Summary: there were significant faults in the way the Council managed a Disabled Facilities Grant to build a sensory room for Ms Y’s disabled child. This caused injustice to Ms Y and her child, X. The Council accepts our findings and has agreed to provide a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. Ms Y complains about the way the Council managed a Disabled Facilities Grant awarded to fund a sensory room for her disabled son, X. In particular, she complains about:
• unreasonable delay in completing the works;
• the poor quality of work by the building contractors;
• the room not being fit for purpose: she says it was not built in accordance with the approved plans and is not large enough for her son to use all the sensory equipment he needs;
• the building contractors caused damage to her home and belongings;
• the disruption to her family caused by the delay in completing works and the need to move temporarily out of the property;
• outstanding defects and damage still need to be put right.
2. Ms Y is pleased that the Service Director upheld most of her complaints at the final stage of the Council’s complaints procedure. But she does not consider the apology and offer to pay £100 is an adequate remedy for the disruption, delay and inconvenience she and her family suffered.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered all the information Ms Y sent me, including photographs of the completed works and the damage to the property.
6. I considered the Council’s response to my enquires and evidence from its records.
7. Ms Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Disabled Facilities Grants – the relevant law and Cornwall Council’s agency service

8. Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs) are provided under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Councils have a legal duty to provide grant aid to disabled people for certain adaptations. Before it approves a grant, a council must be satisfied the work is necessary and suitable to meet the disabled person’s needs. It must also be satisfied that the work is reasonable and practicable.
9. A DFG can be awarded to make the home safe for a disabled occupier and other people who live with him or her.
10. The maximum award is £30,000. A council may award other discretionary help if it thinks that is necessary.
11. Cornwall Council has an in-house Home Improvement Agency - Cornwall Home Solutions - which applicants may instruct to manage the entire DFG process on their behalf. It provides the following services:
• designing a scheme based on the Occupational Therapist’s assessment of the disabled occupier’s needs;
• getting tenders for the grant approved works from building contractors;
• supporting the applicant with selecting the building contractor;
• overseeing the progress of work on site;
• checking the applicant is satisfied with the works and making payments to the building contractor;
• liaising with the applicant and building contractor to remedy disputes;
• ensuring works are completed in accordance with the Occupational Therapist’s design brief.

Ms Y’s circumstances

12. Ms Y lives with her two children in a Housing Association property. Her eldest child, X, is disabled. He has autism, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Tourette’s Syndrome and a sensory processing disorder. Due to his disabilities, he has challenging behaviour and sometimes assaults other people and causes damage in the home.
13. X needs a safe space where he can use a range of sensory equipment to calm and regulate his behaviour. X has his own bedroom but it is too small to store and use all the sensory equipment he needs.

The DFG application

14. In late May 2017 one of the Council’s paediatric Occupational Therapists completed a report making recommendations for a DFG to meet X’s needs. She recommended extending the ground floor open plan living/dining area to create a separate small room where X could go to use the sensory equipment. She quoted from an earlier Occupational Therapist’s assessment which said the space should be large enough for X to lie down on top of a peanut ball and roll forwards and backwards comfortably. There should also be enough space for a large beanbag and a hanging bar. She did not specify the optimum size of the room.
15. In November 2017 Ms Y signed a form authorising Cornwall Home Solutions to act as her agent for the DFG application.
16. Later that month a surveyor from Cornwall Home Solutions inspected the property and prepared drawings for a proposed single storey rear ground floor extension. The sensory safe room would be accessed by a door leading off the open plan living/dining room.
17. The drawings did not state the dimensions of the room. A note on the drawing said “do not scale from drawing – written dimensions only to be used”.
18. The Occupational Therapist signed the drawing to say it met X’s assessed needs. Ms Y also signed the plan to confirm she had discussed the drawings with the Occupational Therapist and was happy to proceed.
19. In June 2018 the Cornwall Home Solutions surveyor prepared a schedule of grant works. The approved works included building the extension, installing underfloor heating and providing a new concrete floor screed. They did not include fitting floor coverings. Around the same time the surveyor prepared a new set of scaled drawings which gave the internal dimensions of the sensory room. These new drawings were not signed by Ms Y or the Occupational Therapist.
20. The Council received two quotations for the grant works from building contractors. It approved a DFG based on the lower estimate of £32,400.
21. In December 2018 the Council approved the application for a Disabled Facilities Grant. It awarded the maximum amount of £30,000. Ms Y’s Housing Association paid a discretionary top-up grant to meet the extra costs and provide a contingency fund.
22. The surveyor and building contractors had a pre-contract meeting with Ms Y in mid-December 2018. The notes of the meeting refer to the schedule of works and revised drawings for the grant works. However it is not clear whether Ms Y was given a copy of them. The notes record a discussion about the practical arrangements for the building works and agreement that works would start in early January 2019.
23. The notes do not give an estimated completion date for the works. The Council says it would normally take about 13 weeks to complete this type of build. The notes say any changes to the approved works had to be agreed by the surveyor, the client and the building contractor.
24. Building works started as planned in early January. In late January the surveyor made a site visit to check progress. The contractors had started building the blockwork for the extension and Ms Y told him she was happy with progress so far.
25. About one week later, the surveyor informed the Occupational Therapist of a change to the approved scheme. The external wall of the extension next to the party wall with the neighbouring property had to be repositioned slightly to accommodate a change in ground levels and a tree. This reduced the internal width of the sensory room by about 100mm.
26. The surveyor said it was not possible to increase the size of the extension without getting new planning approval and permission from the Housing Association. There would also be additional costs in digging out new foundations and removing the existing blockwork.
27. The surveyor made a further site inspection in mid-February 2019 and prepared a works variation order. The width of the room was reduced by 100mm and the length of the room was increased to compensate for this. Ms Y signed the work variation order to confirm she agreed to this change.
28. In early February 2019 X was excluded from school and was at home during the day. The building contractor raised concerns that it was not safe to remove the existing patio doors, create the new opening into the extension and carry out electrical works with X in the house. The building contractor said it would take about five days to complete these works. Originally the contractors had planned to do electrical works while X was at school and leave the site safe at the end of each working day.
29. The electrical works were originally planned for the final week in February. But X was unexpectedly admitted to hospital in mid-February and Ms Y asked the building contractors to put work on hold. Her family could not move out of the house due to these unforeseen change in circumstances. The building contractor stopped work on the site while the Council discussed options with Ms Y for alternative accommodation for her and the children. The Council says it was difficult to find accommodation locally where X would be safe.
30. The Council’s Disabled Children & Therapy service agreed to fund a stay at a holiday site for Ms Y and the children in March 2019. The building contractors returned to the site in mid-March. The surveyor visited while the electricians were working on site. He noted that the building work was complete but the contractors had to return to decorate, remove rubbish and building materials, and make good.
31. After Ms Y returned to the property, she sent the surveyor a series of emails listing several snagging items and photographs. I have not listed every item individually here. In summary, she complained about the poor quality of the works and finish and said some work was still outstanding. She said the contractors had splashed cement over the glass and hinges on the patio doors and her patio table. She also complained that they fitted plyboard at the threshold with laminate flooring in the dining area when they made the new opening for the patio doors. She said this made the floor level uneven and it was unsightly. She wanted all the items on her snagging list to be put right.
32. The surveyor said the building contractor would return in the second week of April to decorate and install padding to the walls of the sensory room. He said he had asked the contractor to rectify some hazards Ms Y had pointed out before then.
33. In early April Ms Y contacted the surveyor to say she had been unexpectedly admitted to hospital. She returned home soon after.
34. In early May the building contractor returned to the site to complete some of the outstanding works and snagging items. The surveyor visited to check progress. He identified several items were still outstanding:
• cement still to be removed from patio door hinges and glass;
• cement splashes to be removed from underside of patio table;
• fill holes following the removal of the temporary external electrical socket;
• put grass seed on fresh topsoil in rear garden;
• refit radiator to the wall in the living/dining area;
• paint wall in dining area;
• remove trunking for the electrical socket and make good and decorate the wall;
• fill and decorate some areas.
35. In May 2019 the Council’s Disabled Children & Therapy team agreed to pay for floor covering in the sensory room. The Council says it was not possible to install fixed padded safety flooring with an underfloor heating system. So the Occupational Therapist offered to order a removable safety mat if Ms Y confirmed the room dimensions.
36. The installation of flooring was then delayed because the building contractor instructed a sub-contractor to carry out this work.
37. In late May Ms Y reported concerns that the flooring in the sensory room was a trip hazard because it was lifting. She also expressed concern that the window handle in the room was not strong enough because X had broken it.
38. In June the surveyor agreed to deal with the issues with the flooring, window handle and external decoration. The flooring sub-contractor returned in mid-June to rectify the problems with the flooring in the sensory room.
39. In early July 2019 a keyworker from Cornwall Housing Solutions and the Occupational Therapist visited Ms Y. They could not get access to the sensory room because it was full with stored household items. Miss Y told the officers that the issue with the flooring in the sensory room had been resolved. The keyworker noted some snagging items were still outstanding. She sent an email and photographs to the building contractor and asked him to return to rectify these.
40. The building contractors returned to carry out some further snagging works in mid-August.
41. In September 2019 the keyworker made a further site inspection and found some works had still not been completed to a satisfactory standard. In late September she asked the Council’s in-house handyperson service to complete the remedial and snagging works. In her email she said:

“the contractor has badly let us down with quality. The relationship with the client failed and thus they responded badly even to snagging requests”

42. The Council says its handyperson service completed the snagging works by 9 October 2019. Ms Y says she has since discovered some further defects when she moved furniture around in her home.
43. In December 2019 the building contractors confirmed that the flooring sub-contractors would replace the plyboard used at the threshold with the dining/living room area and lay a new vinyl floor covering. According to the Council’s records, Ms Y told the building contractor she did not want the disruption of works in the run-up to Christmas.
44. The Council accepts it took far too long to complete the grant works and snagging items. It says a few days were lost in the early stages of the build due to adverse weather and the temporary loss of the power supply. X’s exclusion from school was an unforeseen event. The contractor could not carry out electrical works when X was at home all day. Ms Y’s and X’s unexpected hospital admissions also led to temporary suspension of works. These events contributed to the delay but do not account for most of it.

Ms Y’s complaint to the Council

45. Ms Y took her complaint through both stages of the Council’s complaints procedure between July and September 2019.
46. In late September 2019 the Service Director upheld five parts of her complaint at the second stage of the Council’s complaints procedure:
• delay – he found this was due to the poor quality of work and the need for the contractor to revisit the site several times to remedy snagging items and defects;
• it was stressful for the family to have to move out temporarily;
• poor communication between the Cornwall Home Solutions keyworker, surveyor and Ms Y – a programme of work and timescale should have been provided to Ms Y at the pre-contract meeting – and officers should have notified her about delays and the reasons for them;
• the poor quality of work resulted in many months of snagging works and delayed completion;
• officers did not discuss with Ms Y at the pre-contract meeting the impact a new opening to the sensory room would have on the floor finish in the living/dining room area.

47. The Service Director said he would wait for recommendations from an independent Occupational Therapist’s report before deciding her complaint that the reduction in the width of the sensory room meant it was not fit for its intended purpose.
48. The Service Director apologised to Ms Y. He offered to put things right by appointing new contractors to complete the outstanding work and commissioning an independent OT to assess X’s needs and the space in the sensory room.
49. He told Ms Y the Council had learned lessons from her complaint. In future the pre-contract meeting would include a discussion with the client about the nature of the work and the impact on the property. Officers would also reach agreement on the specification and programme of works, including timescales and whether the client would need to move out of the property at any stage. Clients would be informed in writing of any delays and the reasons. Managers would intervene earlier in cases where there were delays or concerns about the building contractors.
50. The Council offered Ms Y £100 as a goodwill gesture to contribute to the costs she incurred when she moved temporarily out of her home for a week in March 2019. The Council also met the cost of the temporary accommodation.
51. Ms Y was not satisfied with this proposed remedy so she complained to the Ombudsman in December 2019.

Events following Ms Y’s complaint to the Ombudsman

52. In January 2020 the keyworker informed the Head of Cornwall Home Solutions that the building contractor said Ms Y had refused to agree to a time for the flooring contractor to have access.
53. Council officers then had further discussions with Ms Y about her preferred solution to the flooring issue. The Council agreed to provide new vinyl flooring for the entire living/dining area. A new flooring contractor was appointed in February 2020. However the contractor could not attend Ms Y’s home because all work was suspended due to the coronavirus outbreak.
54. In June 2020 the Council contacted Ms Y to ask if she and her family were shielding or whether they would allow the flooring contractor to carry out the works. Ms Y recently told me the flooring work has been completed.
55. The Council has now considered a report from an independent Occupational Therapist who visited Ms Y’s home to assess X’s needs in September 2019. This assessment happened more than two years after the original OT assessment for the DFG. The independent OT advised that the existing sensory room was not suitable for X. She recommended a new design and building a much larger extension for X. She also made recommendations about the type of equipment X would benefit from using.
56. The Council considered the independent Occupational Therapist’s report and a subsequent report from a specialist Occupational Therapist in its Disabled Children & Therapy team. It has decided it is not reasonable or practicable to carry out the recommended building works at the property. So it is now working with Ms Y and the Housing Association to find suitable alternative accommodation for the family. Meanwhile it will complete any minor works needed to make the property safe for X.

The Council’s new proposal for a remedy

57. In response to our enquiries, the Council proposed a new remedy of £2,000 made up as follows:
• £100 to honour its previous offer to pay a contribution to Ms Y’s expenses when she and her family stayed temporarily away from home for one week in March 2019;
• A further £150 towards these expenses;
• £300 to recognise Ms Y’s time and trouble;
• £1,000 for the distress caused to Ms Y and her family;
• £450 for the avoidable delays.
58. The Council also said it will review its approach to meeting the need for safe spaces in the home and produce a new guidance document.

My analysis

59. There was unreasonable delay in completing the grant works. The delay caused serious inconvenience, disruption and frustration to Ms Y and her family. As the Council’s role included overseeing the progress of works, and liaising with the building contractor, it is responsible for these delays.
60. The quality of the works done by the building contractor fell below acceptable standards and the snagging works dragged on for several months. This prolonged the inconvenience and stress for Ms Y and her family.
61. In my view, it was unavoidable that Ms Y and her children had to move out temporarily in March 2019 to allow the building contractor to carry out electrical works. I do not consider this could reasonably have been foreseen at the pre-contract meeting in December 2018 because X was still at school then. The building contractor’s original plan was to fit these works around X’s school day. But that plan had to change when X was excluded from school. So I do not consider the family’s temporary absence from their home could have been prevented by better planning due to the unexpected change in the family’s circumstances.
62. The dimensions of the sensory room were marginally different from the approved drawings for the DFG scheme. The width of the room was reduced by 100mm due to external constraints on the site. The surveyor approved this minor variation and Ms Y signed the works variation order. So the room was built in accordance with the approved scheme, as amended. It became apparent much later that the sensory room would not meet X’s needs following the independent OT’s assessment in September 2019.
63. The Council says X’s needs had changed since the OT assessment in 2017. As X was two years older, it is likely his needs had changed between the two assessments in May 2017 and September 2019. In my view it would have been appropriate for the OT and surveyor to have discussed the room size with Ms Y when the revised scaled drawings were prepared in June 2018. It is not clear from the evidence I have seen that Ms Y was told the proposed dimensions of the sensory room before building works started and given an opportunity to comment on the size.
64. The photographs and evidence from Cornwall Home Solutions officers confirm the works were not completed to an acceptable standard and the building contractor was slow to deal with all the snagging items. Eventually the Council appointed its in-house handyperson service to rectify the defects but in my view that should have happened sooner.
65. The Council has already apologised to Ms Y for its poor management of the DFG works. It has identified several learning points from Ms Y’s complaint and taken steps to improve its working practices and the communication between officers and clients. It has now proposed a much improved financial remedy for Ms Y. I consider the offer to pay £2,000 is a suitable remedy which properly recognises the distress, inconvenience and disruption Ms Y and her family suffered due to the Council’s faults.

Agreed action

66. Within one month of my final decision, the Council should:
• pay £600 to Ms Y and £1,400 to X which will be paid into his child trust fund account; and
• arrange for a surveyor to make a final inspection of the property to check if there are any other defects or snagging items which need to be completed.
67. Within two months of my final decision, the Council should send us a copy of its new guidance for officers in Cornwall Housing Solutions and the OT service on assessing DFGs for safe spaces in the home

Back to top

Final decision

68. I have completed the investigation and found the Council’s faults caused significant injustice to Ms Y and her son X.
69. The Council has agreed to provide a suitable remedy for the stress, disruption and inconvenience Ms Y and her family suffered.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman