Councils’ failures resulted in child living in inadequate accommodation

A disabled child resided in an inadequate dwelling, which offered insufficient room for their hospital bed, as a result of a “catalogue of errors” committed by two local authorities. An oversight body determined that Bromsgrove District Council and Worcestershire County Council were excessively slow in modifying the residence to accommodate the child’s “significant and complex” requirements. The investigation revealed that the child’s bedroom lacked sufficient space for specialized equipment, and the garden patio was too small for the child’s wheelchair to maneuver. To recognize the injustice caused, the district council is set to compensate the mother with £2,000, with the county council providing an additional payment of £4,000. Amerdeep Somal, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, stated: “The councils focused too much on achieving adaptations that would fit within permitted development rights, rather than on providing a home that was suitable for the child’s needs. “Because of this the child and their family spent far too long living in a place that was fundamentally not good enough.”She added that it was “possible that the councils have now spent significantly more on changing the property following the initial works than they would have done had they got it right in the first place.” It was determined that the child and their family were residing in an inappropriate dwelling, leading Bromsgrove District Council to acknowledge the family’s homeless status. Although a suitable property for adaptation was identified, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman stated that the councils made a catalogue of errors during the process of modifying the residence to meet the family’s requirements. The Ombudsman noted that the authorities neglected to account for the child’s small room and the future necessity for a larger bed as the child developed. The child’s bedroom was of such limited dimensions that complete access around their hospital bed was not possible. The councils deliberated for an excessive period on whether to enlarge the bedroom by reducing kitchen space, an option that would have deprived the family of a communal seating area for meals, rather than pursuing a more extensive property expansion. Modifications to the garden resulted in the child being able to access only a small patio, with the remainder of the garden reachable solely via steps. An inquiry revealed that the property adaptation work exceeded the appropriate timeframe and yet failed to satisfy the child’s needs, necessitating subsequent substantial modifications. During the period of home renovations, the child was required to spend six weeks in temporary care, separated from their family.