Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council converted her bathroom into a shower room in 2018 but the work failed to meet her needs because of inadequate space and the Council has failed to resolve the matter. We found the Council was at fault in that the adaptations completed in 2018 did not meet Mrs B’s needs. As a result, she was left with an unsuitable bathroom causing her distress and inconvenience. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs B in recognition of this.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complains that the Council converted her bathroom into a shower room in 2018 but, a month later, agreed the work was unsuitable because of lack of space. She says the work failed to meet her needs and the Council has failed to resolve the matter causing her stress and inconvenience.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. 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)
3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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 provided by Mrs B, made enquiries of the Council and considered its comments and the documents it provided.
6. Mrs B 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

Key facts

7. Mrs B is a Council tenant. She has various health issues affecting her mobility. She says she and her husband decided to refurbish their bathroom and install a walk-in shower because she was having difficulties getting into the bath. They began purchasing items in late 2017 and planned to start the work in January 2018. In December 2017 Mrs B told her housing officer of her plans. The officer explained she could not do the works without the Council’s permission and encouraged her to contact the occupational therapy (OT) service for help.
8. In January 2018, an OT visited and completed an assessment. She noted Mrs B needed assistance from her husband to get into and out of the bath and recommended converting the bathroom into a wet room. Mrs B says she explained to the OT that she and her husband were planning to do the work themselves and materials had already been delivered. She asked for permission to have a shower tray instead of a wet room and use the wall and floor tiles she had already purchased.
9. The OT prepared a specification which stated that the Housing Adaptations Team (HAT) should supply and install a “completely flush floor, no lip or step acceptable” and that they should supply and fit “Altro Marine T20 slip resistant floor covering (or similar) to whole bathroom floor”.
10. Mrs B says that, in February 2018, another OT asked her to sign the consent form for the works to be completed. Mrs B said she wanted a shower tray to prevent the floor becoming wet and slippery and was waiting to hear whether she could use the shower tray and tiles she had purchased.
11. Mrs B says that, on 12 October 2018, the OT visited to discuss the shower tray and tiles. She said she would check whether the floor tiles would be allowed and would let her know.
12. On 28 November 2018, the contractors told Mrs B they would start the works on 3 December 2018. Mrs B explained she was still waiting to hear from the OT about the shower tray and tiles. She telephoned the OT office and was told that her OT was no longer assigned to her case. The Council’s notes of the conversation show the OT explained her concerns about any modification that could affect mobility and access but Mrs B was adamant she wanted the shower tray and tiles.
13. Mrs B says another OT visited the following day and, having looked at the floor tiles, said she could see no reason why they could not be used but would let her know.
14. A case note dated 30 November 2018 states that Mrs B’s request for a level access shower was reviewed by the OT. She noted “client has requested the tiles she purchased be installed on the walls”. She sent an email to HAT asking whether Mrs B could use her own tiles on the bathroom wall. The same day Mrs B signed a new consent form with the amended specification including a level access shower tray.
15. On 6 December 2018 the HAT manager sent an email to the OT saying, “all changes have been agreed and will be included in the works”.
16. Mrs B says that on 6 December 2018, before the works were completed, she raised concerns with the contractor about lack of space in the bathroom. The contractor contacted HAT about this and to check whether the floor tiles could be used. Mrs B says HAT told the contractor to proceed with the work because it was too late to change the work plan and remove the wall. The contractor also said HAT had approved the floor tiles.
17. On 19 December 2018, following completion of the works, Mrs B contacted HAT saying space had been lost when boxing-in pipes for the shower which had left very little room to manoeuvre. She said it was very difficult to function in the room and she had burned herself on the heated towel rail.
18. On 1 February 2019 HAT visited to see what they could do to improve the situation and requested an OT assessment. Mrs B wanted to explore removing the wall separating the toilet from the bathroom to give her more turning space.
19. An OT visited in June 2019 and found the space “very restrictive”. She said space had been lost from the width of the room because of having to box in the pipes for the shower. She said, “the area of the room is very confined particularly for client to use her crutches to mobilise”. The OT said she had been unable to find any liaison between OT and HAT surveyors about plans for the bathroom and said the area “does not have the potential to meet client’s present or future needs.” She recommended a review by a surveyor to consider whether more space could be achieved by combining the shower area with the separate toilet area. This would also enable the heated towel rail to be relocated.
20. A senior OT reviewed the request. She said, although Mrs B’s request for an enclosed shower area had been authorised by senior officers, the resulting shower tray was less than 700 mm and was not meeting Mrs B’s needs. It was impossible for her to manoeuvre with crutches without putting herself at risk of falls and she had burned herself on the heated towel rail. She said, “I cannot see any plans from the surveyor on file to be approved before the works are completed. Scaled plans identifying the space available would have raised alarm bells”. She referred the matter to HAT and recommended combining the toilet room with the shower room and creating one doorway. She considered this would meet Mrs B’s future needs as well as her immediate ones.
21. In January 2020 there was a joint visit by the OT and the surveyor. The surveyor considered it was feasible to remove the wall between the shower room and toilet, close up one of the doors and widen the other one. He also recommended re-positioning the toilet and wash basin and changing the shower tray to a wet floor shower area.
22. The OT completed new specifications and drawings and sent them to the senior OT for authorisation. The senior OT completed a referral to HAT in February 2020.
23. In March 2020 the UK went into a national lockdown as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, the Council implemented various safe working practices and only urgent cases were progressed.
24. In August 2020 HAT completed a feasibility visit and assigned the case to a surveyor. In November 2020, HAT agreed the works would go ahead because of Mrs B’s risk of falls.
25. The contractors completed a technical survey and reported that Mrs B wanted to use her own floor tiles instead of the recommended floor covering. HAT did not consider this to be feasible and contacted the OT for advice.
26. The senior OT’s notes record that Mrs B was reluctant to accept the Altro flooring and “in the same way that she was able to sign a disclaimer and source and fund nonslip tiling for the flooring and tiling on the walls, she would like to be able to do the same again with the revision of the bathroom”. The notes stated the allocated OT had been trying to support Mrs B in her choice of flooring but there remained some points of contention:
• removing the wall between the toilet and bathroom would enable the shower area to be wider, but the footprint of the whole area and circulation space would be compromised by the installation of a shower tray;
• Mrs B would like tiling butted up to the shower tray. This may create unevenness between the tiled flooring and tray;
• HAT were not prepared to change their position on the flooring. They considered it was in Mrs B’s best interest to use an Altro flooring or similar throughout the whole area to create a wet room. Mrs B did not agree and wanted a shower tray and tiled flooring;
• the OT had sent drawings to Mrs B explaining that, as she mobilises with her frame, the changing heights between the tiled flooring and shower tray may create instability. Mrs B said she no longer used a frame and only a walking stick. The OT explained that, at some time in the future, she may need a frame.
27. On 27 November 2020 the surveyor telephoned Mrs B to discuss the issues. The OT also telephoned Mrs B and explained the aim of the adaptations was to meet her present and future needs, particularly as the first bathroom had not done so. She said the best way to do this was to maximise circulation space and reduce obstacles and tripping hazards. She said that, even when the wall was removed, the space would not be very large, and it would be better to have a wet floor area instead of a shower tray.
28. A few days later Mrs B sent an email to the surveyor saying she wanted to retain the floor tiles which had been approved by the Council in 2018 and keep the shower tray in its current position but remove the wall, widen the doorway and reposition the toilet, wash basin and heated towel rail.
29. The surveyor explained that the OT’s recommendations formed the basis of the specification and HAT was obliged to follow those recommendations. He said they used Altro floor covering because it is considered one of the market leaders in safety flooring for wet areas and it is the right product for safe bathing. In addition, the Council had to consider future repairs and maintenance. He explained that, if a resident installed their own products, the Council would not be responsible for repairing or replacing them which could compromise the bathroom adaptations if there was a fault in future. He confirmed HAT could not agree Mrs B’s request to use her own floor tiles and that, if she did not agree to the Altro floor covering, the work would have to be put on hold.
30. Mrs B said she wanted the work carried out but would be seeking legal advice as she wanted to retain her own floor tiles.
31. The OT discussed the situation with Mrs B again and encouraged her to reconsider.
32. Mrs B raised the issue with the Leader of the Council who asked the HAT Manager to respond. He did so on 22 December 2020 explaining that, although HAT tried to be as flexible as possible when planning and arranging adaptations in residents’ homes, there were certain elements of the works which could not be changed. This included floor coverings for wet rooms/level access shower facilities. He again explained the reasons for this.
33. The works remain on hold because no agreement has been reached.

Analysis

34. The Council has not been able to provide a formal OT assessment completed in 2018 but only a case note of the OT’s visit. The note refers to the fact that Mrs B’s husband had to lift her in and out of the bath as she was unable to lift her legs up to the height of the bath. Although the OT recommended a wet room, there is no evidence to show that consideration was given to whether Mrs B would need assistance from her husband in accessing the shower and, if so, whether there was enough space for them both to manoeuvre in the room. There is no detailed information about how the OT assessed whether the proposed works would be sufficient to meet Mrs B’s needs either at the time or in future. When the senior OT reviewed the matter in June 2019, she found the new bathroom “does not have the potential to meet client’s present or future needs”. She also said, “I cannot see any plans from the surveyor on file to be approved before the works are completed. Scaled plans identifying the space available would have raised alarm bells”.
35. The Council has now provided copies of the scaled plans and emails from November/December 2018 which support the existence of those plans. So it is clear that scaled plans were, in fact, prepared at the time.
36. The Council says it was ready to proceed with a wet room in December 2018 but, because of Mrs B’s insistence on a shower tray and floor tiles, this did not happen. It says, if it had proceeded with its original plans, Mrs B would not have been inconvenienced in the way she has.
37. I find that, in view of the senior OT’s comments, the Council should have realised in 2018 that Mrs B’s plans would not meet her needs and either insisted on the wet room recommended by the OT or looked at alternative options, such as removing the wall between the bathroom and the toilet.
38. If the Council had put in place suitable adaptations in 2018 as it should have done, Mrs B would not be in the position she now is. The Council’s failure to ensure the proposed works were suitable to meet Mrs B’s needs meant she was left with unsuitable adaptations in December 2018 causing her distress and inconvenience.
39. Mrs B raised concerns about lack of space as soon the works were completed in 2018. The Council accepted there was a problem but it was not until February 2020 that new specifications were prepared and sent to HAT. This was a significant delay. Shortly after this, restrictions were imposed because of COVID-19 and this inevitably impacted on progress. In November 2020 HAT agreed to proceed with the works but a further delay was caused by the dispute between Mrs B and HAT regarding the flooring.
40. I find no grounds to criticise the Council’s decision to refuse Mrs B’s request to use her own floor tiles. I am satisfied HAT acted correctly by referring the matter to the OT for their view on whether a tiled floor would be appropriate. The OT confirmed tiles were not suitable for safety reasons. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to question the merits of this decision which is a matter for the OT’s professional judgement.
41. Mrs B says the Council allowed her to keep her tiled flooring in December 2018 so it should honour this agreement. The Council says it was unaware of this decision until December 2020 when Mrs B asked to use her own floor tiles as she had done in 2018. It says the surveyor, OT and HAT all explained to Mrs B that there was never an agreement in 2018 that she could use her own floor tiles and that the Council had a policy on the type of floor coverings used for bathroom adaptations which did not include residents choosing their own floor tiles.
42. The Council introduced a new service standard in 2018 in relation to bathroom adaptations carried out for Council tenants, owner occupiers, private tenants and housing association tenants. The standard states, “Safety floor covering/Altro or equivalent-residents to have a choice of colour. Residents cannot arrange for their own choice of floor tiles to be used”.
43. Allowing Mrs B to use her own floor tiles in 2018 would have gone against the Council’s service standard. However, there is evidence it did agree. On 6 December 2018 the HAT manager sent an email to the contractor referring to an email from the OT asking whether some slight changes could be made to the specification. The HAT manager said, “I explained that the tiles have been sorted and we have agreed for the residents to supply their own on this occasion”. Although the email does not specifically state HAT had agreed to Mrs B using her own floor tiles, the evidence suggests the Council did agree to her using her own wall and floor tiles. This is what Mrs B was asking for and this was what ultimately happened. In addition, when the OT visited on 7 January 2019 following completion of the works, the floor was tiled. HAT also visited on 1 February 2019 to see how they could improve the situation. So, the Council was aware that floor tiles had been used immediately after the works were completed, if not before.
44. Irrespective of the decision that was made in 2018, the Council was entitled to decide in 2020 that tiles were not suitable. HAT took advice from the OT and has explained the reasons for its decision which is in accordance with its service standards. In these circumstances, there are no grounds to criticise the decision.

Back to top

Agreed action

45. The Council has agreed to pay Mrs B £1,800 in recognition of the fact that the works carried out in December 2018 failed to meet her needs and she had to struggle with an unsuitable bathroom between December 2018 and February 2020 when the Council was ready to carry out further works. The delays after that were attributable to COVID-19 and the disagreement between Mrs B and the Council. So, I have not recommended a remedy for that period.

Back to top

Final decision

46. I find the Council was at fault in that it failed to put in place suitable adaptations in 2018 causing Mrs B distress and inconvenience.
47. I also find the Council delayed in preparing new specifications after Mrs B raised concerns about lack of space immediately following completion of the works causing further distress and inconvenience.
48. I find no grounds to criticise the decision taken by the Council in 2020 that floor tiles were not suitable.
49. I have completed my investigation on the basis that the Council has agreed to implement the recommended remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman