Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to complete repairs to his bathroom as required by a previous Ombudsman decision. The information provided shows that although the Council took the action required issues outside of its control meant the works were not completed. The Council has agreed to Mr X’s request to pay him so he can now arrange the necessary works himself.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to complete repairs to his bathroom as required by a previous Ombudsman decision.
2. Mr X experiences problems as a result of not having a fully functioning bathroom.

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, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X is disabled. He was previously given a Disabled Facilities Grant for works to his bathroom. The works have not been satisfactorily completed and have been the subject of previous complaints to the Ombudsman.
7. In August 2018, the Ombudsman upheld a complaint by Mr X. The agreed remedy required the Council to apologise to Mr X, pay him £200 for the distress caused and identify a suitably qualified person, independent of the Council, to manage the remedial works. The Council took action and the Ombudsman was satisfied the agreed remedy had been provided.
8. However, Mr X said the works had not been completed and he still did not have a properly functioning bathroom. The Ombudsman accepted a new complaint which I am now investigating.
9. The Council did apologise and paid £200 to Mr X. It also appointed an independent surveyor. The surveyor contacted Mr X in September 2018 to arrange a mutually convenient time to visit Mr X’s property and carry out an inspection. The inspection was carried out in January 2019. The surveyor produced a report and provided it to the Council.
10. The surveyor then drew up a schedule of works and contacted Mr X to arrange a date to revisit the property to provide costs for the required works. Mr X told the surveyor he had made a complaint about them and so he did not want any works to proceed while the complaint was being considered by a professional body. As a result another visit never took place and so a cost for the works has never been provided. The surveyor then informed the Council it could not achieve the desired outcome and so withdrew from the process. To date the works remain outstanding.

Analysis

11. I am not persuaded the failure to complete the outstanding works is because of any fault by the Council. The information provided shows it has tried to find a resolution but issues between Mr X and the surveyor have prevented the matter coming to a conclusion.
12. However, the Council is aware Mr X still does not have a bathroom that meets his needs and it wants to ensure this happens. It has therefore responded to a request by Mr X to provide a payment to him so that he can take control of the situation and arrange for the necessary works himself.
13. Mr X says he can arrange for the works including replacing the flooring, replacing the porch and re-laying the drains to be completed for £3,500. Mr X has not provided any quotes to support this.
14. Mr X at one point, employed his own contractor Mr Z, to carry out some remedial works. Mr X says that it is only because of this that he has any use of his bathroom. Our previous decision included a recommendation that the independent surveyor should assess the work completed by Mr Z and the Council would reimburse his costs. This has not happened because of the issues between Mr X and the surveyors.
15. Mr X says the Council should pay Mr Z £1,500 for the work already completed. It is not clear how Mr X calculated this amount. I have seen an invoice presented to the Council by Mr Z for £504 for the works he carried out. To date no amount has been paid to Mr Z. The Council says it has no evidence to show Mr Z has carried out works in accordance with the schedule originally provided by an occupational therapist.
16. It is clear the Council has tried to find a resolution for this issue. The Council has appointed four different contractors in respect of the works at Mr X’s property. The Council says it has paid these contractors £6257.93 in total in attempts to provide Mr X with a suitable bathroom. The Council says each time it has appointed a contractor the relationship has irretrievably broken down. I agree with the Council’s view that there is nothing to be gained by trying to find a new contractor to complete the works on behalf of the Council.
17. While I find no fault by the Council in not providing the remedy we previously recommended, the Council has agreed to make a further payment to Mr X in an effort to resolve the situation.
18. The Council will pay Mr X the £3,500 he has requested to complete the works at his property. This payment is made on the understanding this covers all outstanding matters and no further payment will be made including monies owed to Mr Z. By accepting this payment, Mr X agrees he is taking full responsibility for the repairs and so cannot make further complaints to either the Council or the Ombudsman about any repair issues.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I will now complete my investigation as there is no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman