The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: The Council’s delay approving a Disabled Facilities Grant is fault. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay £2,300, and take action to improve its services.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council took too long to deal with his application for a Disabled Facilities Grant.
As a result, Mr X says he and his family spent more than a year without the adaptations necessary for his disabled child.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s response to written enquiries.
I referred to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Disabled adaptations Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG) are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (the Act). There is also detailed guidance on good practice.
Councils have a statutory duty to provide grant aid to disabled people for certain adaptations.
Section 23(1)(b) of the Act allows councils to give grants for certain adaptations to a dwelling or building to make it safe for the disabled person and other people living with them. There may be a need to minimise the risk of danger where a disabled person has behavioural problems which causes them to act in a boisterous or violent manner damaging the house, themselves and perhaps other people. Where such need has been identified, DFG is available to carry out adaptations to eliminate or minimise that risk.
The Council will need to check the proposed works are: necessary and appropriate to meet the disabled person’s needs.
reasonable and practicable depending on the age and condition of the property.
Councils will often consult an occupational therapist (OT) from the social services department to determine what is necessary and appropriate.
The maximum grant is £30,000 and the grant is means tested.
The Act says housing authorities should approve or refuse a grant application as soon as reasonably practicable and no later than six months after the date of the application. The works should be completed within 12 months of the approval. The grant may be paid in instalments or in whole after the works are completed. But it should not be paid later than 12 months from the date of the application if the works are completed.
The guidance says that where the process to secure a long term solution will be lengthy, then it is appropriate for interim help to be provided through the provision of equipment or temporary works. It says it is not acceptable that the disabled person should be left without interim help for a period of weeks or months.
The guidance has set performance targets for councils to achieve DFG which it says the Council should aim to achieve in 95% of its adaptations.
This is split in three stages: Stage 1: initial enquiry to OT recommendation.
Stage 2: OT recommendation to approval of scheme.
Stage 3: Approval of scheme to completion of works.
The timescales for urgent adaptations are: Stage 1 (5 working days), stage 2 (30 working days) and stage 3 (20 working days The timescales for non-urgent adaptations are: Stage 1 (20 working days), stage 2 (50 working days) and stage 3 (80 working days Council’s policy For the period relevant to this complaint, the Council did not have its own policy. It did have some information on its website on the process however it did not include any timescales for considering applications.
DFGs are administered by the Council’s Housing Grants and Adaptations Service. I will refer to this as HGAS.
The Council introduced a DFG policy in September 2021.
What happened Mr X’s child, whom I shall call B, has disabilities. B needs a lot of care and support.
In July 2019, an OT (Occupational Therapist) assessed B and recommended several adaptations to the home to help keep B and the other family members safe.
In August, B’s social worker followed up with HGAS about urgent works needed to the windows and doors to keep B safe.
In September, the Council told Mr X these urgent works would be completed by the OT team as a minor adaptation.
In October, the OT team told Mr X that it could not complete all the urgent works within the minor adaptations budget. This is because minor adaptations are capped at £1000. Mr X asked the Council to prioritise making the front door secure.
In November, a surveyor visited the property and began to develop the scheme of works. The Council’s records note that some works needed immediate attention.
In December, an officer from HGAS met with the OT to confirm that the proposed scheme would meet B’s needs. The Council’s note of this meeting says “June 2020 appears to be a realistic date for approval”.
In January 2020, the Council emailed Mr X. It set out the proposed scheme to meet B’s needs. It said the wait would be about six to eight weeks.
In December and again in February, Mr X complained to the Council about the delays. He wanted to know when works would start.
In February, the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint. It said the scheme was now awaiting “formal financial approval”.
In March, B’s social worker followed up about the progress of the DFG application. HGAS said it was finalising quotes, and would then progress to “formal financial approval”. The UK was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and the government introduced various restrictions.
In July, Mr X asked the Council for an update. The Council told him that it had approved the DFG. It said it could not start the works because of a shortage of materials.
In September, the Council’s records note that “capital release” from the Housing Revenue Account was approved.
The adaptation works started in October 2020.
Analysis Delay The OT completed the assessment in July 2019. From the OT assessment, the Guidance says councils should aim to take 50 days to approve the scheme. Therefore, the Council should have approved the scheme by September 2019. It did not do so for another 12 months. This significant delay is fault.
The law says Council’s must approve or refuse a grant within six months of receiving it. Mr X applied in July. Therefore, the Council should have approved the grant by January 2020. The Council’s failure to meet this statutory timescale by eight months is fault.
The Council says the COVID-19 restrictions and availability of materials contributed to the delay. However, had the Council progressed the application more quickly from July 2019, the works would not have been affected by the pandemic.
The delay in providing the adaptations for B caused significant distress and left the family living in difficult circumstances. The adaptations needed are to keep B safe in the home. But also to minimise the impact of B’s behaviour on the rest of the family and their neighbours. The Council’s delay meant B and the rest of the family had to live without necessary adaptations for at least 9 months. This is a significant injustice.
Interim help Some of the adaptations needed to make the home safe and suitable for B’s needs were substantial, including creating a wet room and converting a bathroom. However, most of the works were straightforward or minor changes like providing locks and restrictors for various doors and windows.
The Guidance says that if the process is likely to take a long time, then “it is appropriate for interim help to be provided.” In this case, the Council recognised that its minor adaptations service could provide some works. This budget is capped at £1000. The Council’s records show that Mr X was confused about what works could be achieved within this budget. As a result, only the front door lock was changed.
The Council should have explained to Mr X exactly what works it could complete within the budget. Failure to do so was fault. As a result, B spent longer than necessary without simple adaptations that would enable the family to keep B safe. This is a significant injustice to B. This fault also caused injustice to Mr X and the rest of the family. They experienced avoidable distress and difficulty in keeping B safe.
Communication The guidance says “it is important to keep service users and their carers informed about progress, including any problems arising, at all stages in the provision of service.” It encourages local authorities to “provide accurate and clear information on timescales, waiting lists and other sources of help”.
Throughout the process, Mr X contacted the Council to ask for updates. He wanted to know when works would start. The Council’s communication with Mr X was not accurate or clear about timescales.
After meeting with the OT in December 2019, the Council recorded that June 2020 was a realistic date for approval. Despite this, in January 2020 the Council emailed Mr X to set out the proposed works and told him that the wait was six to eight weeks. This created unrealistic expectations for Mr X about when to expect works to start. This is fault.
Confusingly, in response to my enquiries the Council said work was due to start in February 2020. It says this did not happen because Mr X wanted to amend the plan to include a ground floor wet room. However, the Council included this adaptation in the email to Mr X in January. I have seen no evidence that the scheme set out in January changed before approval.
The Council also failed to explain to Mr X how the adaptations would be funded. Because Mr X is a Council tenant, the works do not come from the DFG budget. Instead, adaptations must be funded from the Housing Revenue Account. This required approval from the Council leader. This may have added to the delay. The Council should have explained this to Mr X. Its failure to do so was fault.
In response to enquiries, the Council accepted did not write to Mr X to say it had approved the grant. This is fault.
Mr X had to go to significant time and trouble chasing the Council for information and making a complaint. This caused avoidable distress when he was also struggling to care for B in their un-adapted home. This is an injustice to Mr X.
Agreed action
To remedy the injustice from the faults I have identified, the Council has agreed to: Apologise to Mr X in writing Pay Mr X, for the benefit of B, £1,800, being £200 for each month of delay Pay Mr X £500 in recognition of his avoidable distress and time and trouble The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
The Council should also take the following action to improve its services: Share a copy of this decision with relevant staff Provide guidance to DFG applicants at the outset explaining the process and likely timescales.
When a major adaptation is required, remind relevant staff to consider whether any works can be done more quickly as a minor adaptation and whether any other interim help is necessary.
Remind relevant staff that decision to approve or refuse a grant should be communicated to applicants in writing.
The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action it has taken within three months of my final decision.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation. The Council is at fault. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman