present. At around the same time, work on the adaptations restarted.
21. In May 2022, Ms X asked the contractor to stop work. Ms X contacted the Council and said she considered the works being carried out did not meet the specifications of the OT assessment. Ms X said the wash basins and toilets supplied were not suitable for Miss Y’s needs. Ms X said she felt the Council had not acknowledged her input and felt the Council was taking advantage of Miss Y’s disability of being non-verbal. Ms X also told the Council she had tested positive for COVID-19.
22. The Council replied and said the toilets that were being installed were suitable. The Council said it had spoken with the OT who agreed the wash basins that were being fitted met Miss Y’s needs. The Council said it had asked the contractor to return to Ms X’s home to complete the works once she had recovered from COVID-19.
23. Ms X contacted the Council again on 14 May 2022 and maintained the wash basins and toilets were not suitable. She said she had provided the Council with information regarding the type of sink she considered would be suitable. Ms X said it was important for the Council to assess each case on its own merits; she said the only way to achieve this was by listening to the disabled person’s carer, especially when the disabled person is non-verbal. Ms X said she wanted to meet with a manager regarding the proposed adaptations before any further work was carried out.
24. The Council replied to Ms X on 19 May 2022 and said it had received confirmation from the OT that the proposed adaptation works met Miss Y’s needs, and it was therefore unable to fulfil Ms X’s requests. The Council said work would recommence later that month.

Ms X’s complaint

25. Ms X complained to the Council on 20 May 2022. She said the adaptations did not meet the specifications recommended by the OT in March 2020, and said she did not feel heard by the adaptations team.
26. The Council provided its stage one response on 13 June 2022. It said it understood there were several issues with the adapted bathroom that had been installed, and to help with this, it had arranged a further OT assessment to ensure all needs were captured. The Council said it conducted a visit with an OT, a surveyor and a representative from the contractor, and that during the visit, it had agreed some actions to be taken. The actions related to the upstairs toilet and the shower. The Council said the OT, surveyor and contractor agreed an alternative wash basin could not be fitted in the bathroom due to a lack of space, but said the contractor would try to fit a wider basin in the downstairs toilet room. The Council said the OT had agreed that the installed toilet met Miss Y’s needs.
27. The Council said works were progressing well until Ms X contracted COVID-19 and work had to stop. It said the contractor had contacted Ms X to arrange a restart date but had not received notification from her about when they could restart.
28. Ms X says she told the contractors they could restart work once mutual agreement about what the works should involve had been reached.
29. Ms X escalated her complaint to stage two on 25 June 2022. She said the toilet did not meet Miss Y’s needs and complained the OT did not assess Miss Y’s ability to access it. Ms X also said she felt her knowledge and lived experience regarding Miss Y’s needs had not been valued or considered regarding the adaptations work.
30. The Council provided its stage two response on 29 June 2022. It said the works regarding the upstairs bathroom had been completed as per the OT recommendations but said Ms X was not happy with the proposed works to the downstairs toilet. The Council said it had carried out a further OT assessment which confirmed the proposed recommendations and the toilet already installed were suitable for Miss Y. The Council acknowledged Ms X felt the Council had not valued her views; it said the OT provides recommendations and decides on works to the home that are necessary and appropriate to meet the resident’s needs. The Council said the works carried out would meet the proposed recommendations that were confirmed by two OTs.
31. Ms X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and brought her complaint to us.

What happened next

32. Ms X said the Council did not carry out an OT assessment during the visit in April 2022, and said the OT had no interaction with Miss Y at that time. Ms X said she contacted her MP in late 2022 to ask them to request the Council to carry out a further OT assessment.
33. The Council carried out an OT assessment at Ms X’s home in February 2023. The OT recommended adaptations to both toilets to meet Miss Y’s needs. They also recommended removing the bath and installing a wet room. The Council says Ms X has declined this recommendation.

Analysis

34. Ms X complained the Council did not carry out a proper Occupational Therapist assessment of her daughter's needs before approving further Disabled Facilities Grant funded works. This relates to the visit by the OT carried out on 13 April 2022.
35. As part of my enquiries, I asked the Council to provide a copy of the OT case notes and assessment, and any other relevant records regarding this visit. The Council has provided the OT’s case note but no other documents relating to the visit on 13 April 2022. As part of the Council’s records, I would expect to see a copy of the OT’s assessment, setting out their findings and resulting recommendations. I consider the case note from April 2022 does not provide evidence the OT assessed Miss Y’s ability to use the facilities in question; it only refers to the actions the contractor would carry out. Although the note does state Ms X complained about the toilets and wash basins, it does not demonstrate how/if the OT assessed Miss Y’s needs or sought Ms X’s views on her behalf.
36. As I have seen no evidence to demonstrate the OT’s assessment in April 2022, and given that Ms X said the OT did not carry out an assessment at that time, it is more likely than not that the Council did not complete a full OT assessment in April 2022. The Council’s stage two complaint response says it considered the adaptations were suitable based on the further OT assessment. Due to the lack of evidence to demonstrate the OT’s assessment in April 2022, this explanation is flawed, and I have therefore found the Council to be at fault.
37. Ms X also complained the Council did not take sufficient account of her views and life experience concerning her daughter’s needs. Ms X says this was particularly important because Miss Y is non-verbal and relies on Ms X to advocate for her.
38. The case note regarding the visit in April 2022 does not demonstrate if/how the Council considered Ms X’s views regarding Miss Y’s needs. I have seen email correspondence between Ms X and the Council shortly after the visit, in which Ms X gave details of what she considered her daughter required. I have also seen subsequent internal correspondence between the Council, the OT and the contractor, in which the Council requested clarification as to whether the OT considered Miss Y’s needs were met. At that time, the OT considered the wash basins were a suitable size, and the dimensions of one of the toilets was adequate but may need to be a different height.
39. Ms X subsequently made her complaint and stated she did not feel the Council had considered or listened to her concerns about the adaptations. The Council’s response stated it had carried out a further OT assessment which confirmed the proposed recommendations were suitable for Miss Y. However, as stated above, Ms X’s views are not referred to in the record of the visit carried out in April 2022. I acknowledge the Council carried out a further OT assessment in February 2023. The records of that assessment show Ms X provided her views on behalf of Miss Y. I would expect the Council to be able to demonstrate it considered Ms X’s views in the same way when it carried out its assessment in April 2022. I have not seen evidence to demonstrate this, and I have therefore found the Council to be at fault.
40. Having identified fault, I must consider if this caused a significant injustice. Ms X says the injustice is that Miss Y has had the continued use of an inadequate bath and toilet, which has been detrimental to Miss Y and to Ms X as her carer. Ms X says she has to assist Miss Y in and out of the bath, and this negatively impacts her back.
41. The OT assessment in February 2023 recommended replacing the bath with a wet room, which may mitigate the impact to Ms X’s back. I acknowledge however the Council’s comments that Ms X has declined this recommendation. The injustice is the delay in carrying out a robust OT assessment, contributing to a delay in providing modifications to Miss Y which would improve her daily life. The delay is for the period from April 2022 until February 2023, a period of nine months. The injustice is also avoidable stress caused to Ms X.
42. Ms X said she would like the Council to commission a further OT assessment and for this to be carried out with her involvement. It is positive the Council has completed a further OT assessment prior to the conclusion of this investigation.

Back to top

Agreed action

43. To address the injustice identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within one month of the final decision:
1. Provide an apology to Ms X and Miss Y for the fault identified;
2. Make a payment of £150 to Ms X in recognition of the stress caused, and
3. Make a payment of £1,350 to Miss Y in recognition of the delay identified. This equates to £150 per month for nine months and is in line with our published guidance on remedies.
44. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

45. I have found fault by the Council and the Council has agreed to take the above action to resolve this complaint. I have therefore concluded my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman