Key Points
- A family in Brent, North London, has been awarded £1,500 in compensation by the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) due to delays by Brent Council in adapting their council home for their severely disabled adult son, referred to as Mr C.
- Mr C suffers from severe physical and learning difficulties, lacks mental capacity to complain himself, and lives with his mother (Mrs B) and two siblings.
- Childhood adaptations to the ground-floor bedroom and bathroom—made by halving the living room—have become inadequate as Mr C has outgrown them amid his deteriorating condition.
- Key delays included failure to install a front-door ramp and provide a hoist, plus inadequate needs assessment.
- In February 2023, an occupational therapist assessment highlighted the existing ramp’s excessive steepness, risking carer injuries, and the bathroom’s insufficient size for Mr C’s wheelchair and future care needs, including seizures on the toilet.
- The therapist recommended a hoist for transfers, potentially a mobile one interim while awaiting permanent fixes.
- Mrs B lodged a formal complaint on behalf of Mr C, triggering the LGO investigation that faulted the council.
Brent (North London News) January 27, 2026 – A family has received £1,500 compensation after Brent Council delayed vital home adaptations for their severely disabled adult son in a council property. The Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) ruled the council at fault for procrastination on installing a front ramp and providing a hoist, alongside flawed assessments of the son’s evolving needs.
The son, anonymised as Mr C in the LGO report, resides with his mother (Mrs B) and two siblings, grappling with profound physical and learning disabilities that bar him from complaining independently. Ground-floor modifications to his bedroom and bathroom, implemented during his childhood by shrinking the living room, no longer suffice given his growth and worsening health.
What Triggered the Family’s Complaint?
Mrs B formally complained to Brent Council on her son’s behalf, citing his “lack of mental capacity” as per the LGO findings. She sought further alterations because Mr C had outgrown the existing setup as “his condition had deteriorated”, the report detailed.
A pivotal occupational therapist visit occurred in February 2023, where the family voiced struggles with the current front ramp—too steep for Mrs B to manoeuvre Mr C’s wheelchair without strain. They also flagged the bathroom’s cramped dimensions, inadequate for his enlarged frame and prospective care demands.
The therapist observed that Mr C endures seizures while seated on the toilet, rendering relocation perilous for carers unable to shift him safely. This assessment crystallized the urgency for upgrades, yet the council tarried.
Why Did the Occupational Therapist Deem Adaptations Essential?
The council’s occupational therapist explicitly warned that the front ramp’s gradient endangered carers, heightening injury risks during wheelchair pushes. Given Mr C’s decline, a hoist emerged as critical for transfers—possibly a mobile variant as a stopgap pending fixed installations.
These recommendations underscored Brent Council’s prior shortcomings in reassessing Mr C’s needs post-childhood adaptations. The LGO investigation pinpointed this as a core fault, alongside the outright delays in procurement and fitting.
As the report noted, the family’s council home had been partially reconfigured years ago, but evolving requirements demanded prompt action that was not forthcoming.
What Faults Did the Local Government Ombudsman Identify?
The LGO probe, initiated by Mrs B’s grievance, held Brent Council accountable across multiple fronts. Primary lapses involved stalling the ramp replacement and hoist supply, both vital for Mr C’s mobility and safety.
Moreover, the ombudsman criticised the council’s deficient evaluation of Mr C’s requirements, failing to adapt to his adult stature and intensified medical profile. This oversight prolonged vulnerability for Mr C and undue burden on Mrs B and siblings.
The £1,500 payout reflects remedy for “significant injustice” from these delays, per standard LGO protocol in such maladministration cases. No additional remedies, like expedited works, were specified in the provided details.
How Has Mr C’s Condition Impacted Daily Life?
Mr C’s severe physical impairments necessitate constant home support, amplified by learning difficulties. Seizures on the toilet exemplify acute risks, where family members struggle to intervene amid spatial constraints.
The wheelchair ramp’s steepness compounds this, exposing carers—including Mrs B—to physical harm during routine navigation. Deterioration has rendered juvenile-era bedroom and bathroom mods obsolete, squeezing the halved living room further.
Living with his mother and siblings in the Brent property highlights dependence on council housing provisions, now deemed wanting by the LGO.
What Steps Did Brent Council Take—or Fail to Take—Post-Assessment?
Following the February 2023 therapist report, Brent Council did not promptly action the ramp or hoist directives. This inertia forms the LGO’s central censure, marking maladministration.
The family had flagged these issues during the visit, yet implementation lagged, exacerbating hardships. The ombudsman report, while not detailing timelines exhaustively, confirms delays as systemic rather than isolated.
No statements from Brent Council appear in the core account, though LGO rulings typically prompt remedial pledges; specifics remain unoutlined here.
Who Is Responsible for Mr C’s Care and Adaptations?
Mrs B shoulders primary caregiving, advocating via the complaint due to Mr C’s incapacity. Siblings contribute in the household, strained by inadequacies.
Brent Council, as housing and social services provider, bears statutory duties under disability laws like the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 for adaptations. The occupational therapist, a council employee, supplied the expert input ignored in execution.
The LGO, an independent arbiter, validated the family’s stance through its fault-finding report.
What Broader Context Surrounds Council Delays in North London?
This incident mirrors recurring LGO adjudications against councils nationwide for disability adaptation backlogs, often tied to funding strains and administrative bottlenecks. In Brent, a diverse North London borough, social care demands intensify amid population growth.
Similar cases have spotlighted ramps, hoists, and extensions as flashpoints, with ombudsman awards compensating distress absent physical harm. Advocacy groups like Scope routinely flag such delays, urging swifter compliance.
The LGO’s role ensures accountability, compelling councils to rectify via payments and process reforms.
When and How Was the Compensation Decided?
The LGO investigation culminated in the fault determination and £1,500 award, though exact publication eludes the immediate report—aligned with recent North London scrutiny. Mrs B’s post-February 2023 complaint propelled the review.
Compensation quantifies non-financial detriment, such as prolonged anxiety and disrupted care routines. Families may pursue judicial review sans LGO recourse, but this resolution averts litigation.
Why Does This Matter for Families with Disabled Dependants?
Delays imperil health and safety, as Mr C’s seizure episodes illustrate, while eroding trust in public bodies. For Brent residents reliant on council homes, this underscores vigilance in enforcing rights.
The verdict reinforces ombudsman efficacy, potentially accelerating Brent Council’s outstanding works for this family. It signals to other North London boroughs like neighbouring Harrow or Ealing on adaptation imperatives.
What Happens Next for the Family and Brent Council?
The £1,500 redress addresses injustice, but practical fixes—ramp and hoist—remain pivotal. LGO decisions often mandate timelines for compliance, though not detailed herein.
Mrs B may monitor progress, escalating if needed, while Mr C’s care continuity hinges on swift delivery. Brent Council faces reputational and procedural pressure to preempt future rulings.
This case amplifies calls for ringfenced disability housing funds amid austerity.
