The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of her application for a disabled facilities grant. She says the Council produced an inadequate kitchen design which does not meet her needs. The Council was not at fault. It has designed a kitchen to meet Mrs X’s needs in line with the requirements of the legislation.
The complaint
Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of her application for a disabled facilities grant. She says the Council produced an inadequate kitchen design which does not meet her needs, it delayed considering the quotes she provided, has asked her to get more quotes and has refused to carry out works to the utility area. As a result, Mrs X says she has been left with an inadequate kitchen for longer than necessary and this has caused frustration and distress.
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 and considered any comments I received in reaching a final decision.
What I found
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 is for ‘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 will require an assessment by 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 Borough 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 occupational therapy 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 was not fit for purpose. The hob could not be connected, and the worktops were too high.
In early July 2021 the Council received a referral for a DFG for kitchen adaptations for Mrs X from the County Council’s OT. The OT recommended works including 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, breakfast bar to be used as Mrs X’s workspace, space for a fridge/freezer, washing machine/tumble dryer and dishwasher.
An officer visited with the OT in mid-July 2021 to carry out a site survey. At the visit the Council says they discussed Mrs X wanted to be able to sit at the hob and to have an accessible preparation space. At the time she did not want a rise and fall hob. They discussed the grant would not fund storage to house the large volume of items stored in boxes in the existing kitchen. They agreed the kitchen was in such a poor state it would install a new kitchen to meet her needs.
The schedule of works prepared by the officer did not include any adaptations to the utility room. It included a workspace with space underneath for Mrs X to use rather than a breakfast bar and fewer cupboards than the OT’s initial plan. The officer contacted the OT who confirmed they were satisfied the schedule of works would meet Mrs X’s needs.
The officer sent Mrs X a copy of the schedule of works. They said they would contact the Housing Association for approval to carry out the works. They asked Mrs X to ‘invite two contractors to quote for the works in the attached schedule. I have provided a list of contractors to my email who normally carry out adaptation works on behalf of the Council’.
Mrs X responded that the plan did not include a cooker hood and there was little cupboard space. Mrs X asked about getting extra cupboards. The officer responded that day that a cooker hood did not meet the DFG criteria for access to kitchen facilities. They advised Mrs X could liaise with the contractor to purchase and install one privately and she could also privately install extra cupboards. The officer later advised the number of cupboards was in line with what the Housing Association would supply as a standard kitchen.
Mrs X responded that the existing extractor fan did not work so she considered it should be replaced. The officer responded and apologised as they believed the existing extractor fan worked. They agreed to include a replacement in the schedule of works.
Mrs X remained unhappy the kitchen design included only nine cupboards. The officer responded that the proposed schedule was appropriate to enable Mrs X to access her kitchen facilities safely and independently. They advised they involved the client with planning a kitchen but within the constraints of the grant conditions. They asked Mrs X to confirm if she wished to proceed with the grant application.
Mrs X complained the kitchen did not meet her needs and the design was awful.
The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint in August 2021. It advised the officer assessed the kitchen and facilities provision and identified the best and most cost effective way to meet her medical needs. It said it used public money so must ensure only works within the grant guidelines were grant funded. It said it involved the client in the planning process within the constraints of the grant conditions. It said the original plan prepared by the OT was substantially in excess of what a grant could fund. The grant standard did not include breakfast bars, but the revised layout provided for a seated area for preparation and cooking. It advised Mrs X to contact the housing association if she considered the electrics were dangerous.
Mrs X remained unhappy. She said she wanted a cooker hood, extra cupboards and a breakfast bar.
The officer contacted Mrs X in September 2021 to ask if she required help with obtaining quotes. Mrs X responded that she was awaiting the complaint response.
The Council wrote to Mrs X in October 2021. It explained the replacement in its entirety of a privately funded kitchen went beyond the specification of a standard layout of a housing association kitchen. It considered replacing the entire kitchen would be in excess of what could reasonably be grant funded. It said the breakfast bar proposed by the OT was assessed as unsafe as it did not allow for adequate circulation space. It said a large, seated preparation area was proposed in the layout.
It said the officer had contacted the OT who agreed the proposed works met Mrs X’s needs. It said as the current kitchen was not fit for purpose it decided it was reasonable and economical to adapt the kitchen in line with a standard housing association specification. It said the proposed adaptations exceeded the DFG threshold of facilitating the preparation and cooking of food as it included accessible storage and a food preparation area.
In mid-October 2021 Mrs X sent two quotes to the Council from contractors A and B. Around this time the OT contacted the officer to advise Mrs X now required a rise and fall hob which should be included in the schedule of works.
In late October 2021 the Council reviewed the quotes. They noted the quote from contractor A was different from the agreed schedule of works. It did not contain a rise and fall hob and only covered part of the installation costs so was not an acceptable quote. It said the quote from contractor B did not include a plan to enable it to be easy to compare. It said the number of units and descriptors were quite different. It asked Mrs X to confirm if she required a rise and fall hob and work area. If so, it would send a revised schedule. It asked her to get two new quotes based on that schedule to include all fitting costs. It offered to help her get two quotes. The Council also contacted contractor B who confirmed Mrs X had not provided it with the schedule of works.
Mrs X remained unhappy and complained to us. She was unhappy the Council had planned the kitchen without a kitchen designer. She said it had decided to provide the bare minimum and would not carry out works to the utility room. Mrs X wanted the kitchen fitted as soon as possible with more than nine units. She said she had sent quotes to the Council.
Mrs X responded to the Council that it was going back to its own design rather than considering the designs of contractors A and B. She said she did not see the point in getting more quotes when the Council still wanted to use its plan. She said the design included three extra units and two smaller units to replace the larder unit. She said she wanted to await our decision before progressing further.
The Council responded and advised Mrs X that to move the grant application forward it needed to amend the schedule to accommodate a rise and fall hob and adjacent work area if that was what Mrs X required. It could then assist her to get quotes.
Mrs X responded in November 2021. She asked why the Council was pushing her to go ahead with a kitchen it designed.
In January 2022 Mrs X confirmed to the Council she was awaiting the outcome of the complaint to us before she progressed with the DFG. She asked why no works were being carried out to the utility room. The Council responded that no works were identified by the OT when the schedule of works was agreed. In response to my enquiries the Council has confirmed there is no tumble dryer on the plans as Mrs X could keep it in its current position or it could be positioned as per her preference.
The Council says Mrs X has not provided any further quotes or fitting costs. It says it remains open and willing to progress the grant application.
Findings
The OT first contacted the Council in early July and it produced and sent Mrs X a schedule of works within three weeks. There was no delay in the Council progressing the initial referral.
The Council has to ensure public money is used appropriately. Its role was not to provide Mrs X with a new kitchen to replace a privately funded kitchen which was badly fitted. In line with the legislation its role was to ensure the kitchen it designed was necessary and appropriate to meet Mrs X’s needs and that it was also reasonable and practicable to carry out the works. Mrs X is not satisfied with the design but that does not make it fault. The Council has prepared a design which meets the requirements of the legislation and Mrs X’s needs. There was no fault in the way the Council designed Mrs X’s kitchen or prepared a schedule of works. It sought the OT’s agreement to the design and was satisfied it met the standard specification which the housing association would provide.
Mrs X has obtained quotes for two new kitchens which were designed to meet her preferences and to fill the available space within the kitchen. These were not in accordance with the schedule of works prepared by the Council and not in accordance with its proposed plan. The Council was therefore not willing to accept the quotes as they stood. The Council was not at fault. The Council explained if Mrs X wanted additional cupboards within the kitchen it was open to her to come to a private arrangement with the contractor to arrange this.
Mrs X chose to await the outcome of her complaint before progressing with the adaptations. That was Mrs X’s choice so I cannot say the delay in carrying out the adaptations is the fault of the Council.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation. There was no evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman