Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of the bathroom work carried out under his disabled facilities grant application. The Council failed to communicate with Mr X while acting as his agent with the contractor. The Council will apologise and pay Mr X £100 to recognise the distress caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of the bathroom work carried out under his disabled facilities grant application. He says:

• the Council provided poor communication around workers coming to complete work.
• the work was not carried out over the shortest timeframe possible.
• the Council did not follow his instructions when arranging for the corrections to be carried out.

2. Mr X says this caused him to be distressed, to have to move furniture with his disability and be without a usable bathroom for an unreasonable period.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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:
• The information provided by Mr X and discussed the complaint with him;
• The Council’s comments on the complaint and the supporting information it provided; and
• Relevant law and guidance.
6. Mr X and the organisation 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

Law and guidance

7. Disabled Facilities Grants are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Councils have a statutory duty to give grants to disabled people for certain adaptations. Before approving a grant, a council must be satisfied the work is necessary, meets the disabled person’s needs, and is reasonable and practicable.
8. The March 2022 guidance identifies five key stages to delivering home adaptations:
9. Stage 1: First contact with the service. Councils should ensure the public has access to information and advice about the DFG process.
10. Stage 2: First contact to assessment and identification of the relevant works. An occupational therapist (OT) will assess the person’s needs and potential solutions through home adaptations.
11. Stage 3: Identification of the relevant works to submission of the formal grant application. The person completes and submits the application form together with designs and costing for the works (where necessary).
12. Stage 4: Grant application to grant decision. The Council will check the application and issue a decision letter. If a council refuses a grant, it must explain why.
13. Stage 5: Approval of grant to completion of works. The works are arranged and carried out and the necessary quality checks made.

Key events

14. Mr X asked for the Council to adapt his bathroom in March 2022. The Council directed a healthcare provider to carry out the assessment, and arrangements for the works. A schedule of works was agreed in June 2022 and approved by the Council in August 2022.
15. The works included the install of an over the bath shower, the temporary removal and reinstallation of the toilet and sink, installation of new flooring and new wall boarding.
16. Mr X entered a contract with the contractor the healthcare provider had arranged to carry out the works. The contract stated the healthcare provider would act as Mr X’s agent managing and administering the contract.
17. The contract stated the start date was to be confirmed. In the next box it noted the words one week. Though it did not specifically say this was the time the works were to take.
18. Despite the agreement Mr X spoke to the contractor directly to agree the date the works would begin. He says the contractor agreed to come on a Wednesday in late September 2022. He arranged for someone to help him moving furniture the evening before.
19. On the Tuesday the contractor attended the property to begin the works on the bathroom. In order for them to access the bathroom Mr X needed to move wardrobes out of the way. Which he had to do without help. The contractor completed the work over the following week.
20. Mr X raised concerns with the healthcare provider when the work was completed. He told them the contractor had swept rubbish under the bath rather than removing it and the toilet and sink had not been removed to allow for the floor installation. He also explained that water was overspilling the bath while showering.
21. Mr X did not want the same contractors to return to his property to fix his concerns. The healthcare provider told him they needed to be allowed an opportunity to correct the issues. The healthcare provider tried to arrange a time the contractor could return in October 2022 but it could not get an agreement from Mr X. Mr X responded in early November to agree to the contractor returning in the coming days.
22. The contractor attended Mr X property in mid-November and completed the outstanding works.
23. Mr X raised a complaint in late November 2022 that the toilet was leaking. The healthcare provider spoke with the contractor who confirmed they were attending the property to fix the leak. The following day the contractor told the healthcare provider the toilet would need to be replaced as the fault was due to age.

Findings

24. The contract said the healthcare provider would manage the contract on Mr X’s behalf. However, I have seen no evidence of any conversations either between him and the healthcare provider. Nor have I seen conversations between the healthcare provider and the contractor arranging timings for completing the work. I can understand why Mr X was not expecting the work to last a week when the healthcare provider has not explained it to him, and the contract was unclear on this. There was limited communication between those acting for the Council and Mr X and this has caused him confusion and frustration.
25. Although Mr X was not told the time frame for completing work, I determine from the contract the work was intended to last one week. As such I am not satisfied the work has taken longer than the contractor first said.
26. Mr X raised concerns the work had not been carried out sufficiently in early October. The healthcare provider promptly agreed to arrange for the issues to be rectified. I appreciate that Mr X did not want the same contractors to come back to the property. I do consider it reasonable the healthcare provider allowed the contractor the opportunity to rectify the work in the first instance.

Back to top

Agreed action

27. Within one month of the final decision the Council will:
• Apologise to Mr X for its failure to communicate with him around the length of time the works would take and the start date while acting as his agent.
• Pay Mr X £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the fault identified above.
28. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to injustice. The Council will apologise and take action to address the personal injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman