The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly assess her need for kitchen adaptations. There were some initial faults which led to a delay in producing recommendations to the Borough Council for a disabled facilities grant. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Mrs X £150 to acknowledge the frustration this caused. There was no fault in the recommendations made or its decision to agree the schedule of works prepared by the Borough Council.
The complaint
Mrs X complains the Council failed to properly assess her need for kitchen adaptations as part of a disabled facilities grant application. She says this led to delays and unsuitable recommendations to the Borough Council. As a result, Mrs X says she has been without a suitable kitchen for longer than she should have been.
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) 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) 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 have considered the information provided by Mrs X and have discussed the complaint with her on the phone. I have considered the Council’s response to my enquiries.
I gave Mrs X and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered any comments I received in reaching a final decision.
What I found
The relevant law and guidance 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 certain adaptations. Before approving a grant, a council must be satisfied the work is necessary and appropriate to meet the disabled person’s needs and it is also reasonable and practicable to carry out the works.
A DFG can be granted for adaptations that help people with disabilities to be able to remain in their home. A grant can fund adaptations such as installing ramps, a stairlift or through floor lift, or adapting a kitchen or bathroom. Specifically, in relation to cooking facilities, the law sets out the purpose of a DFG as to ‘facilitating the preparation and cooking of food by the disabled occupant’.
A council should give the applicant a decision on a grant application as soon as reasonably practicable and no longer than six months after the application is made. If a council refuses a grant, it must explain why.
Mrs X lives in an area where there is a two-tier council system. This means the Borough Council is responsible for administering the DFG scheme. Usually, the Borough Council requires an assessment from a County Council Occupational Therapist (OT) when considering DFG proposals.
The OT will assess the person’s needs and consider whether they can safely access rooms and facilities in the house. The OT recommends suitable adaptations to the Borough Council which will determine whether they are reasonable and practicable. This complaint concerns the actions of the County Council in relation to Mrs X’s request for adaptations.
The non-statutory guidance “Home adaptations for disabled people: a detailed guide to related legislation, guidance and good practice”, published by the Homes Adaptations Consortium in 2013, stresses the importance of close links between housing and social care councils to make sure people receive the most suitable help.
The guidance sets out that close collaboration between staff in the grants and OT services from the earliest stages will help to ensure there is a shared view of the adaptation work needed. This may or may not involve joint visits to the property.
What happened Mrs X has physical health conditions. She lives with her adult daughter Ms Y in a housing association property. She is only able to stand for short periods and has restricted movement in her shoulders. Mrs X had previously purchased a second- hand kitchen which was badly fitted and not fit for purpose. In December 2020 an OT visited and recommended some small adaptations to assist Mrs X plus an assessment for a kitchen adaptation.
An OT visited Mrs X in March 2021 and agreed to submit a DFG application for a kitchen adaptation. They visited again with a kitchen contractor in April 2021 to obtain a design and quote for the adaptation. The Council says the OT attended with a contractor because at that time the Borough Council grants officers were not carrying out home visits due to the Covid-19 pandemic. However, to progress referrals the Borough Council was willing to accept kitchen quotes. The kitchen contractor provided Mrs X with a copy of the proposed plan. Mrs X was unhappy with some of the comments made by the OT at the visit who she felt questioned her disability and was unhappy with the proposed plan. She considered it did not reflect what was discussed at the visit. It did not contain an ironing board or a breakfast bar.
Ms Y contacted the Council as she was unhappy with the design of the kitchen and the attitude of the OT. She said she struggled to get hold of the OT and the OT had said they would apply for the grant while the specifications were being agreed. The notes record the officer explained the grants process and that the exact specifications were not required at that stage. They explained adaptations had to be ‘necessary and appropriate’ and that the OT would be involved in the decision-making process until the specifications were agreed. They agreed to transfer the case to another OT.
Mrs X submitted a formal complaint to the Council in late May 2021. She complained the kitchen plan was terrible, did not reflect her needs, there was a lack of storage and the current electric sockets were dangerous. Ms X complained she was told she could only use the contractor who visited her property and she felt the OT did not consider her needs were genuine.
A Council manager responded in late June 2021. They said they wanted to reassure Mrs X the OT did not at any time consider her needs were not genuine. However, they considered the assessment process was not delivered to the standard they would have expected. They said they had allocated the case to another OT and requested they commence a full assessment of Mrs X’s needs and fully review the plans so the DFG could progress without delay.
A second OT visited Mrs X in late June 2021. They noted the current units were not at the appropriate height, there was very little storage and the hob was not fit for purpose. They noted Mrs X required an adapted kitchen to suit her needs, to enable her to be independent with meaningful occupation and to assist her daughter with food preparation. The OT prepared a proposed plan and recommendations. These included the lowering of the sink to regular height, a base unit with pull out ironing board, pull down/telescopic pull-out shelves, a rise and fall hob with space underneath, an electric oven and breakfast bar to be used as Mrs X’s workspace, space for a fridge/freezer, washing machine/tumble dryer and dishwasher. They submitted the proposal to the Borough Council.
The OT visited again in July 2021 with the Borough Council’s grants officer. Following this the grants officer completed a revised plan and schedule of works. This included no adaptations to the utility room, a workspace with space underneath for Mrs X to use rather than a breakfast bar and fewer cupboards than the OT’s initial plan. At the end of July, the OT agreed the proposed schedule of works would meet Mrs X’s needs. Mrs X was not happy with the proposed plan.
Ms Y called the OT in September 2021. She said the grants officer inferred the OT was responsible for not ensuring Mrs X could have the kitchen she wanted as they had signed off the works. The OT explained they had signed off the works as they met Mrs X’s needs. They advised Mrs X could pay some money towards the kitchen if she required extra cupboards.
The OT was satisfied the kitchen design was fully functional with no gaps for appliances and fulfilled Mrs X’s needs. It included a pull-out ironing board and work space with space underneath for Mrs X to sit. The OT noted the washing machine was adequately accessed. They had recommended shelves removed and replaced by work surface with space for the tumble dryer underneath. They noted this was declined by the grants officer.
Mrs X remained unhappy and complained to us. As Mrs X had not completed all stages of the Council’s complaints procedure the Council agreed to consider the complaint again.
The Council responded to Mrs X in October 2021. It reiterated what it said in the stage one response and that the behaviours displayed by staff fell below the standard it would expect. It advised it had dealt with this accordingly. It advised it was not inappropriate for an OT and grants officer to visit together. It confirmed it considered the proposed kitchen layout met Mrs X’s needs.
Findings
The OT visited Mrs X with a contractor to develop a plan and quote. The OT failed to explain to Mrs X why they had done this and that it was open to Mrs X to choose her own contractor. This was fault.
The Council has already accepted in its complaint response that the assessment process and the actions taken by staff were not delivered to the standard it would expect. It apologised and allocated a second OT to complete a full reassessment and to review the plans. This was appropriate. However, it was a further two months before the second OT visited Mrs X. These faults led to delay in the OT producing recommendations to the Borough Council and in the Borough Council subsequently developing a schedule of works. This caused Mrs X frustration and has contributed to delay in fitting and installing the adaptations.
The second OT visited with the grants officer who completed a revised schedule of works. The joint visit was in line with the non-statutory guidance and was not fault. We would expect the OT to work with the grants officer to ensure the agreed adaptations were necessary and appropriate to meet Mrs X’s needs.
The schedule of works prepared by the grants officer differed from that prepared by the OT. The OT makes recommendations, but it is for the grants officer to decide the extent of the work. The OT signed off the revised schedule as they were satisfied the revised schedule of works was necessary and appropriate to meet Mrs X’s needs. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not question a council’s decisions if there is no evidence of fault in the way the decision was reached.
Mrs X was unhappy with the design of kitchen. She considered it contained inadequate storage space, no breakfast bar and no adaptations to the utility room to include space for a tumble dryer. The OT initially recommended a breakfast bar and more cupboards. However, these were not necessary to meet Mrs X’s needs. The revised design met Mrs X’s needs as it included storage space and space under the worktop to enable Mrs X to sit and prepare food. The OT advised Mrs X it was open to her to purchase additional cupboards should she require more storage.
The OT initially recommended adaptations to the utility room to include space for a tumble dryer. However, this was not included in the schedule of works they agreed with the grants officer. This was not fault as this was not required to meet Mrs X’s needs. The Borough Council has confirmed there is space elsewhere in the kitchen which can accommodate the tumble dryer.
The County Council was satisfied the proposed schedule of works was satisfactory to meet Mrs X’s needs. That is a decision the Council was entitled to make. The Council was not at fault.
Agreed action
Within one month of the final decision, the Council has agreed to apologise and pay Mrs X £150 to acknowledge the frustration caused by the delay in making recommendations to the Borough Council.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation. There was evidence of fault by the Council which caused an injustice, which the Council has agreed to remedy.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman