The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has strongly criticised Labour-run Ealing Council for its handling of a disabled woman’s request for a level-access shower to be installed in her home, highlighting repeated delays and poor communication.
In a damning report, the watchdog found that the woman endured a constant battle for essential adaptations to her home, leaving her struggling without proper facilities.
Opposition party Liberal Democrats said “it’s totally unacceptable about the number of vulnerable people who are treated so badly by Ealing Council”.
The Ombudsman said in March 2021, Ms X contacted Ealing Council’s adult social care (ASC) about adaptations to her home as she had “significant difficulty getting in and out of the bath and difficulty moving around her home”.
From then onwards, Ms X faced an uphill battle with the council to get the works done as well as responding back to her when she contacted them for updates.
In its report, the Ombudsman said Ealing Council should not have caused Ms X to wait two years for her level access shower. It said: “The Council knew by July 2021 that Ms X needed a level access shower. On balance, it should therefore have been able to install one by December 2021. She did not get one until June 2023. Throughout most of this period, Ms X could not wash properly. This is a significant injustice to Ms X. She resorted to moving out of her home between September 2022 and March 2023 so she could access bathing facilities. This is a significant injustice to Ms X.”
Among the faults which the Ombudsman found for Ealing Council and highlighted in its report included:
- Poor communication when Ms X made repeated requested for updates and received conflicting information about how long she would need to wait.
- Between July 2021 and March 2022, the evidence shows confusion and conflict between ASC and the adaptations service about Ms X’s case. The use of an external agency to complete the initial assessment added to this, as the assessor was clearly not familiar with the Council’s process and the detail expected in the assessment. This was fault.
- The agency assessor was not the only reason things went wrong. This is demonstrated by ASC repeatedly sending substantially the same referral to the adaptations service, still not having visited Ms X’s home to consider the practicality of its recommendations. This was further fault.
- Government guidance expects social care and adaptations services to work together to deliver disabled facilities grants (DFGs). The Ombudsman expects the same. The Council should have clear processes to delineate responsibility between social care and adaptations. Both services have roles to play. An OT or other assessor can identify what someone needs and suggest ways to meet those needs. They will be best placed to advise on matters such as turning circles and types of equipment. But it is the adaptations service which has responsibility to decide if works are necessary, appropriate, reasonable, and practicable. The surveyors in this team are those best placed to advise whether the OTs recommendations are feasible. In that sense, I do not understand the Council’s assertion that its surveyors do not have the remit to consider feasibility.
- This statement is undermined by the fact that once allocated to a surveyor, who visited the property, it was the surveyor who established that some works would not be possible. In other words, the surveyors in the adaptations team did assess the feasibility of the recommendations. The evidence, therefore, is that it is the adaptations service which considers the feasibility of recommended adaptations. Absent evidence of a good reason for repeatedly returning the case to ASC, therefore, I find the Council at fault for not proceeding to assess the feasibility of the works in July 2021.
- After visiting Ms X in December 2021, the surveyor decided rehousing was Ms X’s best option. However, Ms X did not want to move. The court has said that councils must consider each adaptation separately. A council cannot refuse to do an adaptation because other unrelated works are not possible or the property as a whole is unsuitable. DFGs are mandatory grants. The Council must approve them if the works are necessary, appropriate, reasonable, and practicable. The Council should have proceeded with the works to create a level access shower at this point. Failure to do so was fault.
- The adaptations service reallocated Ms X’s case in April 2022 but did not visit her until June. This delay was fault.
- In April 2022 the Council asked the landlord to agree the works but provided no information about what those works were. This was fault.
- The Council completed the schedule of works in August. There is no evidence it shared it with the landlord until October. This delay was fault.
- The delay between October 2022 and January 2023 was caused by Ms X’s landlord and so is not fault of the Council. Ms X complained separately to her landlord, which accepted fault for its part in the delay.
- In January 2023, the Council disputed the landlord’s assertion that a structural report was necessary. However, there is no evidence it followed this up with the landlord until March. This was fault.
- Ms X’s landlord provided signed consent to the bathroom works in March but the works did not start until June. This further delay was fault.
- Overall, therefore, the Council should have:
-
- properly assessed Ms X’s needs at the outset;
- had a robust process between ASC and adaptations to manage applications and resolve issues with referrals
- communicated clearly with Ms X about who was managing her application and who she should contact with questions or concerns
- communicated earlier and better with Ms X’s landlord to seek approval for the works.
Responding to the report, leader of Ealing Liberal Democrats, Councillor Gary Macolm said: “Liberal Democrats find is totally unacceptable about the number of vulnerable people who are treated so badly by Ealing Council. Payments of money and belated apologies are not enough. The Councillor responsible for this should publicly say sorry to each person (in person) where the Council has failed to help them as required. The Labour Party have been in power in Ealing for 15 years. They are stale and need to be removed to give hope to people like this.”
Speaking to EALING.NEWS, an Ealing Council spokesperson said: “We are sorry that in this case, we fell short of the high standards we set ourselves, and we have apologised to the resident for the shortcomings in our handling of her application to install a level access shower. We recognise that we should do better, and we are committed to listening to our residents and working with the ombudsman. Our priority remains to help vulnerable residents continue to live independently by providing timely and appropriate adaptations to their homes.
“This case was a unique circumstance and the first ombudsman decision for our repairs and adaptations service that has presented this type of outcome. We have implemented immediate changes to ensure this does not happen again, with new systems and processes and more staff resource.
“We have sent the tenant a full apology and compensation, and we are engaging with the resident’s housing association to explore further ground floor adaptations in her home. The actions the ombudsman and council agreed were completed within four weeks of the ombudsman’s decision.”
