The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s decision that her daughter Y did not need a wet room. We did not find fault with the Council.
The complaint
Miss X complained about the Council’s decision not to award a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) for a wet room for her daughter, Y.
Miss X said this caused Y distress, prevented her gaining independence and placed her at ongoing risk of injury.
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 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 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)
How I considered this complaint
I spoke to Miss X and considered the information she provided with her complaint. I made enquiries with the Council and considered its response with relevant law and guidance.
Miss 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
Law and guidance A Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) is awarded by the housing authority to make adaptations to the home which are ‘necessary and appropriate’ to meet the disabled occupant’s needs, where it is ‘reasonable and practicable’ to carry out such adaptations.
Usually, the housing authority relies on the opinion of an occupational therapist to decide what is ‘necessary and appropriate’. Where the disabled occupant is a child, the housing authority may also consult children’s services.
There should be a local protocol to provide a clear application process for applicants and authorities to follow.
A DFG should be decided within six months of receipt of ‘a completed valid application and of any additional information [required]’. It is up to councils to decide what amounts to a valid application.
What happened Miss X lives with her daughter Y. Y has a visual impairment. They moved to property B and asked the Council for a DFG to pay for the bathroom to be converted into a wet room for Y. Y had a wet room in their previous property, property A. This was funded by a DFG.
An Occupational Therapist (OT) carried out an assessment of Y in property B in May 2021. They said Y could get in and out of the bath independently. Miss X was concerned about Y slipping if the floor was wet. The OT said they could provide an anti-slip mat. The OT also ordered a mechanical bath lift for Y.
The Council says Miss X returned the bath lift. She did not try the recommended bathmat and used one she purchased herself instead. The Council said the bathmat she used was not fit for purpose.
The Council says it suggested several other alternative adaptions that Y could try to support her to use the bath before deciding whether to make a DFG application. It says Miss X refused them all.
Miss X was unhappy with the OT assessment and complained to the Council in September 2021. The Council did not uphold the complaint. Miss X remained unhappy and asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage two of the Council’s complaint process.
As part of its stage two consideration the Council told Miss X it would carry out another OT assessment that would be completed by a different OT.
In November 2021 the Council offered to buy bathmats for Y. Miss X declined. She said she had tried lots of bathmats that did not work.
In December 2021 a second OT assessed Y. The OT said Y was able to get in and out of the bath. They recommended equipment and support for Y. They did not advocate a DFG application as the advice and equipment they gave would enable Y to use the bath safely.
Miss X was unhappy with the second OT assessment and recommendations. She complained to the Council again in December 2021.
The Council gave its final response in January 2022. It did not uphold Miss X’s complaint. It said: ‘A second assessment was completed, as I have already shared with you both- (Y’s) needs can be met without a major adaptation therefore I also cannot advocate/ recommend a major adaptation’.
Miss X remained unhappy with the Council’s response to her complaint and its decisions about her request for a wet room. She complained to the Ombudsman.
My findings
It is not for the Ombudsman to say what the family’s needs are or what adaptations are required to a property. That is the Council’s role. My role is to determine whether there was any fault in the way the Council reached its decision.
An OT assessed the family and the property. I reviewed the second OT assessment. They considered all relevant matters, including Y’s movement around the house and her physical ability.
The Council was entitled to decide that a wet room was not necessary or appropriate to meet Y’s needs. Miss X disagrees with the Council’s decision, but there was no evidence of fault in the way it was made. That means I cannot question the decision.
Miss X complained the Council funded a wet room in property A. She said the decision not to fund one in property B was financial rather than in Y’s best interests. In response to my enquiries the Council said: ‘A wet room was provided… when Y was 10 years old and became unsafe for Miss X to lift her in/out the bath. Y is now 16 years old; has developed her capabilities and has learned and developed significant independence. Y is very mobile and has demonstrated how she can get in/out of the current bath without assistance through OT assessments’.
It was not fault for the Council to get an up-to-date OT assessment to understand Y’s needs. I did not find fault in the way the Council assessed Y or reached its decision about whether a wet room was necessary.
Final decision
I did not find fault with the Council. I completed my investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman