Summary: Mrs B says the Council delayed completing adaptation works at her property and failed to offer compensation to reflect damage and stress during the building works. The Council’s target for the works was unrealistic and further delays meant Mrs B and her family had to live in unsuitable circumstances and have one family member living elsewhere for longer than they should have. An apology and payment to Mrs B is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs B, complained about the way the Council dealt with adaptations at her Council property. Mrs B complained the Council delayed completing the works and unreasonably refused to pay compensation to reflect damage to her flooring and the impact the extended building works had on her family.

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 Mrs B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• considered Mrs B’s comments on my draft decision; and
• considered the Council’s comments on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mrs B is a wheelchair user and lives with her husband and three children in a Council owned two-bedroom bungalow. The Council agreed works to the bungalow which involved an extension to create a bedroom, adaptations to the kitchen, a level access shower and wheelchair accessible bedrooms for the children. The works to the property began on 18 June 2018 and were initially scheduled to take 13 weeks.
6. The Council’s contractor told the Council on 12 July it was experiencing difficulties locating the building inspector for the project. The contractor told the Council this would hold up progress as the building inspector had to pass the foundation depths before further work could begin.
7. In July the contractor told the Council it had identified asbestos in the floor finishes. The Council told Mrs B she would have to fund the cost of the flooring. I understand there were delays removing the flooring as Mrs B refused access on two occasions due to other commitments.
8. Mrs B reported contractors not turning up to the site which prompted the Council to contact the contractor to find out what was happening. The contractor explained workmen had not turned up for work. The contractor also explained because Mrs B and her family remained living in the property it could only carry out work in stages.
9. The Council contacted the contractor again in September when Mrs B reported workmen had not turned up. The contractor told the Council the workmen had been off sick on the days nobody had attended. The contractor also reminded the Council because Mrs B and her family remained on site it reduced the amount of work that could take place at any one time.
10. On 17 September the occupational therapist asked the Council to change the newly formed window opening so a wheelchair user could look out of the window. The Council agreed to lower the bottom level of the window.
11. On 25 September the contractor told the Council of a delay while it organised roof trusses, unless the Council agreed to a traditional roof instead.
12. On 8 October the contractor provided an update and asked the Council whether it wanted the window made larger or alterations to the brickworks and lintel. Following discussions with the contractor the Council agreed to the contractor’s proposal to change the window.
13. A further delay occurred because the kitchen chosen by Mrs B was no longer available. Mrs B therefore had to choose a new kitchen. The contractor ordered the kitchen on 26 October.
14. The Council contacted the contractor on 29 October as an officer had attended and found nobody on site. The contractor explained the joiner arranged for that day had phoned in sick.
15. Council officers met with Mrs B on 8 November. Mrs B outlined the effect the extended schedule of works was having on her family as her son was living with his grandparents due to his health needs. Mrs B reported many days when there were no contractors on site at all. The Council explained it had no options to rehouse the family during the works due to the lack of suitable properties. The contractor confirmed during the meeting works would finish before Christmas.
16. I understand some further changes to the internal layout were agreed with Mrs B in November 2018. The works completed in December, with some final decoration items completed in January 2019.
17. Mrs B asked for compensation. The Council offered £542.68 as a gesture of goodwill for the upheaval Mrs B had experienced due to the time to complete the works. The Council said it had based the amount on the cost of replacing floor finishes in the hallway and new bedroom. The Council said on reflection it may have been more suitable to move the family from the property while the work was undertaken although it recognised that would not have been easy for the family.
18. On 17 January 2019 Mrs B asked the Council to contribute £2,000 to the £2,500 the family had spent. Mrs B said the passage and old living room floors had been damaged when re-laid due to the removal of old tiles. Mrs B referred to her son being away from home for seven months and having workmen in the home for that length of time.
19. On 13 February the Council wrote to Mrs B. The Council said the estimate of 13 weeks was unrealistic but the job should not have taken as long as it did. The Council referred to several variations and changes to the original scope Mrs B sought. The Council also said it understood water ingress had only affected the hall area and officers had not seen any issue with the lounge and bedroom flooring in the original parts of the property. The Council said it would normally only cover the kitchen and bathroom floor finishes plus any areas damaged because of the works. The Council said in this case it had offered compensation to reflect the stress and inconvenience caused by the work taking longer than advised based on the cost of installing laminate flooring to the full length of the hall and the new bedroom. The Council therefore considered the amount fair and reasonable. The Council apologised the project took longer than anticipated.

Analysis

20. Mrs B says the Council took seven months to complete works to her property rather than the 13 weeks the works should have taken. Mrs B says during that period most of her family had to live in the property while contractors undertook works and one of her children had to stay with his grandparents. Mrs B says this created considerable stress. The Council concedes there were delays completing the project. It is clear from the documentary evidence the contractor initially estimated 13 weeks to complete the work. That seems an ambitious target given the fact the family remained living in the property throughout the period which restricted the amount of works that could take place at any one time. In my view setting such a short deadline for what was a complex build unreasonably raised Mrs B’s expectations. That is fault. I recommend in future the Council work closely with contractors to create a realistic workplan, particularly when it is intended for tenants to remain living in the property during the works. I also recommended the Council consider in those circumstances whether it is appropriate to decant the tenant for the period of the works, although I noted this may not have been possible in this case given the adaptations required. The Council has agreed in future with schemes of a similar nature to further explore the option of decanting families while work is carried out.
21. It is also clear there were specific delays caused by fault which added further delay to the project. That included delay in building control signing off the initial works to enable further works to take place and delay when tradespeople or workmen did not attend the site. That added further delay to what was already an unrealistic target. I do not, however, criticise the Council for delays which were outside its control. That included delays relating to requests for additional works, delay to replace the window which was not at an acceptable height and delay due to the supplier no longer having the kitchen units Mrs B had chosen. Those delays are not fault. Even with those discounted though, it seems to me Mrs B and her family had to live in unsuitable living conditions for at least two months longer than they should have. That also meant Mrs B’s son had to live with his grandparents for two months longer than should have been necessary. As well as that Mrs B had to go to time and trouble to pursue her complaint. To remedy that injustice I recommended the Council pay Mrs B £250 to reflect her time and trouble in pursuing the complaint and £400 for the distress caused by living in what was in effect a building site for at least two months longer than she should have, as well as being separated from her son. The Council has agreed to that recommendation.
22. Mrs B says the Council should also compensate her for the cost of new flooring throughout the property. Mrs B says this has cost in excess of £2,000 and she believes the Council should contribute £2,000 towards it. In contrast the Council has offered £542.68. While that reflects the cost of new flooring in the hallway and the new bedroom I note the Council has not offered that amount because it believes the actions of its contractors damaged those areas of flooring. Rather, it has made that offer as a gesture of goodwill for the upheaval caused by the length of time it took to complete the works. As I said in the previous paragraph, I consider £650 a more appropriate amount to reflect the impact on Mrs B and her family.
23. I do not consider I can recommend the Council pay Mrs B an amount to reflect the costs of replacing flooring either in part or throughout her property. There are two interrelated issues here. The first issue is whether flooding caused by the contractor failing to protect the property properly resulted in damage which meant the flooring had to be replaced. To make a recommendation in relation to that the Ombudsman would have to determine whether the Council was liable for the damage. Liability issues are a matter for the courts and not the Ombudsman. So, if Mrs B believes she has had to replace part or all of her flooring as a result of damage caused by the Council’s contractors she will need to submit a claim to the Council’s insurers.
24. The second related issue is that Mrs B wants the flooring throughout her property to be uniform. I understand why that would be her desire. However, I can only make a recommendation for a financial remedy to reflect the fault and injustice I have identified. So, I could not recommend the Council pay for flooring throughout the property unless I were satisfied that was required specifically due to fault by the Council. I have identified no fault by the Council which would warrant a recommendation for the Council to pay for new flooring throughout the property, taking into account the Ombudsman cannot determine liability for damage. In those circumstances I make no recommendation on the costs of replacement flooring. As I said earlier, that is a matter Mrs B can pursue through the Council’s insurers.

Back to top

Agreed action

25. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Mrs B for the fault identified in this statement; and
• pay Mrs B £650 to reflect the additional time her family was separated and the impact it had on her and the remainder of her family living in the property while building works were ongoing.
26. The Council should also consider developing a policy for when tenants should be decanted from properties to allow building works to take place.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I have completed my investigation and uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman