The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: The Council’s failure to work in a joined-up way across its repairs and adaptations teams was fault. It should not have closed Ms Y’s adaptations case when it did. The Council has agreed to apologise, write to Ms Y about her adaptations, work with the repairs service, make a payment, and act to improve its services.
The complaint
Mr X complained on behalf of Ms Y, that the Council closed her application for a Disabled Facilities Grant. Mr X says the Council knew they were waiting to move temporarily to a suitable property before works could start to address both adaptations and disrepair in the property.
Mr X also complained that the Council refused to provide the correct equipment for Ms Y when she refused to accept dirty and damaged equipment.
As a result, Ms Y remains in a property unsuitable for her disability needs and without the equipment she needs.
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) 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.
We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, 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 considered the complaint and the information Mr X provided.
I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
I referred to the Ombudsman's Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
Mr X and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
What happened Ms X is Disabled. She uses a wheelchair. She and Mr X are tenants of the Council. The Council carried out adaptation works in 2019.
In July 2022 the Council referred Ms Y to its Occupational Therapy (OT) service to complete a new assessment of Ms Y. The OT visited Ms Y at home in October.
The notes of the assessment record Ms Y’s views and the OT’s observations: Ms Y said there was no room for a wardrobe in her bedroom so Mr X had to fetch her clothes from upstairs which she finds limits her independence The bathroom needed repairs to address damp and the sliding door was sticking and Ms Y could not always open it In the kitchen, Ms Y could not reach the pull-down units installed and the sink was not rise and fall so Ms Y could not use it.
Ms Y could not open any of the external doors independently and could not manoeuvre her wheelchair through the front door The back door was wide enough, but Ms Y could not independently open the access gates to get to it.
The OT recommended the Council make further adaptations to: replace the bathroom door and install a lever handle so Ms Y could use this independently.
install a rise and fall sink so Ms Y could use this independently.
lower the kitchen cupboards so Ms Y can reach them from her wheelchair.
The OT also made some recommendations subject to the Council surveyor’s visit: To explore options for wardrobe space in Ms Y’s bedroom to allow her to get dressed independently To explore options for Ms Y to safely access the community in her wheelchair. The OT said the surveyor should decide which of two options was most feasible: replace the front door with a wheelchair accessible powered door, having widened the doorway; or replace the already widened back door with a powered door and replace the access gates with powered gates.
The OT ordered Ms Y a perching stool for the kitchen and a shower chair for the bathroom. At the end of October, the Council’s records show Ms Y refused these on delivery because they were dirty. The OT spoke to Ms Y and reassured her that although recycled stock, the items had been cleaned. The OT explained that the Council couldn’t guarantee that any items delivered would be new. The notes say Ms Y agreed to buy her own.
The Council wrote to Ms Y in mid-December to say it had provisionally approved the works recommended by the OT subject to its surveyor visiting to assess and measure up.
In January 2023, Mr X asked the Council to contact them about the works. The Council’s surveyor got in touch to arrange a visit a few days later.
The surveyor visited in late January. On that visit, the Council could only assess the works to the external door because of Mr X and Ms Y’s dog.
In early February, the Council confirmed it had a quote for the works to the front door. It would contact Mr X and Ms Y to arrange a further visit to assess the internal works. Mr X told the Council about a date in March when they were available and the dog would not be in the property. The Council said it would confirm this date with its contractor and let Mr X know. On that date, the Council emailed Mr X to apologise as it had not confirmed the visit. It asked Mr X about other suitable dates.
10 days later, the Council emailed Mr X to say it had not been able to visit to survey for the works. It asked Mr X to contact the Council within 14 days or it would close the application.
The next evidence in the records is a letter from June 2023 in which the Council confirms “per your conversation with our surveyor” at the end of March, the DFG application was on hold. This was because Mr X and Ms Y wanted to move to a new property.
Mr X and Ms Y told me that their property also needs extensive repairs to address damp. They said the Council, as their landlord, accepted that they could not remain living in the property while these works took place. This meant the Council would need to provide a “decant” property for them to move to. However, any such property would need to be accessible for Ms Y. Mr X and Ms Y told me they asked the Council to consider moving them permanently. The Council identified a bungalow which it was considering adapting for Ms Y to offer as a permanent move.
In July, an OT and a surveyor visited Ms Y again. It is unclear from the notes what prompted this visit. The OT confirmed the works to the kitchen and bathroom recommended in 2022. The OT and surveyor measured the bedroom and decided there was enough room for wardrobes. The OT also revisited Ms Y’s need for a shower chair. The OT recommended a particular type of shower chair and the notes indicate the OT intended to order one for Ms Y.
However, a further note from the beginning of August said the Council still couldn’t guarantee any equipment would be new and it could not keep re-ordering because its provider charged it for every delivery. The note says Ms Y should buy her own equipment.
A few days later, the Council told Mr X that the bungalow was not viable as a permanent decant. This was because the cost of adapting the bungalow for Ms Y was more than the cost of repairs and adaptations to their current property. The Council asked Mr X to consider a temporary decant instead.
In mid-August, the Council asked Mr X to confirm if he and Ms Y wanted to proceed with the adaptation works within 10 days.
In September, the Council wrote to Mr X to say that as the bungalow was not a viable option, it needed to proceed with the works. It asked Mr X to confirm they wanted to go ahead within the next five days or it would close the case.
Mr X replied to say he did not feel he could agree to a deadline while he had an open complaint about the same matter. The Council responded at stage one of its process in late September. It: Set out the works identified by the OT in 2022 and confirmed on the joint visit in July Said the bedroom had enough space for wardrobes Said the adaptations service needed to know whether they wanted to proceed with the adaptations and had given a deadline Noted that Ms Y told the OT in 2022 that she would buy her own equipment as the Council could not guarantee any equipment it provided would be new Said it could not comment on the disrepair or possibility of a permanent move as these were with its legal department.
The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint at stage two of its process at the end of September. It said because there was an ongoing disrepair case, it could not comment as it could prejudice court proceedings.
On the same day, the Council wrote to Mr X to say that since he had not confirmed he and Ms Y wanted to proceed with the adaptation works, it had closed the case.
My findings
The Council told Mr X and Ms Y it would close their application unless they agreed to proceed by a given deadline in March, August, and September 2023. In March, this followed an error by the Council in failing to confirm a visit with Mr X. To then suggest it might close the case was fault.
The Council’s letter to Mr X and Ms Y in June 2023 said it agreed to keep their adaptations case on hold while they explored a permanent move. In August and September, Mr X and Ms Y were still pursuing a move and liaising with the Council, as their landlord, about the disrepair works. Mr X told the Council he did not think it was fair to impose a deadline while he had an open complaint. In the circumstances, giving Mr X and Ms Y a deadline to agree to proceed with works was fault.
There is no evidence to show the Council considered whether the extent of the works needed to address the disrepair would affect the adaptations. There is no evidence to show it sought to identify when Mr X and Ms Y might be decanted for the disrepair works to coordinate the adaptations with these works. This would have minimised any disruption to Mr X and Ms Y and avoided any duplication of works.
In response to my enquiries about how it liaised with the tenancy management service about the disrepair works, the Council simply said repairs and adaptions are separate. This failure to work in a joined-up way across the Council was fault. This caused Mr X and Ms Y avoidable distress and uncertainty, which is an injustice.
There was no fault in the Council’s original offer of equipment to Ms Y in 2022. She refused it and the records show the OT explained this meant she would have to buy her own. However, following the visit in July 2023, the OT identified a different type of shower chair. The notes indicate the OT told Ms Y the Council would order her one. This only changed once a different officer refused, based on Ms Y’s earlier refusal of different equipment. This was different equipment and not to have either ordered it or spoken to Ms Y about the whether she would accept recycled stock was fault. The Council avoidably raised Ms Y’s expectations and caused her avoidable uncertainty, which is an injustice.
I cannot make any findings about the Council’s decision not to offer the bungalow as a decant, whether temporary or permanent, or about the disrepair. This is because the Council was acting in its role as a social housing landlord. The law says we cannot investigate the Council’s actions in its role as a landlord of social housing.
Agreed action
To remedy the injustice to Mr X and Ms Y from the fault I have identified, the Council has agreed to: Apologise to Mr X and Ms Y in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology Liaise with the housing management service to establish the extent of the works needed to address the disrepair and whether this affects any of the proposed adaptions.
Write to Mr X and Ms Y to confirm their adaptations case remains on hold while they resolve with their landlord whether they can move permanently Discuss with Ms Y if she would like the Council to order her a shower chair, on the understanding that any equipment may not be new. If she agrees, order her the recommended chair.
Pay Mr X and Ms Y £300 in recognition of their avoidable distress and uncertainty.
The Council should take this action within six weeks of my final decision.
The Council should also take the following action to improve its services: Produce guidance or procedures for staff to ensure that when a Council tenant needs works to address disrepair and disabled adaptations, services work in a joined-up way to coordinate works, minimise disruption, and avoid unnecessary expense.
The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action it has taken within three months of my final decision.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman