Birmingham City Council (17 016 640)

Category : Adult care services > Disabled facilities grants

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 03 Jun 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Ms B complains the Council started building works to her home that were not in line with agreed plans. Ms B says the Council has not finished the works, so she is living in poor conditions in her home. The Ombudsman does not find fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms B, complains about how the Council has managed the building of alterations to her home. She says the alterations being built are different to what she agreed. She says the Council lied to her about the size of the alterations it could build. Ms B also says the Council has produced fraudulent plans with her brother’s signature on them, but which he did not sign. Ms B says she is now living in her front room, without a finished kitchen, as the Council has not completed the works.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
  2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
  3. 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

  1. I considered the information Ms B provided. I spoke to Ms B about the complaint then made enquiries of the Council. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Ms B and the Council for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Normally any development of land will need planning permission. However, certain developments are considered ‘permitted developments’ and therefore do not need planning permission.
  2. Before 2013, the maximum depth of an extension to a terrace house under permitted development rights was three metres, for a single storey rear extension. In 2013, the government introduced temporary legislation to allow up to six metres. This legislation is now in force until May 2019.
  3. The larger extensions, up to six metres, must go through prior approval, which includes a neighbour consultation. If the Council receives no objections from neighbours, it will grant prior approval.

Background

  1. Ms B suffers with chronic pain, which means she is bed bound nearly all the time and needs to use a wheelchair. She cannot get up the stairs in her home so needs to sleep downstairs. Ms B was sleeping in her front room and applied to council for a disabled facility grant, for adaptions to her home.
  2. In 2013, the Council explored the idea of fitting a lift so Ms B could access the upstairs of her property. Ms B found it difficult to use lifts and provided evidence in support of this. The Council therefore agreed to discuss building an extension that would provide a bedroom and level access shower on the ground floor.
  3. The Council initially agreed to provide a grant so Ms B could build an extension of three metres to the back of Ms B’s house, which would accommodate a bedroom. Ms B said this would not provide adequate space and asked the Council to consider a larger bedroom. The Council said it could not build anything any larger without planning permission and the extension met Ms B’s needs.
  4. The Council had further discussions with Ms B and her representative up until mid-2014. The Council eventually agreed to build a four-metre extension and obtained prior approval from the planning team to build the extension as a permitted development.
  5. Ms B was still concerned about the size of the extension but the Council said it was adequate to meet her needs. Discussions went on for another year as Ms B did not agree to the Council’s design. During this time Ms B made complaints about the Council officers involved in the case as she said they were not listening to her concerns.
  6. In June 2015 Ms B had a meeting with officers from the Council. At this meeting officers showed Ms B plans of the proposed works. The Council says Ms B agreed to the plans and her brother, Mr C, signed on her behalf.
  7. Mr C’s signature appears on two plans. One shows an internal layout of the property the Council says it agreed. The other plan is the one submitted to the planning team for approval. It shows a different internal layout. The Council says this is because the internal layout is not relevant to planning permission, only the outward dimensions of the extension, which are the same on both.
  8. Ms B says the occupational therapist (“OT”) bullied her into accepting the plans by saying she would take her property away from her if she did not. The OT denied saying this and says she could not have taken the property away is it is owned by Ms B.
  9. A drainage pipe runs underneath Ms B’s garden and, to build the extension the Council needed to move this. The local water company agreed to move the pipe around the extension, which meant carrying out work to neighbouring gardens as well as Ms B’s. Neighbours agreed to the works.
  10. The proposed bedroom has no exterior windows as it is in the mid-section of a terraced property. The Council agreed to install skylights in the bedroom to allow light in.
  11. Works started on the extension in late 2015. Ms B says the Council gave the builders the wrong plan. She says it is not being built in line with what she agreed. Ms B says the plan with Mr C’s signature on it, is not what he signed. Ms B says the Council has committed fraud as Mr C would not have signed that plan as it is not what she agreed. The Council says it is the plan Mr C signed and Ms B was there when he did so.
  12. Ms B raised concerns about the builders on several occasions. She said she felt intimidated by the builders. In February 2016 Ms B asked for the builders to leave.
  13. Ms B says she asked for the builders to leave because she had taken an overdose of her medication and could not, at that time, handle the noise they were making. She says she did not ask for them to leave permanently, only on that day. The Council says Ms B asked the builders to stop work indefinitely and has not given her permission for them to return since.
  14. In March 2016 Ms B complained to the Council. She said the extension was being built smaller than agreed. She said it was not practical for a disabled person and there was no room in her kitchen to move around. Ms B complained the Council had lied to her when it said she could only have a four-metre extension due to planning requirements. She had spoken to someone in the planning team who said she was allowed six metres.
  15. The Council visited the property. It said the works were being completed to the size and design of the agreed plan. It would not build the extension any bigger as planning restrictions would not allow this, the water company would not re-direct the drainage pipe any further and the current extension size met Ms B’s needs. The Council offered to come back and complete the works but Ms B did not agree to this.
  16. Ms B says the new kitchen does not allow her enough storage space for her utensils. The Council says this is because, after the works started, Ms B bought a dryer that had not been factored into the plan. Ms B says having a dryer is essential to her everyday needs. The Council says it can accommodate this but needs to remove a storage unit. It offered to put extra wall units in. Ms B maintains the space is not large enough and is not what the Council promised.
  17. Ms B’s representative raised concerns with her MP and local councillor. The councillor asked the Council to conduct an impartial investigation. Between June and July 2016, an officer from the adult care and housing team at the Council investigated the concerns. The officer did not find any wrongdoing in how the Council had managed the building of the adaptions.
  18. A further investigation was carried out by a Council officer from a different team between September and December 2016. The officer visited and interviewed Ms B.
  19. The officer wrote to Ms B in January 2017 with his findings. He said, while Ms B clearly believe the OT had threatened to take her property, this may have been because of the stress she was under in the circumstances. He did not have evidence the OT said this and she would not have been able to take it away.
  20. The officer’s finding was that Mr C had signed the plans, although Mr C did not agree they represented the agreed scheme. The officer said it may have been possible to build a larger extension but there was no guarantee it would get planning permission and the water company were unlikely to relocate the drains by more than they had done.
  21. The officer heard from the OT that the layout was designed to allow Ms B room to move around in a wheelchair. However, it is not clear from the officer’s report what finding he made on this point.
  22. The officer found the Council had endeavoured to provide a scheme that met Ms B’s needs. He recommended a compromise, which involved changing the design to create a larger dining space, but while using some of Ms B’s front room for her bedroom. Ms B has not agreed to this course of action and the works remain incomplete.

Analysis

  1. Ms B received an outcome to her complaint in January 2017. Normally we will not investigate complaints if received more than 12 months after this point. However, as this is an ongoing issue and the works to Ms B’s house remain incomplete, I have used my discretion to investigate the matter.
  2. I do not find fault in the Council’s actions. The Council has identified Ms B’s needs and provided a scheme of adaptions to her home in order to meet those needs.
  3. I understand Ms B’s complaint is that the Council lied to her about what it was going to do. However, Mr C’s signature does appear on the plans. I have not been able to interview anyone who was present at the meeting in June 2015. However, those people confirmed during the Council’s investigations that these are the plans they showed and agreed with Ms B and Mr C at that meeting.
  4. I do not have any evidence the Council has forged Mr C’s signature on that plan. I would not be able to investigate any allegation of fraud as this is a criminal matter.
  5. I note that two plans were shown to Ms B and Mr C. One is the plan submitted to the planning team. The other shows the internal layout that is now being built. The internal layouts on the two plans are different, the first showing no changes to the house other than the addition of a bedroom to the back. This plan was only an outline submitted to the planning team with the correct external measurements, as the internal layout is not relevant to planning. It meant the internal layout could be changed in agreement with Ms B without applying for prior approval again.
  6. Ms B says she asked the Council not to touch her kitchen. This could suggest she thought the first plan (with no internal changes) showed what the Council would build. Having not been able to speak to someone present at the meeting, I cannot test how well it was explained to Ms B that the second plan showed the actual internal layout.
  7. However, looking at Ms B’s letters to the Council. Ms B talks about the kitchen being at the back of the house. She talks about having skylights in her bedroom and having a shower. These remarks are all consistent with the second plan, not the first. On balance then, I can only conclude that Ms B was aware the second plan showed the internal layout.
  8. Ms B suggests she was shown a different plan to either of the two available. However, I do not have any evidence Ms B was shown a different plan at the meeting. The two plans in question have Mr C’s signature on them. Without any evidence to the contrary, I can only find, on balance, that Ms B agreed to the design put forward in the second plan.
  9. On each of the plans the external size of the extension is the same. Ms B’s main complaint appears to be that the Council should have built a larger extension. I cannot find fault in how the Council considered the size of the extension it would build. The professionals involved are all satisfied the size and layout of the design meets Ms B’s needs and it is not my place to question this decision.
  10. I note there does appear to be some discrepancy about what the Council said it could achieve from a planning perspective. It told Ms B quite clearly that planning restrictions meant it could not build anything bigger than four metres. This is not entirely accurate, as it could have built up to six metres. It would have needed to consult with neighbours, and may not have been given planning permission, but the outcome of that consultation cannot be known. The Council should not have told Ms B something that was not accurate, even if there was no guarantee it would get planning permission for something bigger.
  11. However, it remains that the water company would not have redirected the drainage pipe any further, meaning the extension could not be built bigger. It also remains that the extension size meets Ms B’s needs. The Council therefore does not have a duty to build anything larger.
  12. I understand Ms B’s concerns that the kitchen is not large enough to fit her new dryer and units, all of which she considers are necessary to her everyday life. However, the Council has done all it can to accommodate this within the existing footprint of the extension and has suggested a reasonable compromise to reach a solution to the matter.
  13. It is clear Ms B has been living in conditions she should not have to live in for several years now. Her house is unfinished, meaning she cannot use her kitchen and still sleeps in her front room. However, I cannot find that this is because of fault by the Council. It remains open to Ms B to respond to the Council’s compromise agreement or to allow work to continue as originally planned.
  14. The Council has met with Ms B several times and conducted two investigations. It has responded to correspondence from Ms B and tried to reach a solution. I therefore cannot find fault in how the Council has responded to Ms B’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. The Council is not at fault in how it delivered this disabled facility grant or responded to Mrs B’s complaints.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings