Summary: Ms B says the Council failed to deal with a disabled facilities grant properly. The Council delayed telling Ms B about the amount she would have to repay if she sold her mother’s property which caused her some frustration. The Council has apologised. That is a satisfactory remedy. There is no fault in the remainder of the complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms B, complained about the way the Council dealt with a disabled facilities grant for her mother. Ms B says the Council:
• delayed telling her about the second charge it would take when it awarded the grant;
• delayed telling her the amount she may have to repay;
• unreasonably released a payment to the builder before he had resolved issues with the works; and
• failed to take action to deal with a banging noise in the pipes.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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

4. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Ms B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• considered Ms B’s comments on my draft decision; and
• given the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. On the front of the grant application form it says the Council may, at its discretion, place a limited charge against the property of an owner occupier.
6. The Council’s grant paperwork goes on to say it may demand repayment of part of the grant that exceeds £5,000 up to £10,000 for owner occupiers if they sell the property within 10 years, in certain circumstances.

Chronology of the main events

7. On 21 December 2015 the Council received a recommendation for a level access shower for Ms B’s mother from the County Council. Ms B’s mother is an owner occupier.
8. The Council asked Ms B’s mother for some financial information and passed the paperwork to its grant consultant on 1 March 2016. The grant consultant visited Ms B’s mother and drew up a plan on 14 March. The Council provided Ms B’s mother with a copy of that plan on 14 March and asked her to seek to estimates for the work. The Council chased Ms B’s mother for the quotes on 25 May. Ms B asked the Council to cancel the case on 30 June.
9. On 13 October 2016 the Council’s grant consultant asked the Council to reopen the case. The Council received quotes from two builders on 12 December.
10. The Council’s grant consultant met with Ms B and her mother on 20 January 2017 and completed the grant application form. Ms B signed the ownership certificate. When signing the grant conditions Ms B noted she wanted full details of the charge and repayment details for her signature to be valid.
11. On 8 February the Council sent the grant approval to Ms B’s mother.
12. On 18 May the Council’s grant consultant inspected the works and signed them off. The Council paid the builder on 24 May.
13. On 26 May Ms B asked the Council not to pay the builder as there was an issue with the works. The Council provided Ms B with a copy of the invoice and confirmed the grant repayment schedule.
14. On 1 June Ms B telephoned the Council to report pipes banging. The Council told Ms B this was a matter between her and the builder. The Council agreed though to arrange a visit to help resolve the matter. That visit took place on 22 June. The Council’s officer was unable to hear any banging noise.
15. Ms B again reported a banging noise to the Council on 27 June. The Council agreed to pay for a plumber to establish the cause of the noise. Ms B agreed to that.
16. A plumber visited Ms B on 4 July. Following that the Council contacted Ms B and said it could arrange for the builder to visit to clip the pipe and reduce the water pressure to see if that resolved the banging problem. The Council told Ms B if that did not work the Council would have exhausted the options it could help her with. As Ms B did not respond to agree to that visit the Council did not make the arrangements for the builder to return.
17. Ms B put in a complaint on 8 August. The Council responded on 14 February 2018 and apologised for the delay. The Council again offered to contact the builder to arrange for him to return to clip the pipes.

Analysis

18. Ms B says the Council delayed telling her about the second charge it would take on her mother’s property when it awarded a disabled facilities grant. Ms B also says the Council did not explain the repayment terms for the grant. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the application form completed by Ms B makes clear the Council may place a limited charge against the property if the applicant is an owner occupier. I am also satisfied that document makes clear the Council may seek repayment of the grant in certain circumstances. As well as that, Ms B signed the grant conditions document, albeit she included a note qualifying her signature. That grant conditions document also refers to the circumstances in which a grant may have to be repaid. So, I am satisfied the information included in the application paperwork should have put Ms B on notice both that there might be a charge on her mother’s property and that there were circumstances in which the grant would have to be repaid. If Ms B considered either of those issues matters which would affect her decision to accept the grant or not I would have expected her not to sign the grant paperwork until those matters had been clarified.
19. I am satisfied though that when signing the application paperwork Ms B said she wanted full details of the charge to be placed on the property and details of any repayment. I would have expected the Council to provide the information Ms B had asked for. The Council failed to do that. That is fault. The Council has apologised for that. I consider that a reasonable outcome for this part of the complaint.
20. Ms B says the Council should not have released the final payment to the builder as there were outstanding matters which needed resolution. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council’s grant documentation makes clear it will release payments when it is satisfied the works funded by the grant have been completed. There is nothing in the Council’s documentation which requires it to withhold payment if the applicant is not satisfied with the works undertaken. That is not surprising because although the Council provides the grant, the contract for the work is between the applicant and the builder. In this case I am satisfied the Council’s officer visited Ms B’s mother’s property to ensure the works had been carried out in accordance with the grant proposal before releasing the final payment. I therefore have no grounds to criticise it. Any concerns Ms B then had about the works were a matter between her and the builder.
21. Ms B says the Council failed to take action to deal with a banging noise in her pipes. Ms B says the banging noise did not exist before the builder completed the grant works. As I said in the previous paragraph, the contract for the works is between the applicant and the builder. In normal circumstances any issues following completion of the works are therefore a private matter between the applicant and the builder. The Council would not normally hold any further responsibility. The situation is slightly different in this case. That is because although the grant contract was between the applicant and the builder the Council had already agreed, in June 2017, to pay for a plumber to try to establish the cause of the knocking. In that email the Council agreed to take action to rectify the matter if the plumber identified the noise as caused by the work funded by the disabled facilities grant. The Council had therefore taken on responsibility for resolving that issue if the plumber reached those findings.
22. The issue is therefore what findings the plumber reached. The plumber did not produce a written report and instead gave verbal advice to Ms B and the Council. I am satisfied the Council followed that up by contacting Ms B on 5 July 2017 to offer to arrange for the builder to return to clip the pipe and reduce the water pressure to see if that resolved the problem. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council did not arrange for that work to take place because Ms B did not give her permission for the Council to contact the builder to make the arrangements. I therefore cannot criticise the Council for not taking any further action. In reaching that view, I am aware Ms B is concerned the Council has said it will not take any further action if that does not resolve the problem. As I understand it Ms B is concerned about that because she says the plumber said further investigation would be needed to look at the pipe below the floorboards if the work proposed by the Council did not resolve the banging noise. As I have made clear though, the Council does not have any responsibility to sort out problems with the work completed by the builder. In offering to arrange with the contractor to clip the pipe and reduce the water pressure to see if that resolves the problem the Council has gone further than it needed to do. I therefore cannot criticise it for telling Ms B any further investigation is something she needs to sort out with the builder.

Back to top

Agreed action

23. The Council has apologised for the delay telling Ms B about the amount she would have to repay if she sold her mother’s property.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have completed my investigation and find fault in part of the complaint which caused Ms B an injustice. I am satisfied the action the Council has taken is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman