The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s actions when she wanted to apply for a Disabled Facilities Grant for her parents, Mr and Mrs Y. She also complained that the Council took too long to make payments when it had agreed to fund construction works. We found fault because the Council gave Miss X incorrect advice and closed Mrs Y’s case when it should not have done. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and Mrs Y, make payments to them and review some of its policies and procedures.
The complaint
Miss X complains the Council did not provide accurate or timely information and advice when, in September 2022, she requested a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) to fund adaptations for her parents. She complains the Council has no policy on how to deal with such requests. She also complains that when the Council had agreed grants to fund adaptations to her home through DFGs and a top up grant, it was too slow to make payments.
Miss X says this led to unnecessary delays and has caused her distress and frustration.
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) 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 have considered all the information Miss X provided and discussed this complaint with her. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
Miss X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have taken any comments received into consideration before reaching my final decision.
What I found
Disabled facilities grants Under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, councils can award DFGs to people whose disability means their home needs adaptation. If the person applying meets the qualifying criteria, the council must award the grant.
Councils only approve grants for work they decide is necessary.
A council must decide if the proposed works are necessary and appropriate to meet the needs of the disabled person. It must also be satisfied it is reasonable and practicable to carry out the works given the condition of the property to be adapted.
Section 23(1)(b) of the Act states that DFGs must be given to make a dwelling or building safe for the disabled occupant and others living there with them, subject to the other provisions set out in the Act.
The maximum grant payable by a council is £30,000. A council can award other discretionary help if it thinks it is necessary. The council grant amount is subject to a means test. The test does not apply to applications from landlords, or from parents for grants for their disabled children. Regardless of who makes the application, the means test applies to the disabled person (the ‘relevant person’). If the relevant person has a partner, their finances are assessed jointly.
Disabled facilities grant delivery: guidance for local authorities in England 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.
The guidance also suggests councils: develop a local housing assistance policy to set out the nature and extent of available assistance (section 3.18); set up a one-stop shop to ensure a quality service and handle the majority of initial enquiries and referrals (section 4.6); and provide clear, easy to understand and readily accessible information, give appropriate access to information about DFGs, local policies for providing assistance and how to apply (section 4.19).
The guidance also lists a wide range of other suggested information a council should provide applicants with (section 4.19).
The Council’s policy The Council has a page on its website that gives basic information about home adaptations, its early intervention service and major adaptations that might be funded by DFGs.
What happened I have set out below a summary of the key events. This is not meant to show everything that happened.
The complaint concerns Miss X and her parents Mr and Mrs Y.
In mid-September 2022, Miss X contacted the Council. She advised that the family planned for Mr and Mrs Y to move into Miss X’s property with her. Miss X told the Council the family would require a DFG to extend her property and create a downstairs bedroom and bathroom for Mrs Y. Miss X said the family would be happy to accept any aids and adaptations for Mrs Y at her current address. The Council added Mrs Y to its waiting list for an ‘early intervention’ assessment. It advised Mrs Y the waiting time for this could be up to 15 weeks.
In mid-November 2022, the Council’s officer (Officer A) discussed the case with Miss X and advised her Mrs Y would need to be referred to an occupational therapist (OT) to look into anything DFG related. Officer A was not an OT but said she could assess Mrs Y for some adaptations and could do this for her current home. The Council placed Mrs Y on its waiting list to see an OT.
At the end of November 2022, Officer A visited Mr and Mrs Y at their home to carry out her assessment on Mrs Y. Miss X was present. Mrs Y declined observed assessments of her use of the stairs and bath, which Officer A had wanted to carry out as part of her general assessment. Mrs Y declined the possibility of a stair lift. Officer A advised Miss X that Mrs Y could only be assessed in Miss X’s house after she had moved there and not before.
Early in December 2022, Miss X contacted the Council. She was unhappy with its stance that Mrs Y could only be assessed for Miss X’s property after she had physically moved in. She asked for Officer A’s manager’s details (Officer B) to discuss this with. Officer B discussed the case with Miss X on the telephone.
2023 In mid-January 2023, Officer A closed the case on her side as she would not be having any further involvement and Mrs Y had declined the use of assisted technology to help her. A week later, Officer B advised Miss X she would need to call the Council’s early intervention team if she wanted to make a new referral or contact the early intervention co-ordinator instead.
At the beginning of February 2023, Miss X contacted Officer B to ask for an update after she had telephoned and been told Mrs Y’s case had been closed. The Council then logged the need for an OT to complete a priority assessment for both Mr and Mrs Y. It noted that until Mrs Y’s assessment was done, it could not decide what recommendations would be made. The Council also noted that Mrs Y was waiting for an assessment before the case had been closed in January.
At the end of February 2023, an OT assessed Mr and Mrs Y in their accommodation at the time. The OT then completed an assessment at Miss X’s property at the beginning of March 2023. The OT advised Miss X that her parents did not meet the need for an extension.
Throughout March 2023, the Council and Miss X communicated various times. Miss X voiced her concerns over various aspects of the Council’s suggestions of a stairlift at her house to accommodate Mrs Y and its suggestion that it convert her existing upstairs bathroom to become a wet room. The Council advised that the DFG was means tested and if Mr and Mrs Y were eligible they could use any amount of money which would be spent on agreed adaptations towards a ground floor extension if that was what the family wanted to build. The Council planned to complete a financial assessment for the DFG, a stairlift assessment, and request a wet room, if Mr and Mrs Y met DFG criteria.
At the end of March 2023, the Council contacted the family to arrange a formal DFG assessment. The Council arranged for stairlift assessments which were carried out during April and May 2023.
In mid-May 2023, the Council advised Miss X that following assessment, it agreed to install a stairlift at her property for Mrs Y and also to convert Miss X’s existing bath room into a wet room.
At the end of May 2023, Miss X emailed the Council to again voice her concerns. She said that the Council’s suggestion of a stairlift was not suitable for Mrs Y due to her health needs and that there were also other concerns over Mr Y’s ongoing health needs. She asked that the Council re-assess the family’s case and include Mr Y in its assessment. The Council suggested it visit Miss X at home to discuss her concerns.
The Council visited Miss X at her home at the beginning of June 2023. In an email sent to Miss X a few days later, the Council upheld its previous assessment that a stairlift and wet room for Mrs Y would meet her assessed needs. Officer B gave details of how to escalate the matter if she remained unhappy.
At the beginning of July 2023, the Council met with Miss X to discuss the complaint she had made to it. The Council agreed to speak to the falls clinic who had assessed Mrs Y. After speaking to the falls clinic, the Council’s previous view that a stair lift would be suitable for her changed. The Council emailed Miss X to say that to meet Mrs Y’s long-term needs, it would recommend a ground floor bedroom and wet room. It said it had viewed Miss X’s existing plans for an extension which she had already had drawn up but that these would need to be changed to meet Mrs Y’s long-term needs.
The Council also advised Miss X that as adaptations (the extension) would cater for both Mr and Mrs Y, two DFGs could be applied for. It further advised that Mr and Mrs Y could potentially apply for top up funding if the cost of the works was more than the £60,000 the two potential DFGs would provide.
In mid-July 2023, the Council sent a letter to Mr Y to advise it had agreed major adaptation works could be carried out. It agreed to a ground floor extension containing a bedroom and wet room style bathroom. Discussions about amendments to Miss X’s plans for the extension and top up funding continued throughout July and into August.
At the beginning of August 2023, the Council sent offer agreements to Miss X for DFGs for both Mr and Mrs Y for a total of nearly £59,000. It also sent an offer agreement for discretionary DFG top up funding of nearly £19,000. It assessed Mrs Y’s contribution at just over £1300.
Miss X signed and returned the offer documents to the Council in mid-August 2023.
The Council sent its stage two final complaint response to Miss X at the end of August 2023.
Payments Miss X had already organised a contractor to do the construction works before the DFG and top up funding was agreed.
At the beginning of August 2023, Miss X paid her contractor a £10,000 deposit to get the works started. Her contractor sent his first invoice to the Council towards the end of August 2023.
At the end of August 2023, Miss X chased the Council on when it would refund her the £10,000 deposit she had paid.
At the end of August 2023, the Council agreed for Miss X to pay her contractor £17,000 (invoice number two) as his next instalment, so works could continue. The Council said that it would refund her.
At the beginning of September 2023, the Council refunded Miss X the £17,000 as agreed. Around this time, the Council advised that it would only be able to refund Miss X the £10,000 deposit when the entire project had been completed.
Towards the middle of September 2023, the Council processed an invoice for boiler work for £2200. Miss X had sent the invoice to the Council before it had agreed to fund the construction works. The boiler quote was not part of the original contractor quotes. Miss X had already paid this and so the Council refunded her after it had viewed the works.
The Council then paid other construction invoices which had been directly sent to it by Miss X’s contractor. Six payments were made from mid-September 2023 through to a final payment in mid-February 2024.
At the end of March 2024, the entire construction project was now finished. At the beginning of April 2024, the Council refunded Miss X her original deposit paid to the contractor, minus the assessed contribution that Mrs Y had to pay towards the works.
Analysis Disabled facilities grant process Miss X complained that the Council did not provide accurate or timely information and advice when she requested a DFG for her parents.
As part of my enquiries, I asked the Council to send me copies of information relating to any housing assistance policy or DFG policy and how it assesses or administers DFGs.
In response, the Council directed me to several webpages designed to inform its staff when working on DFGs. These are not able to be found by completing a normal internet search as they are for staff only. The Council said that this information was not detailed enough and that it was currently reviewing its own policy to sit behind this. The Council did not send me a copy of any housing assistance policy or specific policy related to DFGs, neither was I able to find one on the internet.
The Council also directed me to a webpage about equipment and adaptations. This was easy to find using an internet search. Whilst this page does give some information about DFGs, it does not provide the scope of information that government guidance suggests.
The Council also provided a factsheet which is sent out when somebody is being referred to its early intervention service. This does not specifically mention DFGs.
Government guidance (see paragraphs 12-15) around DFG delivery, including the provision of information about it to residents, is non-statutory. This means it is not something the Council must do by law. However, we consider it is best practice for councils to adopt similar processes and suggestions the guidance may set out. The Council does not have a housing assistance policy or a policy specifically related to DFGs. Neither is its available information as comprehensive as that suggested by the guidance. Not having such policies or information readily available is not fault on the Council’s part. However, considering the government’s guidance, the confusion caused to Miss X and the confusion on the Council’s own part (which was fault), I have made a recommendation below for the Council to consider its policies and processes so that information about DFGs is readily available and easy to understand.
Miss X’s contact Miss X complained Officer A had advised her that Mrs Y could only be assessed for DFG purposes once she had moved into Miss X’s house. In its stage two complaint response the Council advised that a DFG is only applied for after a full assessment of a person’s functional ability had been carried out and this had been declined by Mrs Y at the November 2022 meeting. It also said that a DFG is ‘not commonly asked for in an alternative property’, which had led to a lack of clarity regarding the advice it gave to Miss X. The Council apologised to Miss X for this error and advised the matter should have been discussed at a more senior level at the time. In its enquiry responses to me, the Council said this had also been raised and fed back to relevant staff and that information about such scenarios would be included in its new policy. Not giving Miss X the correct information was fault. It would have caused her distress and frustration. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.
The Council also confirmed that Officer A had closed the case in January 2023, when she should have forwarded it for referral to the OT. In its response to me, the Council explained the timeline of allocation from there and that the OT had been allocated within four weeks of the accidental closure, rather than its aim of two weeks, but that Mrs Y had been seen a week after her case had been allocated to the OT.
Evidence shows that Mrs Y was noted as being added to the OT priority waiting list in mid-November 2022. I would therefore have expected the Council to have allocated an OT around the beginning of December 2022, in line with its aim of a two-week allocation. Due to delays on the Council’s side in both accidentally closing the case and it then being re-opened and allocated at the four-week mark, Mrs Y experienced a delay of around ten weeks in her case being allocated to an OT. Whilst I acknowledge the OT saw Mrs Y very quickly after allocation, she still experienced an avoidable delay. This is fault. It would have caused distress and frustration to both Mrs Y and Miss X. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.
Miss X also complained the Council had initially said it intended to means test her, when she was not the disabled person (Mrs Y) the grant would be used for. In response to my enquiries, the Council confirmed it only considers income for the disabled person and their spouse or partner if they have one. The Council said that as it was reviewing its stance on this at the time, this led to confusion on its part. The Council confirmed it did later advise Miss X it would only consider Mr and Mrs Y’s income. Giving Miss X incorrect information due to this confusion was fault. It would have caused her distress and frustration. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.
I acknowledge that whilst there was fault on the Council’s part, it acted swiftly and decisively when it became aware of Mrs Y’s health needs outlined by the falls clinic. I also acknowledge the Council acted swiftly and decisively after it had made the decision to fund the majority of the works through DFG and top up grants.
Payments to Miss X There are no guidelines on how quickly Miss X should have been refunded any money she had already paid out.
Evidence shows that the Council placed Miss X onto its payment system within three weeks of her signing the DFG and top up funding offer paperwork. She was refunded the £17,000 she had paid the contractor at the end of August 2023, around one week later.
The £2200 refund for boiler works was issued eight days after the Council had viewed the works and was satisfied they had been completed.
The Council refunded Miss X her initial deposit money (minus Mrs Y’s contribution) around ten days after it received the notification the works had been completed.
On this basis, I am satisfied that in the circumstances of this complaint, the Council refunded Miss X in a timely and appropriate manner. I find no fault in its actions here.
Payments to Miss X’s contractor Miss X’s contractor presented various invoices to the Council at different times and according to a staged payment plan. Invoices were paid depending on which stage the building works were at. As with Miss X, there are no guidelines on how quickly the Council should have paid her contractor’s invoices.
Although there is evidence to say the contractor sent an invoice to the Council late in August 2023, it is unclear if this included his bank account details. Evidence shows the Council asked the contractor for his details at the end of August.
Around this time, the Council agreed to process invoices in advance so they were ready on its finance system. It agreed to then approve them after it had visited the site to confirm works had been completed as per the staged payment plan.
After this, invoices number three and four (sent together as one) were paid directly to the contractor and within 13 days of being sent to the Council.
Invoice number five was paid within four days, invoice six the day after and invoice seven within five days of the individual site visits to confirm scheduled works had been carried out.
Invoice eight was paid within five days of it being confirmed to the Council that it was the final invoice.
On this basis, and in the circumstances of this complaint, I am satisfied the Council acted in a timely and appropriate manner. It checked the works had been completed at each stage and arranged payment to the contractor following this. I find no fault in the actions of the Council here.
Architect’s fees The Council has agreed to consider the costs of Miss X’s architect’s fees, if she presents it with this evidence.
Agreed action
To remedy the injustice caused by the faults I have identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within four weeks of the date of my final decision: apologise to Miss X for providing her with incorrect information relating to the DFG process and for incorrectly closing Mrs Y’s case without her knowledge; apologise to Mrs Y for closing her case and the delay in allocating her an OT for assessment; make symbolic payments to Miss X and Mrs Y of £100 each, for the distress and frustration caused by the identified fault; consider reimbursing Miss X’s architect’s fees as per paragraph 68; consider reviewing its policies and procedures relating to any housing assistance or disabled facilities grant policies and processes in line with the government’s DFG delivery guidance.
Payments made are in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
The apology written should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies on making an effective apology .
The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
Final decision
I have now completed my investigation. I uphold this complaint with a finding of fault causing an injustice.
Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman