Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to carry out the agreed works under a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). There was a change to the specification of works which the Council failed to put in writing. This was fault. However, we found the change to the specification was necessary and followed professional advice. So, on balance we did not conclude Mrs X paid for more works than were necessary to complete the adaptation of her home. The Council agreed to recognise the time and trouble Mrs X was put to pursuing her complaint and to review some if its procedures.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council failed to carry out the agreed works under a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). She complains the Council fitted a boiler fed shower rather than an electric shower. The boiler fed shower would not work properly because of an issue with her boiler. As a result, Mrs X had to extend her DFG by £4000 to pay for a new boiler. Mrs X complains that if she moves house, the Council would recover £4000 more from her than she should have had to pay.

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. I spoke to Mrs X and considered the information she provided. I asked the Council for information and considered its response to the complaint.
5. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mrs X’s complaint concerns a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) to provide a downstairs bathroom for her father.
7. Mrs X says, before work started, she had a meeting at her house at which she specified the shower should be electric. The Council says its housing department carried out a joint visit with an Occupational Therapist (OT) in June 2018 to plan the DFG works. The works included door widening & access and a ground floor shower room. There is no dispute that the original intention was to install an electric shower.
8. In January 2019, after the work started, an electrician advised the builder that installing a second electric shower would not be possible. The family already had an electric shower in their first-floor bathroom. The electrician stated the second electric shower would potentially blow the main electric supply to the property. The electrician later put his advice in writing.
9. The Council says on or around 14 January 2019 a housing officer met with the builder and a family member at Mrs X’s home. They explained it would not be possible to install a second electric shower in the property. The Council says as a result of their discussion, the family member agreed the Council would install a shower that worked off their boiler instead of the electric shower. The Council kept no record of this discussion. However, notes on the Council’s files did record the housing officer’s discussion with the builder. These notes stated “…agreed to builder’s suggested changes subject to [Service User’s] agreement. Discussed shower type”.
10. One of the builders later told the Council in an email that he overheard the discussion between the housing officer and ‘the client’ about the shower. However, Mrs X states she was not consulted about the change.
11. When changes are made to either the cost or the specification of a DFG, the Council says it should prepare a variation document and re-approve the grant. It would then send out a reapproval letter and/or certificate to document any changes. This would help show changes from the original estimate to the final cost of the grant. The Council accepts it did not send out any formal letter setting out the change to the shower in this case.
12. The Council provided evidence that the housing team contacted the OT on 15 January to explain the issue with the shower. The OT confirmed that a boiler‑fed mixer shower would be acceptable in terms of meeting Mrs X’s father’s needs.
13. Mrs X told us the first time she knew of the change to the shower was when they first came to use it in March 2019. She said it did not work properly. It ran intermittently hot and cold.
14. Mrs X told the OT about the problem with the shower at a review meeting on 22 March. Mrs X followed the meeting up with a call to the Council on 26 March. She says at this point the Council explained the shower had been changed from an electric shower to a boiler fed shower during the works. She told us she had not been aware of the change of specification until this point.
15. The Council asked the contractor about the problem. He suggested that Mrs X should have her boiler serviced. The housing officer told Mrs X this. He stated the Council was unlikely to be able to provide a grant for a new boiler.
16. In early May a Councillor made enquiries about the situation. Officers provided information to Mrs X’s councillor in June. They explained the Council usually installed an electric shower. They also note the issue with the boiler-fed shower was that Mrs X’s boiler had a defective heat exchanger. After correspondence with her councillor the Council gave Mrs X several options. The Council set out two different options to get a grant for changing the boiler so it would run the shower properly. As an alternative it stated it could disconnect the electric shower in the family bathroom upstairs and fit it downstairs in the new DFG bathroom.
17. Mrs X says the situation was difficult. Her father needed the downstairs shower room but she could not leave the family without a shower upstairs. Mrs X initially declined the options. I understand the family did not want a charge placed on the property to pay for a new boiler and they doubted whether they would be eligible for a grant. However, they did not want to remove the upstairs shower either.
18. Mrs X says she felt she had to have the boiler changed, even though she had not intended to do so. In late 2019 she agreed to have the work done with a grant of £4000 paying for the work. The grant would be repayable if her property is sold or if it changes ownership. I understand the new boiler was installed in or around January 2020.
19. Although Mrs X agreed to have the work done to resolve the situation, she complained that if the Council had installed the electric shower as originally proposed, she would not have had an the additional cost to repay if she sold her property.
20. In response to my draft decision Mrs X clarified that before the company started work she had taken her father abroad. They returned towards the end of March. So, it was her sister, rather then herself who was present at the house while work was being carried out. She stated her sister was working and not at the property all of the time.

Adult Social Care

21. Mrs X stated that she also felt social services pressured her into moving her father into a care home for the period that the works would take place. The Council stated its adult social care team had spoken to Mrs X about potentially finding a care home place for her father. This was solely for the two days the work was expected to take place. The conversations took place in late 2019 and into January 2020. The intention was to remove some of the stress of the situation. The Council says Mrs X did visit one of the care homes. However, at Mrs X’s request the Council stopped the work being done to organise a care home as Mrs X felt there was still a need to discuss and agree the details of the works to be carried out.

Was there fault by the Council

22. I understand Mrs X considers the Council should have installed a second electric shower at her property, as it had originally intended to. However, it is clear that the Council received advice from a qualified electrician that this would be unsatisfactory and could blow the mains electricity in her house. So, it is evident that a different option for the shower was needed.
23. When a Council makes a change to the specification for a DFG it should put this in writing to the applicant. Had the Council done this here, the specification would have been clear and the complaint may have been avoided. The failure to properly document the change in specification and send it to Mrs X was fault.
24. Although the Council did not set out the change in writing, it says it was discussed with the family. There is a dispute about whether or not there was a discussion about the problem with fitting a second electric shower when this was identified in January 2019. Mrs X says this was not discussed with her. There is no explicit record of a conversation with her or another member of the family. Although there is no written record of a discussion with Mrs X, a discussion is referred to by a builder in correspondence with the Council. They say they overheard the discussion between the housing officer and ‘the client’. So, while I cannot be sure that the discussion took place, or that it was made clear what was to be changed, on the balance of probabilities I consider it is likely some form of discussion took place.
25. Although there is some doubt about whether a discussion took place, I do not consider it ultimately led to a different outcome. I say this because it is evident that two electric showers could not be installed following professional advice. So, the installation of a boiler fed shower was the most likely outcome. Mrs X’s boiler could not support a boiler fed shower, so it is likely that the new boiler would have been required to facilitate a second bathroom. As a result, I do not consider that Mrs X incurred expense of £4000 more than she should have to achieve the adaptations needed for her father.
26. That said, if communication had been better, it seems likely the issue would have been resolved more quickly and possibly without the need for Mrs X to raise a complaint. As a result, I have concluded Mrs X was put to avoidable time, trouble and stress of raising a complaint.
27. The Council told me that it is the householder’s responsibility to ensure their boiler is serviced and the electrical system is to current standards. This is accepted. However, to ensure the adaptation work can be successfully achieved, consideration needs to be given to whether the proposed changes would be supported by existing infrastructure, not just whether the electrics and boiler were to current standards or had been serviced. In this case, if more consideration had been given to whether the works would be supported by the existing boiler and electrical system, the issues may have come to light earlier. However, I do not consider this is solely the responsibility of the Council. Homeowners also have a responsibility to check whether their existing infrastructure will be sufficient to enable the requested works to take place.
28. To help avoid situations like this occur in future, the Council should review its guidance for officers concerning DFG applications. This should include the importance of confirming any changes to a DFG application in writing to applicants. It should also consider a checklist or guidance for homeowners to encourage them to consider the implications of any proposed works on the other aspects of their property. For example, water supplies, electrics or boiler capacity.

Agreed action

29. Within four weeks of my final decision the Council agreed to:
30. Recognise the time, trouble and stress Mrs X was put to raising a complaint by paying Mrs X £150.
31. Review its guidance for officers concerning DFG applications. This should include the importance of confirming any changes to a DFG application in writing to applicants. It should also consider a checklist or guidance for homeowners to encourage them to consider the implications and compatibility of any proposed works on the other aspects of their property.

Back to top

Final decision

32. There was fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman