The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council decided Mrs X’s proposal for a disabled facilities grant for adaptations to the front area of her property.
The complaint
Mr Z complained the Council wrongly refused to carry out adaptations to his mother, Mrs X’s, front garden under the disabled facilities grant (DFG) scheme.
Mr Z said this has negatively affected Mrs X’s mental and physical wellbeing as it makes it harder for her to spend time outside.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether an organisation’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 spoke to Mr Z and considered his view of the complaint.
I considered information provided by the Council. This included Mrs X’s DFG application and the Council’s responses.
I wrote to Mr Z and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments before I made my final decision.
What I found
Disabled facility grants Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs) are for people with a qualifying disability to help towards the costs of adaptations they need to help them remain in their home. They must be awarded if the applicant meets the qualifying conditions.
The primary legislation for DFGs is set out in the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (the Act).
This defines someone’s home, or ‘dwelling’ as including the building together with “any yard, garden, outhouses and appurtenances belonging to it or usually enjoyed with it”.
For each of the relevant works the council must consider whether a grant should be awarded by deciding if they are “necessary and appropriate” and “reasonable and practicable”.
What happened Mrs X has a number of health conditions and has poor mobility. She uses a wheelchair or a walking frame to move around.
The front yard where Mrs X lives has steps down from the front door. On the right is a raised concrete area. On the left there is a raised flower bed with wooden railings.
Mr Z approached the Council with a proposal to level the front yard of Mrs X’s house. This was to allow Mrs X to be able to sit outside and to use the space to walk up and down with her walking frame. Mr Z provided letters from health professionals who stated access to outside space would be beneficial to Mrs X.
In July 2021, an Occupational Therapist (OT) assessed Mrs X and approved an external ramp from the front door. Following this, Mr Z requested the Council carry out additional works to level the front yard to enable Mrs X to access this space.
A surveyor carried out a site visit following Mr Z’s request for additional work. They concluded it would not be reasonable or practical to level the whole front area. Their notes stated “During the inspection it was explained … we would not extend the platform/ramp to the raised area on the right or garden area to the left …This is due to the extent of ramp required to gain access into the space and around to the gate, it would also require extensive remodelling and railings of the whole space. The subsequent remaining space would be of minimal size and of no reasonable use”.
In August, following Mr Z’s challenge to the initial decision, a Council Panel met to discuss Mrs X’s case. Attendees included the OT, a senior surveyor and a representative from the Council’s adult social services team.
The notes from the Panel meeting recorded the following: a surveyor had visited the site following Mr Z’s request that the front yard was levelled. They had concluded it was neither reasonable nor practical to level the yard because the space left would be minimal; and the ‘necessary’ aspect of the adaptations considered by the OT was to allow Mrs X to access her property. Access to the garden was not ‘necessary’ because the Mrs X was wheelchair dependent out of doors.
Later that month, Mr X complained to the Council stating: Mrs X’s health had deteriorated in the last 18 months and she could not access either the front or rear garden space; her medical consultants felt she needed access to her garden to help in her recovery and manage her medical conditions. Therefore, safe access to her garden to allow her to walk up and down and turn using her walking frame was important; and Council officers had told him that garden adaptations did not fall under DFG adaptations and this was contrary to the law and guidance on DFG grants.
The Council responded in September. It made the following points: the surveyor had carried out a site visit and did not consider the proposed adaptations were reasonable or practical because the remaining space would be minimal size and of no reasonable use; therefore, the request to provide access to the front area was not recommended based on Mrs X’s mobility needs as there would be different levels for her to negotiate and this would pose a risk.
the matter had been considered at a Panel meeting by the relevant officers, including the OT who had assessed Mrs X. The Panel decided that levelling the space would not enhance Mrs X’s experience because she could view the street and her yard safely from the top of the ramp.
My findings
The Ombudsman is not an appeal body, so cannot comment on the merits of judgements and decisions made by councils in the absence of fault in the process. Where we find fault in the decision-making process, we may ask the Council to reconsider its decision.
The Council’s surveyor carried out a site visit and determined that the work to the front area to create the ramp Mrs X required would mean that the space left would be of little practical use to Mrs X. This was his professional judgement and there was no fault in the way he reached his conclusions.
The OT specified the main reason for the adaptation was to facilitate access into/out of the property. The Council agreed a DFG for adaptations that would achieve the OT’s recommendations taking the surveyor’s views into account.
The Panel determined work to level the garden was not reasonable or practical. In doing so it took into consideration the surveyor’s and OT’s reports, together with Mrs X’s and Mr Z’s views.
Mr Z said officers told him that garden adaptations do not fall under the DFG process. Garden adaptations can fall under the DFG process. However, there is no evidence any Panel member held the erroneous view. The Council’s complaints response also informed Mr Z that the front area was not by definition a garden. Whether or not that is the case, the definition of a dwelling includes any yard (see paragraph 11 of this decision statement) and the front area of Mrs X’s property falls under this definition. Again, there is no evidence the Panel declined the proposal on that basis.
During my investigation, Mr Z sent me a letter from Mrs X’s health professional which states she is mobilising more, and it would improve her mental health to have access to her garden. It is open to Mr Z to make a further application for a DFG if he believes this alters the material facts of Mrs X’s case, and for the Council to come to a decision taking this new information into account.
Final decision
There was no fault in the Council’s actions, so I have completed my investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman