Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (19 017 796)

Category : Adult care services > Disabled facilities grants

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 02 Feb 2021

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of a disabled facilities grant for adaptations to their home to meet the needs of her son. Mrs X was given no choice but to use a Home Improvement Agency which cost over £3,000, despite Mrs X having to manage the work. The Council needs to pay Mrs X half the money paid to the Home Improvement Agency to remedy the injustice caused to her.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, complains about the Council’s handling of a disabled facilities grant (DFG) for adaptations to their home to meet the needs of her son. She says the Council gave them no choice over the use of a Home Improvement Agency (HIA) to manage her son’s DFG. She also says the HIA:
    • failed to deliver all the services they had expected, leaving them to manage the work themselves but still charging them 10% of the DFG plus VAT
    • commissioned plans/specifications which were unnecessary, resulting in extra costs
    • caused problems which significantly delayed completing the works, making her back problems much worse

Back to top

What I have investigated

  1. I have investigated events since we closed Mrs X’s previous complaint about the handling of the DFG in June 2018.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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

  1. 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

  1. The events covered by this complaint happened before and after the reorganisation of local government in Dorset. I only refer to Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (the Council), although other councils were involved before April 2019, as it has inherited responsibility for the earlier actions of the other councils. It is also accountable for the actions of the HIA which was commissioned by another council to process the application for a DFG.

What happened

  1. Mrs X has two adult sons with autism, Mr Y who has a learning disability, and Mr Z. Both sons live in the family home. Mr Y used to live in supported living accommodation but returned to the family home in May 2017.
  2. In June 2018, as a result of Mrs X’s previous complaint (17 011 449), the Council agreed to apologise for delays in dealing with the need for adaptations to the family home to meet Mr Y’s needs. It also agreed to reconsider the case, also taking account of Mr Z’s needs.
  3. In July an Occupational Therapist identified the need for an additional toilet in the home to better manage Mr Z’s anxieties around toileting. The Occupational Therapist provided advice “regarding outcomes from this assessment and care plan being factored in to existing DFG in respect of [Mr Z’s] brother at the same property”.
  4. In August the HIA produced plans which provided for:
    • extending the bathroom to provide space for an extra toilet and for Mrs X to help Mr Y when using the bath and toilet
    • moving the hot water cylinder into the loft
    • extending Mr Y’s bedroom over the driveway
    • an estimated cost of £25,939
  5. Mrs X did not agree to this because of concerns about how they would manage while the works were carried out and the loss of vehicle access to the garage at the end of the driveway.
  6. In October the Council amended the proposal for adaptations to provide for:
    • extending the current bathroom to allow for the addition of an extra toilet and the space needed for care
    • moving the hot water cylinder to the loft space
    • extending Mr Y’s bedroom to provide space for helping with care and activities of daily living
  7. On 2 November the Council told Mrs X that, provided a proposed loft conversion would meet Mr Y’s needs, the Occupational Therapist would support it. It said, at her own cost, she would need to:
    • get plans drawn up for the loft conversion and get planning permission and building regulation approval
    • submit copies of the plans for approval by the Occupational Therapist and the Public Health Officer
    • get at least two quotes for the works, some of which may be eligible for VAT exemption
    • give the quotes, agreed plans and planning/building regulation approvals to the HIA, which would process the grant application
  8. It said the HIA would:
    • get two quotes from contractors for works to the existing bathroom/bedroom to get best value from the grant amount
    • complete the grant application form with Mrs X and submit it to the Council for approval
  9. It said Mrs X would be responsible for managing all aspects of the works. But the HIA would deal with the payments to the contractor, including any staged payments, holding back 15% of the DFG until the works were completed and signed off by Planning/Building Control.
  10. On 9 November Mrs X told the Council her architect said a loft conversion was not possible. She therefore proposed extending the rear of the property to provide a new lounge, using the original lounge as a bedroom and converting one of the bedrooms into a bathroom next to Mr Y’s bedroom.
  11. On 6 December Mrs X told the HIA her architect was waiting for planning permission and would not be producing schedules until the new year.
  12. 0n 11 April 2019 the HIA drew up a schedule for the grant funded work. This covers changes to two of the bedrooms to create a new bathroom and larger bedroom for Mr Y.
  13. On 12 April Mrs X sent Occupational Therapist B plans for the proposed work. They provided for:
    • an extension to the living space described as a “day room”
    • reconfiguring two of the bedrooms to provide a second bathroom and a larger bedroom for Mr Y
  14. Mrs X said the HIA did not understand what needed to be funded. She said they needed the grant to cover the cost of the extension to the back of the kitchen, so they could move a bedroom into the room currently being used as a lounge. She said they had expected somewhere near the maximum grant (£30,000) with the family funding any shortfall.
  15. On 13 April Mrs Y’s architect sent her a building specification for the rear extension. She says the HIA asked for this without discussing it with her. She says it cost £400 plus VAT and, according to her builder, was “complete overkill” as he did not know why it was needed.
  16. On 17 April the Council told the HIA it could consider funding part of the proposed works but not the “day room”. It said Mrs X would have to pay for this and any work above the maximum £30,000 mandatory DFG.
  17. However, on 24 April the Council wrote to the HIA (copying its e-mail to Mrs X). It said quotes should be obtained for two schemes:
    • scheme 1 eligible for grant funding – alterations to bedroom 2, provision of accessible bathroom and construction of replacement lounge of the same size as the existing lounge
    • scheme 2 partially eligible for grant funding - alterations to bedroom 2, provision of accessible bathroom and construction of a day room as shown on Mrs X’s plans
  18. The Council said the HIA would manage the project, obtaining quotes for both schemes with a grant covering the cost of scheme 1 up to £30,000. It said scheme 2 would be built with the HIA instructing contractors, supervising works and payments for scheme 1, with Mrs X paying any additional costs.
  19. Mrs X tells me the day room is slightly larger than the room originally used as a lounge but now needed as a bedroom.
  20. On 13 May Mrs X asked the Council about progress.
  21. On 17 May the HIA visited Mrs X to discuss three options for moving forward with the adaptations:
        1. the HIA to fully administer the works and get costs for all elements;
        2. Mrs X to fully administer the works and get costs for all elements; or
        3. a hybrid of the above.
  22. Mrs X preferred option 2 and confirmed this by e-mail on 20 May. The HIA agreed to:
      1. provide comparative costs for the bathroom and bedroom adaptation and the recognised cost per square metre for general building costs for the replacement of the loss of a living room which would be used as a bedroom;
      2. complete the application form for the DFG, obtain grant approval and provide this notice to Mrs X; and
      3. let the work to Mrs Y’s Builder under a Joint Contracts Tribunal minor works contract with an agreed stage payment mechanism, signing off each section of the works before releasing payment to the contractor as below:
        1. extension at damp proof course level and oversite and drainage completed;
        2. on completion of external walls and roof;
        3. on completion of extension internal works, plastering, flooring screed, wiring and plumbing fit for habitation pre-decoration;
        4. completion of the bathroom adaptation and bedroom alterations;
        5. on receipt of building control certificate of completion, and final electrical compliance certificate, a signed PCC showing the clients are content with the work.
        6. Mrs X to retain 2.5% of the contract value for 6 months to cover post-completion snagging works.

Mrs X says the HIA never provided the comparative costs [see bullet a) above].

  1. On 20 May the HIA told the Council it had met Mrs X and “agreed a resolution to the situation”. The document setting out what they had agreed says the £30,000 grant would be used as follows:
    • £26,785.72 - building works
    • £2,678.57- HIA’s fee
    • £535.71 - VAT on the HIA’s fee
  2. On 7 June Mrs X told the HIA she had two quotes for scheme 2 and was waiting for a third.
  3. On 20 June the HIA confirmed receipt of three quotes from Mrs X.
  4. On 27 June the HIA confirmed it was ready to move forward with the grant application. It visited Mrs X to complete the application forms on 1 July and agreed a grant of £30,000. According to the records, this left Mrs X having to pay £5,201.60 towards the cost of the work which came to £35,201.60:
    • the Builder’s quote of £31,430 plus VAT
    • technical fee for the HIA £3,143 plus VAT £628.60
  5. On 16 July, after Mrs X had signed the contract, the HIA told the Builder he could start work on 22 July.
  6. On 17 July the HIA asked the Builder to identify the cost of the works to form the new bedroom and bathroom, including drainage, as they would be zero rated for VAT.
  7. On 26 July the Builder told the HIA £6,400 of the work (bathroom and drainage) would be zero rated for VAT. The Builder also sent the HIA an invoice for £14,400 (including £2,400 in VAT). The HIA arranged to pay the invoice on 1 August.
  8. On 2 August Mrs X wrote to the HIA. She said the Builder had sent invoices which had not been paid. She was concerned the Builder would stop work. The HIA confirmed it was arranging to pay the Builder who was satisfied with this.
  9. On 2 August the Builder sent the HIA an invoice for £8,400 (including £1,400 in VAT). The HIA’s statement of account says the total cost of the work, including VAT would be £36,436, of which £26,785.72 would be covered by grant funding. It says £2,785.72 remained following interim payments of £15,600 (this figure was an error and should have been £14,400) and £8,400, leaving £12,436 still to be paid, of which Mrs X would have to pay £9,650.28.
  10. On 17 August the Builder sent the HIA an invoice for £3,985.72 (including £664.29 in VAT).
  11. On 19 August Mrs X told the HIA the Builder was not on site, but had completed the roof which was ready for inspection. She asked when this would happen. The HIA told Mrs X it had discussed the arrangements for payment with her husband.
  12. On 23 August Mrs X told the HIA the Builder was clearing the site as he had not yet been paid.
  13. On 30 August the HIA noted:
    • the original cost of the works was £31,430;
    • with a client contribution of £5,201.50 and invoices paid totalling £22,800, this left £3,428.40 to be paid
    • the builder had invoiced £3,985.72, which reflected a potential overpayment of £557.32
  14. On 11 September Mrs X asked the HIA why the Builder’s invoice of 17 August had still not been paid, having been assured it would be paid the previous week.
  15. On 12 September the HIA told Mrs X it would e-mail her later that day. That evening Mrs X told the HIA someone had visited the site before the roof lantern had been fitted but they had now sent a photo of the roof lantern.
  16. On 18 September Mrs X asked if the invoice had been paid as she had not yet received a reply.
  17. On 27 September the HIA sent Mrs X a statement of the costs (see paragraph 35 above). It told Mrs X the remaining balance on the grant was £2,785.72. It said the Builder had submitted an invoice on 17 August before completing the roof works, which had been validated by one of its Officers last week. It asked her to ask the Builder to present the final invoice for the grant funded works for £2,785.72 (including VAT). It said it would then ask Mrs X to confirm in writing that she was satisfied with the grant funded works. It said it would also need electrical certificates and Building Control sign off. Mrs X pointed out the HIA’s error in its statement of costs (see paragraph 35 above).
  18. Later on 27 September the HIA told Mrs X the £30,000 grant funding included its technical fee plus VAT. It said:
    • the cost of the grant approved works was £26,785.72
    • the technical fee was £2,678.57
    • VAT on the technical fee was £535.71
  19. The electrical installation certificate is dated 30 September.
  20. The HIA’s completion certificate for the work is dated 1 October. This says the work cost £31,430, plus a technical fee and VAT of £3,214.28, which meant Mrs X had to pay £4,644.28. This did not take account of the VAT on most of the building works (only £6,400 was VAT exempt).
  21. On 4 October Mrs X complained to the HIA that the Builder had still not been paid, despite assurances that he would be paid that day.
  22. Mrs X complained to the Council about the service provided by the HIA. When it replied in November, the Council said it understood her frustration and upset, but any claim for compensation must be made against the HIA. It said it could not pay compensation where no liability existed. It suggested Mrs X take legal advice.
  23. In December, Mrs X invited the Builder to send her its final invoice. She estimated this would be for £520, taking account of money they had spent (£750) completing the work. She never heard anything further from the Builder.
  24. The HIA responded to Mrs X’s complaint in January 2020. It said:
    • they had not been able to reach an agreement on how to adapt the property to provide for a bathroom next to Mr Y’s bedroom, so closed the case in August 2017;
    • the case was reopened in April 2018 when an Occupational Therapist reassessed Mr Y;
    • Mrs X had to pay for her own plans because she wanted a scheme which went beyond the scope of grant funding;
    • this also meant Mrs X had to manage the works herself;
    • at a meeting on 17 May 2019 it had explained how the application would work, what it would do during the construction phase and how the payment process would work and the charge for these services.
  25. Mrs X has back problems which have been made worse by the lack of space to help Mr Y when he is using the bathroom and toilet.

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

  1. It took several months to agree proposals for adapting the family home to meet both sons’ needs. The records are incomplete and almost all of those the Council has sent to me come from the HIA. Consequently, the sequence of events is not entirely clear. However, it is clear that the HIA proposed a scheme in August 2018, which Mrs X did not accept. She then made her own proposals, but they proved unworkable. So, she came up with further proposals, to which the Council agreed. I cannot put the time this took down to fault by the Council/HIA.
  2. On 2 November 2018, the Council clearly set out what Mrs X would need to do, what she would have to pay for and what the HIA would do. In April 2019 it told Mrs X the HIA would do more than that. However, in May Mrs X agreed “to fully administer the works and get costs for all elements”.
  3. The Council gave Mrs X no choice over using the HIA. That was fault. Everyone should have choice over whether to use an HIA or not. Being denied that choice caused injustice, as it resulted in £3,214.28 being paid to the HIA despite Mrs X agreeing to administer most of the work. This reduced the amount available to pay for the grant funded works. To remedy that injustice the Council needs to pay Mrs X £1,607.14 (half the cost of using the HIA).
  4. The HIA caused some unnecessary confusion by falsely claiming the Builder’s final invoice for grant funding was too high. This resulted in some avoidable distress to Mrs X. However, the Builder submitted his invoice before completing the work. The final invoice could not be paid until the work had been completed and signed off.

Back to top

Agreed action

  1. 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 HIA, I have made recommendations to the Council.
  2. The Council has agreed to take these actions within four weeks:
    • write to Mrs X apologising for the problems she has experienced; and
    • refund half the cost of using the HIA, £1,607.14.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have completed my investigation, as the Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice caused to Mrs X.

Parts of the complaint I did not investigate

  1. I have not investigated events before June 2018, when we closed Mrs Y’s previous complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings