The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council managed an application for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). She also complained the Council failed to assess or review her needs as a disabled parent to a disabled child, over at least two years. We have found the Council at fault for not properly considering the health needs of the whole household when assessing the DFG application. We have also found the Council at fault for not considering the full range of purposes for which a DFG can be awarded in its decision. We have not found the Council failed to review Mrs X’s carer needs. We have found the Council at fault for not addressing Mrs X’s complaint about this at the earliest opportunity. We have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.
The complaint
Mrs X complained about how the Council managed an application for a Disabled Facilities Grant. Mrs X said the assessment did not take full account of the health needs of all members of the household. She said the Council did not correctly apply the relevant guidance. Mrs X said this meant the Council’s decisions were wrong and based on incomplete information.
Mrs X complained the Council failed over at least two years to assess or review her needs as a disabled carer of a disabled child. She also said the Council failed to provide respite from her caring role in a way her child can access effectively, or to provide direct payments as an alternative. Mrs X said this caused avoidable hardship and distress. She wanted the Council to assess their needs and provide support in a suitable way, and recognise the impact caused by the lack of support.
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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended) We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended) When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
How I considered this complaint
I discussed the complaints with Mrs X and considered information she provided.
I considered information the Council provided about the complaints.
Both the Council and Mrs X were able to comment a draft version of this decision. I considered any comments I received before making a final decision.
Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).
Relevant legislation, guidance and policy Disabled Facilities Grants Disabled Facilities Grants are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Councils have a statutory duty to give grants to disabled people for certain adaptations. Before approving a grant, a council must be satisfied the work is necessary, meets the disabled person’s needs, and is reasonable and practicable.
Relevant councils must promote ‘wellbeing’ when carrying out care and support functions. Wellbeing includes the suitability of living accommodation. The Care Act 2014 recognises suitable accommodation as one way of meeting care and support needs. Prevention is critical to the Care Act and home adaptation is an example of secondary prevention.
In March 2022 the government issued non-statutory guidance “Disabled facilities Grant (DFG) Delivery: Guidance for local authorities in England”.
This guidance advises councils in England on how they can effectively and efficiently deliver DFG funded adaptations to best serve the needs of local older and disabled people. It brings together and sets out in one place existing policy frameworks, legislative duties and powers, together with recommended best practice, to help councils provide an adaptation service to disabled tenants and residents in their area.
A council should decide a grant application as soon as reasonably practicable. In addition, the timescales for moving through the stages will depend on the urgency and complexity of the works required.
Parent carer needs assessments Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 says where a council thinks a child is in need it must carry out an assessment. A child is in need when they are “unlikely to achieve or maintain, or to have the opportunity of achieving or maintaining, a reasonable standard of health or development without the provision for him of services by a local authority”.
The Act outlines the expectation that an assessment of a Child in Need will be ‘holistic’. This means the assessment will need to take account of the needs of other family members, including the disabled child.
A parent carer is entitled to a carer’s assessment to find out what help they need and how these needs can be met. An assessment will look at whether the parent has needs for support in their role as a carer. Sometimes a Council will carry out a standalone parent carer’s assessment but, in most scenarios, it is likely the assessment will be combined with a Child in Need assessment.
Background
In 2023, Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman about how the Council considered her requests for an occupational therapy (OT) assessment and adaptations in her family’s home. Mrs X also complained to the Ombudsman about how the Council dealt with her parent carer needs assessment (PCNA), to help her act as carer for her daughter.
Both complaints related to how the Council addressed Mrs X’s requests for help managing her family’s circumstances. The events complained of also happened around the same time. Given this, the Ombudsman opted to consider both complaints in one investigation.
Below is a summary of the key events leading to this investigation. It is not an exhaustive chronology of every exchange between parties. Where necessary, I have expanded on some of these events in the “analysis” section of this decision statement.
Complaint regarding occupational therapy assessment and request for DFG funding ( 22017189) Summary of events In November 2022, the Council said its adult social care services made a DFG referral to its housing services: Mrs X’s child, Z, had significant support needs, resulting in her not sleeping until the early hours of the morning every night. Mrs X and her husband, Mr X, could not sleep every night. This made worse their own health needs and conditions.
Mrs X sought an annex for her home, providing an extra bedroom with some separation from the rest of the house. Mrs X said this extra space would allow her and her husband, Mr X, to properly rest and manage their own health conditions better.
In December 2022, Z’s Occupational Therapist (OT) told Mrs X: They did not believe adding a bedroom would be possible. The family’s home was under-occupied from a housing management perspective.
A DFG could not be used to provide extra bedrooms for carers.
The Council’s records show it discussed the matter internally in January 2023: An OT agreed the Council would assess Mrs X, but said it was unlikely the Council would consider a ground-floor extension suitable, given the size of the property. It was suggested Mr and Mrs X could try using earplugs to aid sleep.
There was agreement to explore whether soundproofing could be used to address issues with neighbour noise.
Internal records show the Council closed the adult social care referral. The Council said it was already exploring adaptations for Z. It decided it would be better to consider Mrs X’s request a referral for Z, rather than Mrs X.
The Council carried out an OT assessment in February 2023, which included consideration of Mrs X’s DFG request. Following the assessment, the Council wrote to Mrs X: It said because Mrs X’s referral related to Z’s behavioural issues, it decided to consider this as a referral for Z.
The Council said it would consider Mr and Mrs X’s needs as part of this process.
The Council compiled a report setting out the findings of its OT assessment: The report detailed Mrs X’s concerns about how the lack of sleep would affect her heart health and Mr X’s ability to recover from surgery. The OT said an extra room did not fall within the DFG guidelines.
The OT said Mrs X received a personal budget for Z. This allowed Mrs X to employ a personal assistant for Z. This could include overnight care, allowing Mrs X to get respite.
The OT said they would ask whether soundproofing was viable.
The report detailed discussion of the risks to Z and the risks to Mrs X in managing Z’s support needs.
The assessment framed its findings around Z’s needs. There was one recommendation about making the environment safe for Mrs X, and for Z. The report identified a medium risk.
Mrs X complained about how the Council conducted the assessment: Mrs X said she had contacted adult social care about her health and her husband’s health. While Z’s behavior negatively impacted some of these health needs, other health needs were separate. Mrs X said the Council had not assessed these needs.
Mrs X asked about the Council considering the matter as a referral for Z. She asked how the Council had decided this and why the Council had not told her about this until after it had decided.
Mrs X asked whether the Council’s position had any basis in the DFG guidance. She also asked whether the Council believed its proposals would address the whole family’s needs.
In April 2023, the Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint: The Council said DFG funding was mainly to provide suitable access to an applicant’s property. The Council had to assess if the adaptations sought were necessary and appropriate for the applicant’s needs. It said the OT assessment formed part of this decision-making process.
The Council said officers met informally to explore the family’s circumstances and make sure the Council made the correct decision. The Council said this was routine and it did not need to tell Mrs X before this happened. It said there were no minutes of this meeting, as it was a general discussion about the DFG referral.
The Council said Mrs X’s application did not show the home was inaccessible, or that changes would improve accessibility. It said there was no evidence to support or justify Mrs X’s request for an extension. It said this was why it had declined the application. The Council said it sometime agreed extensions, but only when this represented an essential means of allowing a disabled person to remain living in their home.
The Council said where it declined the works sought, it told the applicant through either its housing or adult social care teams. It said it followed this procedure in this case. The Council said Mrs X had no referral open to adult social care at that point.
The Council said it did not consider Mrs X’s circumstances urgent. It said its assessment had not identified any significant risks.
Mrs X asked the Council to escalate her complaint. She said the Council’s response had not addressed her concerns. She also said the Council was wrong when it asserted that DFG guidance mainly related to accessing the property.
In May 2023, the Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint: The Council said it had fully responded to Mrs X’s initial complaint.
The Council said it could only fund works that were necessary and appropriate. It said if Mrs X were to provide further medical evidence, the Council could reconsider the DFG request. The Council believed it had applied the correct criteria underpinning the DFG guidance when considering Mrs X’s request.
In July 2023, Mrs X made a further detailed complaint about the OT assessment and report, detailing what she believed were errors. I have not seen evidence of the Council’s response to this complaint.
Mrs X provided the Ombudsman with further supporting evidence showing professionals expressed concern about the family’s safety and wellbeing inside the property. These included letters from medical professionals and privately-sourced occupational therapy reports.
Mrs X also provided the Ombudsman with correspondence about the recommendations made in the February 2023 assessment. The Council decided soundproofing work did not fall within the DFG guidance and advised Mrs X this was something she would need to discuss directly with her landlord.
Analysis The Council decided the referral it received related to needs arising from Z’s disabilities. It therefore closed Mrs X’s referral, opting to consider this as referral for Z. It told Mrs X it would consider the needs of the whole family when doing so.
While the Council could have better communicated its decision, it was not fault for the Council to decide to explore the needs of the whole family. To do so would be in the spirit of the DFG guidance.
However, despite telling Mrs X it would consider both her and Mr X’s needs, the OT assessment shows no consideration on the impact to Mr X’s health needs. It contains references to Mrs X’s concerns about Mr X’s wellbeing, but no analysis of how or if adaptations could help reduce these concerns.
In its complaint response, the Council told Mrs X: “Your application did not set out that your home was inaccessible or that modifications were required to improve accessibility. There has been no evidence provided to support or justify that an annexe is appropriate to meet you, your partners or Z’s needs. As a result this is why the application was declined. The purpose of the DFG application is to improve accessibility to the home.”
DFG guidance sets out the purposes for which authorities must award DFG funding. The Council is correct that “facilitating access to the home and garden” is one such purpose.
However, this is not the only defined purpose in the guidance. The Guidance makes clear the primary purpose for DFG funding should be to adapt a home environment to help “restore or enable independent living, privacy, confidence and dignity for individuals and their families.” It says the starting point and continuing focus should be the needs experienced and identified by the client and their carers. In doing so, the guidance is clear authorities should consider the impact on carers in their decision.
The guidance also says that “making the premises safer” is a purpose for which councils can award DFG funding. The guidance says councils could award DFG funding where “there is a need to make the home safer for the disabled person and other people living with them.” The guidance goes on to state: “It’s not appropriate to be too prescriptive but the needs covered under this subsection might include situations where… someone with challenging behaviours is hurting themself, other people they live with or damaging the property…” In a section on medical conditions and behaviours that challenge, the guidance also says: “Where home adaptations are being considered to deal with behaviours that challenge, the family and carers of the disabled person should be highly involved in the assessment discussions and decision making process… Where behaviours threaten the safety of others living within the household, the grant can be used to reduce the risks to their safety…” The Council’s complaint response suggests it narrowly interpreted the purposes for which it can agree DFG funding. It did not clearly consider the full range of purposes, to the possible detriment of its decision-making.
I have found the Council at fault for not taking account of the health needs of all members of the household, as it told Mrs X it would. I have also found the Council at fault for not considering the household’s circumstances against the full criteria set out in the DFG guidance.
These faults caused an injustice. I cannot say the Council would have reached a different decision, had it considered these matters fully. It is possible the Council would have reached the same decision. However, the uncertainty caused is an injustice to Mrs X. I have recommended the Council act to remedy this injustice.
Complaint regarding parent carer needs assessment (22017000) Summary of events Mrs X told the Ombudsman the Council: failed to offer her a PCNA, despite knowing of her health needs affecting her ability to care for Z without support since 2018.
failed to arrange a PCNA in 2019, despite a Child Protection Plan setting out the need for one.
Failed to reply to a complaint in 2020 about a PCNA that resulted in support of three hours a month, which increased to six hours a month after the complaint submission.
Failed to deal with the 2020 complaint, instead beginning a public law outline process before court action.
Failed to provide respite in a way Z could access, rather than at the only service the Council said was available in its area. Mrs X said the Council also refused to provide Direct Payments as an alternative.
Failed to otherwise provide any support or review the PCNA since 2021.
The first four parts of Mrs X’s complaint are late, as Mrs X has been aware of these matters for longer than 12 months. The Ombudsman has also considered some of these matters in previous investigations. There is no good reason for us to investigate late matters now, or investigate matters we have already considered.
Regarding the final two parts of Mrs X’s complaint, the Council told the Ombudsman in April 2023 it had made an application to the courts that month, seeking a care order and interim care order. It believed the threshold for its intervention under the Children Act 1989 had been met. This meant the courts would potentially consider arrangements for Z’s accommodation, care and support. The Ombudsman ended its investigation of this complaint on that basis.
However, the Council confirmed to the Ombudsman it withdrew proceedings in May 2023, before the courts considered any of these matters. As it was the Council that initiated these proceedings, the application to court did not amount to Mrs X exercising an alternative remedy by way of the courts. The Ombudsman therefore retained jurisdiction to consider the complaint. However, as set out in paragraph 5, we cannot consider the decision to start court action, or the conduct of those proceedings.
Mrs X said the Council failed to review the PCNA or provide support since 2021. Mrs X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman in 2023, more than 12 months after becoming aware of this alleged fault. I have seen evidence Mrs X completed a PCNA request in 2022 about her need for respite. The Council considered Mrs X’s needs as part of a Child & Family Single Assessment it completed in June 2022. I have therefore considered Mrs X’s complaint from 2022 onwards.
The information documented in the assessment shows: The personal budget allocated to Z in the previous year amounted to just over £15,000. This budget comprised of payments to Z’s grandparents to provide respite. It also provided for employment of a personal assistant for five hours per week to provide respite. Further, the budget included six hour per month to cover meetings and appointments providing childcare cover for Mrs X.
Separately, a PCNA completed in 2021 agreed six hours per month with a “sitting service”, commissioned by the Council to deliver this service to residents in its area. This was in addition to the personal budget.
The assessment confirmed Z’s grandparents continued to provide respite, though the frequency had reduced from the previous year. The personal assistant had given Mrs X notice, meaning there would be a need to employ a new personal assistant.
The PCNA offered either signposting to services through the Council’s local offer, or to short periods covered by the sitting service. Mrs X felt the sitting service would be unsuitable for Z, given staff inconsistency and possible conflicts of interest. Mrs X also felt there was little Z could access through the local offer that would be suitable.
To remedy this, the assessment recommended respite be continued, but at a higher amount. It said the amount of support provided by the personal assistant and grandparents did not fully meet both Mrs X and Z’s needs.
The report listed actions: Mrs X would create an advert for a personal assistant, to share with special educational needs schools and services for potential interest. The Council could share this with relevant agencies, but would not be responsible for following up.
The Council would make a referral for Z to specialist provision, so this was in place for when Z could attend.
The Council would offer support to access charity information about holiday opportunities for Mrs X, Z, and their family. The Council would also help identify local resources and provision, as Z’s needs evolved.
The support would be increased to 34 hours per week, split between a personal assistant and Z’s grandparents. The report noted a personal assistant needed to be ready for employment before the panel would agree this cost. If this were not the case, the panel would only agree the hours covered by Z’s grandparents, but this could be increased when a personal assistant was found. The report said the budget needed to be reviewed in a year at most.
In February 2023, Mrs X complained to the Council about the lack of support provided over an extended period. She also said the Council had refused her request to provide her budget through direct payments.
The Council responded in March 2023: It said Mrs X had declined provision which the Council believed was suitable. It said the sitting service was the only commissioned provision in its authority area when a parent met the PCNA threshold for support.
It said due to the imminent court proceedings, Mrs X would need to raise her concerns with her legal representatives.
As set out above, the Council withdrew proceedings in May 2023.
Analysis The Council has commissioned a charitable organisation to provide respite services to parents in its local area. The Council has also said PCNAs will signpost to other services available through its local offer. It is for the Council to manage how its local resources are allocated and it is not at fault for commissioning such arrangements.
In its assessment, the Council identified the provision in place did not fully meet Mrs X and Z’s needs. It set out actions and proposed an increase in the support budget to address this. While PCNAs can be standalone assessments, in practice they are often conducted as part of child in need or single assessments, which is what happened in this case. I understand the Council’s position is the increased budget, when fully utilised, addressed Mrs X’s identified need for respite.
The Council said: The package of care currently in place for Z included funding for a personal assistant and payment for Z’s grandparent, who provide support.
The funding awarded covered the 34 hours agreed at the assessment in June 2022. A resource panel agreed this arrangement in August 2022. The arrangement was reviewed again in December 2023.
The personal assistant ended their employment in December 2023. The Council said it was for Mrs X to advertise for and employ a new personal assistant. It said the money allocated towards the cost of the personal assistant would be retained within the funds available for payment. It said once Mrs X identified and employed an assistant, the payments would restart at the level agreed by the panel.
As of December 2023, there was a surplus in the managed account. The Council would not usually review the personal budget where adequate funds remained to meet the identified needs. Reviews usually took place when it was clear the available funds may not be sufficient. The Council believe the budget in place was appropriate.
I asked the Council why Mrs X could not receive direct payments, if she wished to make other arrangements. The Council told me Mrs X declined direct payments before 2021, given the added administration involved. The Council did not address how it considered Mrs X’s more recent request.
It is clear the Council reviewed the overall budget allocated to meet Mrs X and Z’s needs in 2022. The Council’s response suggests it reviewed the budget again in around December 2023, though Ms X says this was late. Any delay in review did not affect the findings or the Council’s position. I have not therefore found the Council at fault for failing to review the allocated budget.
The persistent prospect of legal proceedings has complicated this matter. The merits of legal proceedings are a decision for the Council and not for the Ombudsman. It appears beginning and withdrawing these proceedings created circumstances where the complaint drifted without response. The Council did not deal with Mrs X’s complaint formally, because it was possible legal proceedings would consider the substantive issue.
Mrs X brought a further complaint to the Ombudsman in late 2023, also concerning Z’s personal budget. The Council told the Ombudsman it agreed it had delayed addressing this complaint, which Mrs X made to the Council in October 2023. It agreed to pay Mrs X £100 in recognition of this and provide Mrs X with the right to take her complaint to stage two of the Children’s Statutory Complaints Procedure. Given how interlinked these matters are, it would be appropriate for the Council to now consider Mrs X’s concerns about her own support, and whether direct payments are appropriate, as part of this process.
Mrs X being able to raise her concerns through the statutory procedure therefore provides some appropriate redress. The £100 payment agreed also provides adequate redress for a delay in dealing with the complaint made in October 2023.
However, Mrs X originally complained about the support allocated in February 2023. The Council could have addressed the matter as a complaint once proceedings were withdrawn, but it did not. Had it done so, Mrs X may not have needed to approach the Ombudsman.
I have found the Council at further fault for letting the complaint drift without response between May 2023 and October 2023. This caused Mrs X avoidable time and trouble. I have made recommendations to remedy this injustice.
Agreed action
Within four weeks of the final decision being issued, the Council has agreed to take the following actions.
In respect of both complaints, the Council has agreed to: Provide a written apology to Mrs X for the faults and injustice identified in this statement. The Council should have regard to the Ombudsman’s guidance on “Making an effective apology", set out in our Guidance on Remedies document.
In respect of complaint 22017189, the Council has agreed to: Carry out a new occupational therapy assessment and consider Mrs X’s request for DFG funding again. The Council should ensure any assessment takes clear account of all members of the household and the full range of “purposes” defined in the DFG guidance. In making this recommendation, I have accounted for the injustice identified in this statement. I have considered the Council said it would assess the household’s circumstances again 12 months after the OT assessment. It also said it would be prepared to review the DFG application again on receipt of any new, relevant medical evidence. This recommendation seeks to address the injustice identified, the passage of time that has now elapsed, and the new supporting medical evidence identified in paragraph 33.
Pay Mrs X £150 in recognition of the avoidable frustration she has experienced.
In respect of complaint 22017000, the Council has agreed to: Pay a further £100 for the time and trouble caused by not addressing Mrs X’s complaint about her PCNA at the earliest opportunity, once proceedings were withdrawn. This is in addition to the £100 it has agreed to pay Mrs X for a delay in dealing with a separate complaint, made in October 2023. This is also in addition to allowing Mrs X the opportunity to bring her complaint through the statutory complaints procedure. The Council should ensure it considers Mrs X’s complaint about her PCNA as part of this procedure.
The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice. I have made recommendations to remedy the injustice this caused.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman