Summary: Mrs X complained about the failure of the contractor to carry out works to a good standard when they did improvement work to her property under a disabled facilities grant paid by the Council in 2014. The Ombudsman should not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because she was aware of the defects more than 12 months before she complained to us and because the contract was between the householder and the builder, not the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs X, complains about the poor quality of work by a contractor carrying out grant work at her home in 2014. She says she found out the faulty work in 2017 and could not get the contractor to carry out additional work at the time. She wants compensation from the contractor for the upset and inconvenience she suffered from 2017 until November 2018 when her own contractor completed the work with an additional discretionary grant.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered all the information which Mrs X submitted with her complaint and she has commented on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mrs X had a disabled facilities grant approved for work to her home to provide bathroom adaptations in 2014. The grant work was carried out by a home improvements agency operated by a private building company. The company subcontracted the work to another builder and Mrs X signed a contract for the works with the contractor. The Council’s role was to provide the funding for the grant which amounted to £16,000 and to ensure that the works were completed before paying the contractor.
6. The work was completed in 2014 but Mrs X says defects were noticed in 2017 and further work was required. The original contract had a 12-month defects period which expired in 2015 and so the faults were not covered by the contract. Mrs X contacted the improvements agency contractor and it arranged for further grant-aided work to the shower area. Its subcontractor was unable to complete the works in a reasonable time and this led to Mrs X having to appoint her own contractor to complete the work.
7. Mrs X was provided with an additional £5,000 discretionary grant to cover the cost of the additional works. She complains that the delays by the improvement agency contractor in agreeing completion of the additional work led to a delay from July 2017 to May 2018. In May 2018, the contractor agreed to allow Mrs X to appoint her own chosen contractor.
8. The original work in 2014 was outside the defects liability period when problems occurred in 2017. This means that it was not legally required to undertake further work. The Council was only responsible for ensuring the work was completed before paying the grant to the contractor. Because the defects did not materialise for nearly 3 years there was no possibility of denying payment. The Council asked the improvements agency if it would consider compensating Mrs X but it has no authority to demand such payment.
9. When the bathroom required further work the Council’s involvement was related to how the additional works may be funded. It agreed to fund the works with a discretionary improvements grant because the disabled facilities grant had already been used for this purpose. I understand the grant was paid and the works completed in 2018 with the same 12-month defects liability period.
10. Although the Ombudsman can investigate complaints about grant payments we are unable to consider complaints about administration of the works contracts because these are private legal agreements between the householder and the building contractor. Mrs X could have complained to us in 2017 or in 2018 about the performance of the contractors but we would not have investigated at the time for the above reasons.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman should not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because she was aware of the defects more than 12 months before she complained to us and because the contract was between the householder and the building company, not the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman