Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has taken far too long to resolve problems with works carried out under a disabled facilities grant, which should have been completed in June 2018. Mr & Mrs X were left with adaptations which were not fit for purpose for over a year. The Council needs to apologise, pay financial redress and improve its working practices.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, complains the Council has taken far too long to resolve problems with works carried out under a disabled facilities grant, which should have been completed in June 2018.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated events since June 2018.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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’. 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)
4. 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, sections 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
5. 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)
6. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mrs X;
• discussed the complaint with Mrs X;
• considered the comments and documents the Council has provided in response to my enquiries; and
• shared a draft of this statement with Mrs X and the Council, and invited comments for me to consider before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

8. Mrs X’s husband applied for a disabled facilities grant to extend their home in order to meet his needs. The Council approved the grant in May 2017. On 2 June Mr X gave the Council his authority to pay any grant directly to the Builder. The Council’s Building Control Manager issued a certificate of completion for the works on 16 July 2018. According to its records, after a visit to the property on 14 September 2018, the Council decided to make the final payment to the Builder. Mrs X says they did not give their approval for this. The Council says this was not necessary because of the agreement given in 2017.
9. On 16 November 2018 Mrs X left a message for the Council about a wet patch on the kitchen ceiling and smaller patches on the bedroom ceiling. She said she hoped the Builder would repair this quickly.
10. On 21 November, an Occupational Therapist e-mailed the Senior Adaptations Officer saying:
• water was leaking into the new extension, despite the Builder having made a repair;
• the Builder was due to return that week;
• Mrs X had left messages for the Grants Team but no one had contacted her.
11. On 22 November the Council emailed the Builder asking him to:
• address the poor workmanship;
• identify the best way to resolve the leak; and
• lay a fresh layer of felt over the area where water was penetrating.
12. On 10 December the Council wrote to the Builder as he had failed to attend appointments on 9, 15 and 29 November, had been an hour late for an appointment on 14 November and turned up unannounced on 16 November.
13. On 19 December the Builder said he had done a patch repair but could not identify the source of the leak.
14. The Council emailed the Builder on 20 December:
• noting the source of the leak had not been identified;
• asking for the contact details of the manufacturer of the felt and skylight so it could check if the Builder had installed them in line with the instructions;
• emphasising the need to ensure roof warranties were not breached;
• asking the Builder to provide a temporary cover (tarpaulin) over the Christmas period until a manufacturer’s representative had visited the site.
15. The Council has no record of a reply. It understands the Builder did further work to the roof but has no records to say what this was or whether it was satisfied with the work.
16. Mrs X says she continued to contact the Council and the Builder about problems with the roof. She says the builder continued to make patch repairs and the Council’s Surveyor kept visiting. The Council has no records of this.
17. On 4 June 2019 Mrs X reported the roof was still leaking, following heavy rainfall. She said the Builder had attended 15 times and she had no confidence in him to resolve the leak.
18. On 20 June the Council decided to
• get specialist roof reports;
• arrange renewal of the roof;
• ask the Builder to attend its offices.
19. The Builder did not attend a meeting arranged for 24 June.
20. On 9 July two independent roofers confirmed the problem was due to poor work.
21. On 18 July, the Builder offered to make good the poor work. But the Council said it would get another builder to do this due to a loss of confidence.
22. The Council says the roof has now been renewed and internal damage from the leak made good.

Is there evidence of fault by the Council which caused injustice?

23. There is no statutory guidance on dealing with disabled facilities grants. However, after being commissioned by the Department for Communities and Local Government in 2010, the Home Adaptation Consortium issued a guide on Home Adaptations for Disabled People in 2013 which reflects good practice. This says:
• “On completion of an adaptation the key contact should decide who is most appropriate to visit the applicant to evaluate the effectiveness of the scheme, including whether the disabled person is able to use the adaptation. This may be the person who carried out the assessment, the supervising officer, the grant officer or a combination of these, at a joint visit. Where a HIA (home improvement agency) has been involved this visit will almost certainly need to involve the caseworker. In the course of the visit they should consult the disabled person and their carer or family on:”
• “the appropriateness of the adaptation and whether it meets the agreed needs of the disabled person and any other recommendations identified;”
• “the way in which the work was carried out;”
• “whether all the required work is fully completed to the standard specified;”
24. It is clear the Builder’s work was not up to standard. There is no evidence the Council followed through on its attempt to establish the adequacy of the work in December 2018. The Builder tried to repair the problem. But the Council did not satisfy itself this was good enough. Clearly it wasn’t and that is fault by the Council. That caused injustice to Mr & Mrs X as they were left with adaptations which were not fit for purpose. It also put Mrs X to some significant time and trouble in pursuing their concerns. The Council needs to pay financial redress to them to remedy the injustice it has caused.
25. The Council’s records are very poor. They do not reflect all the contact there has been between the Council and the Builder and Mrs X. That is also fault by the Council. It needs to improve its records keeping.

Back to top

Agreed action

26. When a council commissions another organisation to provide services on its behalf it remains responsible for those services and for the actions of the organisation providing them. So, although I found fault with the actions of the Builder, I have made recommendations to the Council.
27. I recommended the Council:
• within four weeks, writes to Mr & Mrs X apologising for the problems they have experienced and pays them £500; and
• within eight weeks, identifies the action it needs to take to ensure the Disabled Facilities Grants Team follows through on the actions it has identified and keeps better records of it contact with client and contractors.

The Council has agreed to do this.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I have completed my investigation as the Council has agreed to take action which will remedy the injustice it has caused.

Parts of the complaint I did not investigate

29. I have not investigated the complaint about events before June 2018, as this is a late complaint (see paragraph 5 above).

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman