Summary: Mr X says the Council is at fault in how it handled works agreed as part of a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). The Ombudsman found some evidence of fault but considers the Council has already provided a suitable remedy for the matters he can consider. He has therefore completed the investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council is at fault in how it handled works agreed as part of a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) for his late mother-in-law. He says:

• He could not arrange his own contractor.
• There were delays in completing the works.
• The works were of a poor standard and he has had to pay a substantial amount to rectify them.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have not considered Mr X’s concerns that the contractor who carried out the works under the DFG was negligent and the later parts of my statement explain my reasons for not doing so.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. 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)
5. 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)
6. 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

7. I have considered the information Mr X provided and his comments on the draft decision. I also considered the Council’s response to our enquiries and the information it provided.

Back to top

What I found

Background

Disabled Facilities Grants

8. Local housing authorities have a duty under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 to award a DFG to help meet the cost of adapting a property to meet the specific needs of a disabled person.
9. The maximum amount of a mandatory DFG is £30,000. If the cost of the grant works exceeds £30,000, local housing authorities have discretion to provide further assistance (e.g. a grant, loan or equity release). Alternatively, the applicant may “top up” the DFG from their own resources.
10. Under the DFG scheme, the council will draw up a schedule of work that will be carried out under the scheme. The applicant must then obtain and submit to the council plans, specifications and estimates covering the work in the schedule.

Key events

11. Mr X’s mother-in-law, Mrs Z, lived with him and his wife, Mrs X.
12. In 2017 following a social care assessment it was decided that adaptations would be required to Mr X’s home so that Mrs Z could remain living there.
13. A Council officer visited the family in February 2017 and explained the process. Mrs X signed the checklist to confirm what the officer had explained. This included advice about the ‘client’s option regarding contractors – if using own contractor make sure contractor has public/employers liability’.
14. In March 2017 the Council’s Technical Officer and an Occupational Therapist (OT) visited Mr X’s home to discuss the required works. It was agreed Mr X would instruct and pay for an architect to complete plans for the works.
15. The Council completed a schedule of works for the adaptations which Mrs X signed on 16 November 2017. The Council also emailed the information to Mr X and confirmed in an email that Mr X could choose his own contractors.
16. The Council asked for quotes for the works from approved contractors. It says it told Mr X he could submit quotes from his own contractors but he did not do so.
17. Contractor Y’s quote was the lowest. The Council told Mr X he could use a different contractor but, if he did, he would need to pay the difference between the quotes.
18. Mr X met with Contractor Y in January 2018. Mrs X signed a quote acceptance form which said she could use another contractor but financial assistance would be based on the lowest quote.
19. The quote was around £36,000 which meant after Mrs Z received the maximum grant of £30,000 and her contribution would be £6,147.
20. The DFG was approved in February and documentation sent to Mr and Mrs X confirming this. They also paid an invoice from the agents acting on behalf of the Council for their contribution towards the works. This was put in a holding account awaiting the completion of works. However the Council’s contract with the agent ended in March resulting in the payment being refunded.
21. In March works commenced. Site visits noted no problems.
22. In April Contactor Y told the Council that Mr X had been abusive to their staff on site. The Council visited and a change in site manager was arranged.
23. Visits in May and June found no problems with the works although it was noted they were progressing slowly. The Council says this was partly because Mr X asked Contractor Y to make changes to the specification including the roof and moving a window. Mr X says Contractor Y contacted him first about the roof and the window as the architect had got the measurements wrong on the plans. Mr X also asked the contractor to install triple glazing, tiling and to move radiators. Mr X paid the contractor for these works directly.
24. In July the Council gave Contractor Y a target completion date to try to get the works completed. The Council says that later that month Mr and Mrs X told the contractor they wanted works to stop for a week so they could have a break. Mr X says he never told the Council to stop the works for a week, but only for three days. He says it was difficult to cope as they were looking after Mrs Z who was sick and they needed family help to assist with hospital visits.
25. The Council received a complaint from Mrs X’s sister about the works. It told her it would inspect the works before signing them off and address any snagging issues.
26. Works were completed in August and the Council’s technical officer and OT visited the site. They confirmed the works met Mrs Z’s needs and agreed a snagging list with Mr X.
27. A further visit took place in September to check the snagging works were completed. The technical officer was satisfied and Mrs X signed a completion form.
28. However a garage conversion previously completed by Mr X had not been signed off by building control and an extractor fan was required. The Council told Mr X he would need to fit and fund this as it was linked to works completed before the DFG words were started.
29. Mr X did not pay the contribution. He says he told the Council he would not pay until the works were completed to a satisfactory level. The Council says Mr X would not pay the contribution because of the stress caused to him by Contractor Y. Mr X had raised with the contractor a number of matters including damage to his fridge door which they rectified. Issues were also raised with the rear door which the contractor addressed.
30. Mr X remained unhappy and in October 2018 he wrote to the Council saying he was dissatisfied with the process from start to finish and with the quality of the works. He listed the following issues:

• an extractor fan for the utility room was omitted from the specification of works;
• doors did not shut properly;
• the back door did not fit;
• brickwork and the extension were of poor quality;
• ridge tiling to the roof was unfinished; and
• the decoration was not satisfactory.

31. The Council reduced the contribution to the works by £2,000.
32. Mr X complained to the Council in November 2018 about its handling of the DFG and the quality of works completed by Contractor Y. The Council continued to liaise with Mr X and so it delayed responding while it did so.
33. Mrs Z sadly passed away in November 2018.
34. In January 2019 the Council wrote to Mr X apologising for the delay in replying to his complaint and arranged a visit to his home. This took place in February and Mr X was asked to supply details of the costs he had incurred in rectifying the issues he had complained about.
35. Mr X provided a breakdown of the costs which included actual costs of £2,800. He provided estimates for other costs (£2,200) and suggested compensation of £1,000.
36. The Council replied to the complaint in March. It said it was satisfied Mr X had to undertake some additional works to make good some of the issues that had arisen and had done so at his own expense. It waived the contribution to the cost of the works (£6,147) and closed the case.
37. Mr X remains unhappy and says he has spent £2,800 on putting things right but would need to spend a further £9,000 to rectify errors including removing and replacing the wet floor room and the ramp. He feels he should be compensated for the distress and time and trouble caused to him. He suggested a figure of £3,000.
38. In its response to the complaint to the Ombudsman, the Council said it accepted that works progressed slowly and there was a lack of project management from the contractor however some of the delay was outside of the contractor’s control. The Council said the works had been completed to its satisfaction and the OT was satisfied the works met the needs of the client.

Analysis

39. Mr X says the Council did not provide him with a detailed specification of works until after they were commenced. I have not found evidence of fault. The Council has provided me with a copy of the schedule of works signed by Mrs X in November 2017, some four months before works began.
40. I note that Mr X says a storm porch was omitted from the plans but included in the quote. I would have expected him to raise any such concerns before signing the specification and works beginning.
41. Mr X contends the Council did not tell him he could use his own contractor and pay the difference between their quote and that lowest one received by the Council. I have checked the documents and I have not found evidence of fault.
42. The evidence shows that the Council informed Mr X and Mrs X of their right to choose their own contractor both in a meeting and by email. On 9th January 2018 Mrs X signed a form accepting the quote. The form made clear applicants could supply quotes from contractors they had sourced.
43. Mr X says he had problems during the build with Contractor Y subcontracting works and works not being undertaken when they were scheduled. I note the Council had to give the contractor a deadline for completion in order to focus works and that a new site manager was required. The Council’s complaints response also acknowledged the process had been long and caused disruption to Mr and Mrs X. For these reasons I conclude that works could likely have progressed quicker.
44. I note the Council responded to Mr X’s complaints about these matters, visited the site and liaised with the contractor to resolve problems. Mr X made changes to the works and asked for additional work to be carried out. This may have affected the time it took to complete the works.
45. I note that Mr X asked the Council if he could change contractor and was told he could but this would delay completion as the Council would need to seek new quotes. I do not consider the Council was at fault for telling Mr X this so he could make an informed decision.
46. It is not for the Ombudsman to check whether the standard or works was satisfactory or not. I have investigated the Council’s actions in terms of supervising and signing off the works.
47. I agree with Mr X that he told the Council about problems with the works before Mrs X signed the completion form. However, I do not find fault in the way the Council decided to sign off the works as the correct process was followed and the appropriate professionals checked the works.
48. I note the technical officer and the OT carried out an inspection visit on 14 August 2017 which led to the technical officer sending a snagging list which Mr X was copied into. The snagging was completed and the same professionals as before attended and checked that the works were completed to a satisfactory level. Mrs X signed the completion form. Therefore, I do not find fault with the way the Council has decided that the works could be signed off.
49. Mr X has continued to raise concerns about the standard of the works.
50. Mr X would need to take this up with the contractor as a consumer matter. He may need to consider taking legal action against the contractor and has the right to seek reimbursement from the contractor via the courts.
51. I note the Council has apologised and has written off the entire contribution (£6,147). The Council made this decision partly at its own discretion as Mrs X had died and partly because it said it was a long and complex process which had caused a lot of disruption. It acknowledged that Mr X had carried out some works at his own expense. This remedy is more than the Ombudsman would have recommended and I will therefore close the investigation.

Final decision

52. There was some fault, particularly in the delay when the works were being carried out, but the Council has already remedied the fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman