Runnymede Borough Council (18 015 167)

Category : Adult care services > Disabled facilities grants

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 04 Jun 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr B complains about works done under a disabled facilities grant to provide a wet room for his severely disabled son in the family home. He says the works failed just over a year after they were completed. He says the Councils have failed to rectify the problem and have not acted together to ensure there is a safe and functional wet room so that he and other carers can safely provide personal care to his son. He also complains about delays in recognising the need for and provision of a new shower stretcher/bench. There was fault by the District Council in not inspecting the works done under a DFG. There was fault by the County Council in not accepting quickly enough that it needed to take responsibility for the works needed to resolve the problems with the wet room. Both Councils will, within a month of the final decision, apologise to Mr and Mrs B. And the County Council should do all it can to expedite the works.

The complaint

  1. Mr B complains about works done under a disabled facilities grant to provide a wet room for his severely disabled son in the family home. He says the works failed just over a year after they were completed and that some of the electrical works are unsafe. He says the Councils have failed to rectify the problem and have not acted together to ensure that there is a safe and functional wet room so that he and other carers can safely provide personal care to his son.
  2. He also complains about delays in recognising the need for and provision of a new shower stretcher/bench.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. 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 complaint and spoke to Mr B. I asked the Councils for their comments on the complaint and additional information. I sent a copy of a draft of this statement to Mr B and the Council and invited their comments

Back to top

What I found

  1. A disabled facilities grant (DFG) is awarded by the housing authority to make adaptations to the home which are ‘necessary and appropriate’ to meet the disabled occupant’s needs, where it is ‘reasonable and practicable’ to carry out such adaptations.
  2. Usually the housing authority relies on the opinion of an occupational therapist to decide what is ‘necessary and appropriate’. Where the disabled occupant is a child, the housing authority may also consult children’s services.
  3. The Ombudsman’s Focus Report: Making a House a Home refers to the Care Act Statutory Guidance 2014 which stresses the importance of joint working between social services and housing authorities. This means it is vital there are clear procedures to ensure people who require adaptations receive a continuous service. This is especially important where the services are delivered by two separate authorities.
  4. The Children Act 1989 imposes a duty on the Council with responsibility for childrens services (here that is the County Council) to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need, and promote their upbringing by their families, by providing a range and level of services appropriate to those children’s needs

Brief overview of events

  1. Mr and Mrs B have a son, C, who has a high level of needs. In 2016 when C was 14 the District Council agreed a DFG for works to their home which included the provision of a wet room. In 2018 Mr B reported problems with the wet room to the County Council.
  2. There was contact with Mr B and between both councils over 2018. Both Councils agreed there were problems with the wet room. The District Council did not accept that it had any liability for remedial works to the wet room. The County Council has appointed a project manager to look into the works needed and a schedule of works has been drawn up.

Events before the building works

  1. The District Council said it could not oversee the works and advised Mr and Mrs B to appoint their own project manager. At a meeting at Mr and Mrs B’s home the District Council provided a leaflet explaining that the Council’s role was “purely a funding source and takes no responsibility for the organisation or control of the works”. Mr and Mrs B couldn’t find anyone willing to take on the job and asked the County Council about a suitable project manager to oversee the works. The occupational therapist suggested someone she had worked with before, Mr X. Mr and Mrs B met him with the occupational therapist. Mr X recommended a building contractor who he had worked with, company Y. Company Y tendered for the works. Theirs was the lowest bid so was accepted by the District Council.
  2. Mr X produced a standard contract showing him as the project manager and company Y as the contractor. He asked Mr and Mrs B to sign the contract. They did not do so as they could not commit to making the payment as they did not have the funds to do so. They sent the contract to the occupational therapist explaining their position. The OT replied the next day saying Mr and Mrs B should liaise with Mr X about the contract as he was managing the contract and should be able to advise. The contract was never signed but works proceeded.
  3. I understand that as Mr and Mrs B’s dealings were mostly with the County Council they looked to the County Council for support and advice. But the information they had from the District Council about the DFG and the response of the County Council made it clear that they were not involved in the contractual arrangement between Mr and Mrs B, Mr X and the contractor. This meant the route for addressing any problems with the works was between Mr B, the project manager and the contractor.

The building works

  1. There were no major problems with the works and they were completed in December 2016 and the District Council paid the contractor direct. It made the final payment on completion of the works. In doing so it had to be satisfied the works were satisfactorily completed.
  2. In deciding that the works were satisfactorily completed the District Council said it relied on the completion certificate issued under the building regulations. It also said it inspected once the works were complete. The key guidance (Delivering Housing Adaptations for Disabled People) states that all major adaptation work should be visited by a supervising officer at least once a week and where work continues beyond a week more often. The District Council did not do that and that is fault.
  3. If the District Council had inspected as it should I consider, on the balance of probabilities, that it is unlikely it would have identified any flaws with the works. Until the wet room is stripped back it is not possible to say what the defects are and even then it may be that the problems are not caused by faulty workmanship that would have been clear at an inspection. So although I consider there was fault I cannot say it has had any significant consequence in terms of the works done. The District Council should apologise to Mr and Mrs B for failing to inspect.

What happened when the problems started

  1. In March 2018 Mr B wrote to the occupational therapist saying they needed to look at getting a new shower stretcher/bench for use by C. When the occupational therapist visited Mr B pointed out problems with the wet room. The main issues were that the shower tray former (which is under the wet room floor) was creaking and moving when people stood on it or C was on it in his wheelchair. Water was not draining to the drain but running round the room to the door which adjoins the living room. He was also concerned about the fan and heater and their proximity to the shower and whether they were properly isolated.
  2. There was contact between the two councils. In June the District Council said it could not provide a further DFG as the works were for repair rather than adaptations but it could offer some technical support. The County Council agreed to fund investigation works up to £2000 to find the cause of the problems. A technical officer from the District Council visited in early August and drew up a schedule of works and issued it to contractors. Only one was returned which was for £8,500 although that did include for works to remedy the worst case scenario. The County Council would not proceed on that basis and asked the District Council to get more tenders. By early October the District Council considered that it should not be involved further as it had no role in repair works and had not overseen the original DFG works.
  3. At the beginning of November the County Council appointed an independent project manager to draw up a schedule of works and oversee the project. The Council sent the schedule of works to Mr and Mrs B in early March and they requested amendments. Contractors will need to be invited to tender for the works. The intention is that the County Council will fund the necessary works.
  4. I consider there has been delay in reaching this point. It was not unreasonable for there to be some consideration by the County Council and the District Council of their respective responsibilities given that public money had been used to fund the original works. The District Council’s involvement was in an attempt to be helpful but probably only muddied the waters. Ultimately it could only approve a further DFG if that was for adaptations or improvements and the works here appear to be of repair. But given Mr and Mrs B’s circumstances and financial means, C’s needs and the County Council’s responsibilities to him it should have accepted much sooner that it was going to have to assume responsibility for resolving the problems. Had it done so then things would be much further along. Indeed the works may have been completed by now. But in all the circumstances I do not consider that a financial remedy is appropriate here as the wet room has remained functional. But the County Council should apologise to Mr and Mrs B and ensure it does all it can to expedite the works.

The shower stretcher/bench

  1. Mr and Mrs B first raised issues with the shower bench in March 2018. The County Council has said that it immediately reviewed the bench and offered to provide some padding. Various options were considered over the summer of 2018. The OT suggested considering a mobile trolley but this was ruled out after a trial. In January 2019 Mr and Mrs B identified a possible bench and, after a trail, the Council agreed it would be suitable and will be included in the schedule of works.
  2. This has taken sometime but I cannot identify any periods of significant delay. Various options were considered and trialled. The type that has been agreed on had not been proposed earlier and ruled out. I therefore consider there was no fault by the County Council here.

Agreed action

  1. Both Councils will apologise to Mr and Mrs B for the faults I have identified.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. There was fault by the District Council in not inspecting the works done under a DFG. There was fault by the County Council in not accepting quickly enough that it needed to take responsibility for the works needed to resolve the problems with the wet room. Both Councils should, within a month of the final decision, apologise to Mr and Mrs B. And the County Council should do all it can to expedite the works.

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