A North London family has been awarded £1,500 in compensation after Brent Council was found to have delayed essential home adaptations for their severely disabled adult son, leaving his mother to push his 94kg wheelchair up a steep ramp.
Council at fault for prolonged delays
An investigation by the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) determined that Brent Council was at fault for multiple failures in providing necessary modifications to the family's council home in Brent. The council delayed installing a less steep access ramp and providing a hoist system, while also failing to properly assess the needs of the son, referred to as Mr C in the official report.
Deteriorating condition outgrows childhood adaptations
The family's home had previously been adapted when Mr C was a child, with ground floor modifications to his bedroom and bathroom created by reducing the living room to half its original size. However, as Mr C's condition deteriorated over time and he grew to six feet six inches tall, these adaptations became inadequate for his complex care needs.
During a February 2023 assessment with the council's occupational therapist, the family explained that Mrs B, Mr C's mother, was struggling to push her son's wheelchair up the existing ramp. The therapist confirmed the ramp was too steep, posing injury risks to carers. The bathroom was also deemed too small for Mr C's size and potential future care requirements, particularly concerning as he experiences seizures while using the toilet.
Failed communication and inadequate solutions
The council informed the family in April 2023 that a referral to the Disabled Facilities Grant for a hoist and step lift had been made, but warned that high demand might cause a six-month processing delay. By June 2023, with no progress made, Mrs B asked whether the garage could be converted into a wet room and kitchenette for her son.
Brent Council responded that it was obtaining quotes for recommended works but would not consider an extension, estimating conversion costs at approximately £100,000. The council suggested the family should relocate to a more suitable property instead, despite acknowledging the unlikelihood of finding appropriate alternative accommodation during the ongoing housing crisis.
Escalating health concerns and bureaucratic obstacles
In July 2023, Mrs B made an official complaint after learning that hoists and lifts could not be installed until March 2024 due to high demand. She expressed reluctance to move if it meant disrupting her other children's education, maintaining that garage conversion represented a more sensible solution.
The situation reached a critical point in October 2023 when Mrs B wrote to the council explaining that Mr C had been hospitalised three times in three months. At over 94kg, she was finding it increasingly difficult to move or provide adequate care for her son without proper adaptations.
Council admits funding limitations
During a November 2023 meeting between council officials, it was agreed that the current property could not be adequately adapted to meet Mr C's needs. The council acknowledged it "did not have sufficient funding" for property extension and began working on a "compromise scheme without extension" while simultaneously initiating relocation procedures.
By February 2024, the council proposed extending Mr C's bedroom into the living room and moving the shower into the bedroom. Mrs B rejected this plan, arguing it would not properly address her son's needs while further reducing the family's living space.
Unhygienic conditions and inadequate proposals
In a June 2024 letter to the council, Mrs B described the unworkable nature of the proposed adaptations, explaining: "[Mr C is] doubly incontinent and was often covered in faeces. He often refused to go from the toilet to the shower which was a step away. He throws himself on the floor causing the floor to be soiled so the bathroom had to be disinfected daily."
She added that placing a shower in the bedroom would be "unworkable and unhygienic" as "the smell of faeces would stay in his bedroom."
Relocation approval brings little relief
It wasn't until March 2025 that the council's housing allocations panel approved an application for the family to move to a four-bedroom house. However, when questioned by the LGO investigator, the council admitted that "no four bedroom properties were available" and could not provide a timeline for when suitable accommodation might become available "due to the current housing crisis."
The Ombudsman's report noted that the ramp installation had been "left in limbo" after initial agreement, while there was a year-long delay in providing a mobile hoist and sling after the original proposal was deemed unviable.
Systemic failures identified
The investigation found that Brent Council had not provided evidence that it properly assessed Mr C's needs or considered how to meet them. The report specifically challenged the council's claim that Mrs B had "chosen" to decline alternative housing offers, noting that "there was no real offer of an alternative house as the council has repeatedly said there are no suitable houses available."
The Ombudsman concluded that the council "cannot require a tenant to move instead of providing adaptations which would otherwise meet the statutory test" and determined that Brent Council is "currently failing in its duties under the Care Act."
Compensation and required actions
Following the investigation, the LGO ordered Brent Council to pay Mrs B and Mr C £1,500 to recognise the "difficulty and distress" caused by the delays. The council was also instructed to complete necessary works to the front of the property within three months and make a fresh decision regarding adaptation works.
Brent Council did not respond to requests for comment prior to publication of the Ombudsman's findings.
