Summary: Mr C complained the Council incorrectly placed a charge on his property for works completed following the death of his wife. He also complained the Council delayed completing outstanding works arising from the Disabled Facilities Grant. The Ombudsman finds the Council was at fault for not providing Mr C with a revised approval of costs for the reinstatement works. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused to Mr C.

The complaint

1. Mr C complained the Council incorrectly placed a charge on his property for works completed following the death of his wife. He also says the Council delayed completing outstanding works arising from the Disabled Facilities Grant.
2. Mr C disputes the costs making up the total charge and queries the level of other costs applied. He says the delay in completing the works meant he lost proper use of his garden during the summer and he is now financially worse off because of the charge on his property.

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. I considered information from Mr C and the Council. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided in response.
6. I shared my draft decision with Mr C and the Council and I invited them to comment on it.

Back to top

What I found

7. Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs) are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Councils have a statutory duty to provide grant aid to disabled people for certain adaptations. Before approving a grant a council must be satisfied the work is necessary and suitable to meet the disabled person’s needs and also reasonable and practicable.
8. The maximum amount of a grant is £30,000. A council can award other discretionary help if it thinks it is necessary. The amount a council will pay for a grant is subject to a means test. Regardless of who makes the application, the means test is applied to the disabled occupant or the partner of the disabled person; this person is called the relevant person. If the relevant person has a partner their finances are assessed jointly.
9. The work must usually be completed within 12 months of the council approving the application.

What happened

10. In March 2019, the Council awarded Mr C’s wife a DFG for a downstairs bathroom. Both Mr C and his wife signed the repayment conditions form which confirmed if the works exceeded the £5,000 grant threshold, they would have to pay back up to £10,000 of any excess amount. The Council told Mr C and his wife they could choose their own contractor to complete the work. However, they went ahead with Council’s contractor.
11. The following month, the Council issued the formal approval of works for a £23,000 extension. Mr C and his wife agreed to the costs.
12. Shortly after works started in June 2019, Mr C’s wife sadly died. Therefore, works stopped.
13. After the funeral took place in July 2019, the technical officer from the Council visited Mr C at his property with the contractor. Mr C agreed for the Council to carry out reinstatement works. The purpose of the reinstatement works was to restore Mr C’s property to how it was before the building work began. The Council did not discuss the costs for the reinstatement works with Mr C during the meeting as it had not yet determined them.
14. In August 2019, Mr C phoned the Council to advise works had not started on the agreed date due to the contractor being ill. The housing improvement grant officer at the Council called the contractor for an update. The contractor told the Council he had not been in contact with Mr C as he had suffered a family bereavement. He said he would contact Mr C to provide an update.
15. On 3 September 2019, the contractor told the Council he would contact Mr C to arrange a works start date. The Council chased this on 11 September 2019. The contractor told the Council it had arranged a date for 16 September 2019.
16. Works completed on 22 October 2019. The total costs of the reinstatement works were £6,014.18. Therefore, the Council registered a charge of £1,014.48 against Mr C’s property as the final costs were above the £5,000 grant threshold.
17. Mr C complained to the Council in November 2019. He complained about delays in completing the reinstatement works, excessive costs and that it had failed to carry out the agreed works. He asked the Council to remove the charge on his property.
18. The Council responded to Mr C’s complaint. It said when applying for DFGs, applicants are means tested as a couple and are asked to sign a repayment condition agreement. The agreement may be signed by any person who has a vested interested in the property. In Mr C’s case it was both him and his wife. The Council also explained the costs of the reinstatement works were above the £5,000 grant threshold which resulted in it registering a charge against Mr C’s property.
19. Mr C escalated his complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure. He said he could not understand how it could justify costs of over £6,000 when it did not complete the work.
20. The Council issued its stage two response to Mr C’s complaint in December 2019. It gave him a breakdown of all costs and explained they were reasonable.
21. Mr C remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and referred his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Analysis

The Council delayed completing outstanding works arising from the DFG

22. I do not find the Council to be responsible for any delays in completing the outstanding reinstatement works. The evidence shows the contractor could not start the reinstatement works on the agreed date due to illness. The Council then contacted the contractor when it was aware and asked for an update. It also chased the contractor to check for a further update on the new start date. The delays were outside the Council’s control. I am satisfied it acted appropriately when Mr C brought the delays to its attention.

The Council incorrectly placed a charge on Mr C’s property

23. Mr C says it was unfair for the Council to register the charge against his property when the DFG was for his wife and not him. He also says the Council failed to complete the agreed works.
24. The evidence shows Mr C signed a repayment conditions form in February 2019. This confirms if the works exceed the £5,000 grant threshold, then the applicant must pay back a maximum of £10,000. The reinstatement works were above the £5,000 threshold (£6,014.18). Therefore, the Council has followed its own policy by registering a charge against Mr C’s property.
25. The repayment conditions form also says repayment of DFGs will be required when the applicant has a “qualifying owners interest in the premises on which the relevant works were carried out”. Mr C also signed a certificate of owner’s occupation form in February 2019 which confirms he owns the freehold of the property. Therefore, while it is correct the DFG was for Mr C’s wife, any charge for reinstatement works would be registered against the property on which the works were carried out.
26. Due to the unfortunate circumstances, the Council could not complete the agreed works. Therefore, it agreed to restore the property back to its former state. Mr C agreed to this. These circumstances could not have been foreseen and so I cannot criticise the Council for not completing the initial work it had agreed to do.

The costs involved in completing the reinstatement works

27. Mr C says costs of over £6,000 is excessive for the work the Council did. He says the cost of fence panels was expensive, and the costs for the security fencing and the site clearance.
28. The Council met with Mr C in July 2019 to discuss the reinstatement works. In its response to my enquiries, the Council said it could not provide Mr C with a revised approval of costs at this meeting because it had not yet determined them.
29. I asked the Council whether at any point it sent Mr C a revised approval of costs given it was different to what was initially agreed. The Council confirmed it did not because it does not generally send this out to the clients unless it is felt appropriate to do so. The Council said it had carried out the initial scheme, it would have resulted in a £10,000 land charge being registered against the property as opposed to the current £1,014.48. It also said Mr C might have a right to appeal if he can satisfy one or more of the relevant grounds for the charge to be waived it the property is sold or transferred within the grant condition period (10 years).
30. In its response to my enquiries, the Council has explained the costs for the reinstatement works. It has provided a breakdown of the labour and material charges.
31. I accept Mr C was aware at initial application stage of the potential affect that additional works/changes to schemes have in relation to land charge repayments. I also acknowledge the Council’s case that due to the volume of variations to schemes, it does not automatically send out a revised approval of costs.
32. However, Mr C’s case is a unique one. The intended purpose of the DFG had significantly changed. The extension was no longer going ahead, and this is what Mr C had signed up to and approved the costs for. Therefore, the Council should have given him an opportunity to see the revised costs, question them and approve them. For the Council not to have done so is fault.
33. I am satisfied this fault has caused injustice to Mr C. It would have caused him frustration when he saw the total costs which exceed what he believes to be reasonable. He now has uncertainty as to whether he would have been able to find cheaper quotes for the reinstatement works and avoid a charge being registered on his property. A remedy is appropriate for this injustice.

Agreed action

34. To remedy the injustice caused by fault, by 9 November 2020 the Council has agreed to:

• Pay Mr C £200.
• Apologise to Mr C for the fault identified in this statement.

35. By 7 December 2020 it has agreed to:

• Revise its policy to ensure it provides a revised approval of costs to all customers when significant changes are made to the initial agreed works. The Council is free to define what it considers ‘significant changes’ to be.

36. The Council should provide evidence to the Ombudsman the actions set out above have been taken.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I have found fault by the Council, causing an injustice to Mr C. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman