Summary: Ms X and Mr Y complain there was delay by the Council in flagging up poor workmanship funded by a Disabled Facilities Grant. Once the issues were logged the Council replaced the contractor and rectified the works. However, there was some delay by the Council in progressing this. The Council put some things right by organising various repairs to the property. Several issues remain outstanding which has added to Ms X’s and Mr Y’s distress, inconvenience and frustration. The Contractor is responsible for the poor workmanship. The contract for the building works is between Mr Y and the contractor. We have not looked at this as it is not within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. The Council will apologise, make financial payments and service improvements to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X and Mr Y complain the Council:
1. failed to properly manage the contractor appointed to complete disabled facilities grant works which has delayed completion and
2. delayed taking action on poor workmanship.

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 Ms X and considered the information she provided. I made enquiries of the Council and assessed its response.
5. I sent Ms X and the Council a copy of my draft decision and invited their comments. I considered all the comments I received by reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG) 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 adaptations. Before approving a grant, the Council must be satisfied the work is necessary and appropriate to meet the disabled person’s needs and is reasonable and practicable.
7. An occupational therapist (OT) carries out the needs assessment. The Council also carries out a means test of the disabled person to work out how much it will award. The maximum amount of a grant is £30,000.
8. ‘Home adaptations for disabled people: a detailed guide to related legislation, guidance and good practice’ is non-statutory guidance, published by the Homes Adaptations Consortium. It says all major adaption work needs to be visited by a supervising officer at least once whilst they are in progress and, where work continues beyond a week, more often. In all visits, the disabled person and carer should be involved and given the opportunity to comment on the progress of the work and raise difficulties or queries.
9. The work must usually be completed within twelve months of the Council approving the application.
10. The DFG grant was provided by Waverly Borough Council. The grant application was managed and overseen by a Home Improvement Agency (HIA), Care and Repair, an in-house service provided by Guildford Borough Council (The Council), which applicants may instruct to manage the whole DFG process on their behalf.

What happened in this case

11. This chronology identifies key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
12. Mr Y lives with his partner Ms X and their three children in a two-bedroom semi-detached property. In 2012 Mr Y sustained an injury to his back and has since experienced chronic pain symptoms. Ms X is Mr Y’s main carer.
13. In October 2015 an Occupational Therapist (OT) visited the property and identified that Mr Y has difficulty using stairs and accessing the bath and toilet. The OT recommended installing a stair lift but acknowledged the family’s preference was to have a large downstairs extension with a bedroom, shower room and toilet.
14. Following the visit the OT approached Mr Y’s GP and two hospital consultants to clarify Mr Y’s long term medical prognosis, functional needs and whether it was anticipated that Mr Y may become a full-time wheelchair user. One consultant stated that it was “important that (Mr Y) tries to avoid any dependence on a chair as keeping mobile would strengthen his muscles and relying on a chair would weaken his lumbar spine and can exacerbate any back pain”. No opinion was expressed by Mr Y’s GP or the other hospital consultant.
15. In December 2015 the OT submitted a report to the major adaptation panel identifying the following two building options:

• stairlift with downstairs shower and toilet
• adding a downstairs bedroom to the proposed downstairs toilet and shower room, as requested by the family.

The panel asked the OT to look into the feasibility of both options.

16. Waverly Borough Council carried out two home visits to the property in December 2015 and February 2016. On 3 May 2016 the major adaptations panel agreed to building works for a downstairs bedroom and shower/toilet extension. The panel agreed to provide additional funding as the proposed works exceeded £30,000. Going forward the application and DFG works were managed by Guildford Borough (The Council) and the HIA.
17. There is a signed agreement between Mr Y and the agency dated 14 March 2016. This stated the HIA was acting as Mr Y’s agent in processing the application, the contract was between Mr Y and the contractor and any legal issues were between Mr Y and the contractor. The agreement also stated the Council would provide assistance “by supervising the carrying out of works”.
18. The OT visited Mr Y and showed him the plans drawn up by the HIA. The plan was to convert the lounge into a bedroom with ensuite shower, modifying the kitchen access to make a straight run through to the kitchen into a larger open plan dining room/lounge at the back of the house. Mr Y disagreed with the plans and said he wanted to build out on the back of the property as planned prior to his accident. The Council agreed to Mr Y producing his own plans for consideration.
19. Mr Y submitted proposals for how he would like the house adapted. The plans included extending out of the back of the house and incorporating a laundry area. The OT noted the downside of the rear extension was the narrow width of the plot which limited the width of the bedroom. The Council identified the proposed bedroom was too small for a double room according to housing legislation and it needed to be bigger. The plans were revised, and the bedroom made larger to meet the requirements of the DFG. The cost of the works increased up to £60,000 and this extra funding was approved by the major adaptations panel.
20. Waverley Borough Council awarded the DFG in May 2017 for an extension to provide a ground floor bedroom and bathroom with level access showering facilities. The amount of grant awarded was £52,521.30. The Council put out the work to tender and appointed Contractor A to complete the schedule of work. The Council obtained a written reference and visited two former clients who had extensions completed by Contractor A. This was the first contract awarded to this contractor. The work commenced on 25 August 2017 and should have been completed by the end of December 2017.
21. On 25 October 2017 Ms X raised concerns about the progress of the schedule of works. The HIA spoke to Contractor A who agreed to appoint extra staff and confirmed that the work would be completed in six weeks. Ms X expressed her concerns about the design of the roof. The HIA said the design was discussed and approved with the family and Contractor A at the prestart meeting held in July.
22. The HIA carried out site visits in November 2017 and noted Ms X’s concerns about asbestos. Contractor A was asked to remove the asbestos at the time. The HIA recorded that works were progressing on site but roof tiles had not arrived. A further site visit took place in early December 2017 and Ms X expressed concerns about the duration of the works. Contractor A said internal work would be completed before Christmas however the HIA agent recorded “myself and client believe otherwise”.
23. In early January 2018 Ms X complained to the Council about a number of issues. I have not listed every issue individually here. In summary Ms X complained about the poor quality of works, damage to the property and unfinished work. Ms X said the work should have been completed by middle of December 2017.
24. In response to Ms X’s complaint the HIA carried out a visit to the property. The HIA met with Contractor A the next day and agreed a completion date of 26 January 2018.
25. Two weeks later the HIA responded to Ms X’s complaint. It acknowledged the project had caused considerable disruption to day-to-day life for the family. The HIA accepted the project had gone over timescale but stated that Contractor A had been hindered by various difficulties which had affected progress of the work. It confirmed that the project was set to be completed on 31 January 2018.
26. On 9 February 2018 building control approved the works carried out at the property. Ms X raised concerns about the roof and the HIA carried out an inspection. The Council agreed that a completion certificate could not be issued, on the basis the roof required repair.
27. Around the same time, Ms X complained to her local councillor and a response was provided by Waverley Borough Council. The response stated the Council had given Contractor A the opportunity to repair the roof but had not received a satisfactory outcome. It was agreed that Contractor A should be replaced, and a final payment would need to be negotiated. The Council agreed to an independent surveyor to inspect the works. It was confirmed that any work arising from the surveyor’s inspection would be covered by the grant.
28. At the end of March 2018 the Council sent Mr Y and Ms X details of a new roofing contractor (Contractor B). Following discussions about the design Mr Y and Ms X agreed to the repairs. On 11 April 2018 the HIA surveyor visited the property to inspect the work carried out by Contractor B. The HIA sent an email to Ms X and confirmed that the work had been carried out to a satisfactory standard and the roof was weatherproof. It confirmed the items listed by Ms X as outstanding would be addressed and corrected at the three-month snagging visit.
29. In August 2018 the HIA surveyor carried out a three-month end of retention period visit to the property. Following the visit Ms X sent an email to the HIA raising several concerns. Ms X said, “We are now on week 49 of 16 and wish for this project to be finished to an acceptable standard”. In response to Ms X’s email the Council said the bedroom could have been used three months ago and there was no reason Mr Y could not move in. The HIA asked Contractor C to complete some snagging works. The email stated “…nothing has gone right with this project and the builder did not do the best job”.
30. Contractor C completed the snagging works in mid-September 2018. Four months later Ms X reported that the electrics in the bathroom had blown. The HIA carried out repairs to the shower electrics. The Council also sent Ms X a copy of the electrical and roofing guarantee.
31. On 11 February 2019 Ms X told the Council the roof was leaking and provided photographs of damp/wet patches in the areas affected. The HIA asked Contractor B to visit the property to assess and repair the roof.
32. Ms X complained to the Ombudsman about the delay in completing the building work, the quality and standards of the work carried out and the poor service. The Ombudsman asked the Council to investigate the complaint in the first instance. The Council agreed and arranged to visit Ms X and Mr Y at their property on 7 June 2019. A further visit was carried out on 13 July 2019. The Council instructed a surveyor independent of the HIA to review the works completed at the property.
33. In its complaint response the Council admitted the standard of work produced by the contractor was poor and that it fell short in the management of the contractor. The investigation found the delay was caused for two main reasons:

• There was some unforeseen and repetition of works such as replacing the new roof;
• The reliability and management of the project by Contractor A delayed the build.

34. In response to Ms X’s specific complaints the Council said:

• The adaptation and extension works were not designed to be wheelchair accessible. The Council acknowledged the wheelchair turning circle illustrated in the first draft of plans may have indicated that the extension was going to be suitable for a wheelchair user, but the occupational therapists report did not require the bedroom to be wheelchair accessible;
• Contractor A was responsible for removing the asbestos, but the Council accepts the HIA could have acted sooner;
• it would returf the rear garden;
• the original drawing was for a pitched roof but this could not be achieved due to positioning of the windows. The HIA presented two alternative designs which were rejected by Mr Y and Ms X. A further design, of a pitch roof with a cut about window was agreed by Mr Y and Ms X;
• it had already acknowledged the workmanship of the roof tiles was not satisfactory and HIA appointed Contractor B to replace the roof;
• it acknowledged Mr Y and Ms X were not happy with the quality of work in the bathroom but said the independent surveyor had raised no concerns and reported the finishes were in good condition and decorative order with no signs of inadequate construction;
• the surveyor reported that pipework in the kitchen and bathroom was accessible for cleaning and maintenance and no further work was required;
• joints between the paving slabs did not appear to be generally deficient; and
• the surveyor confirmed that Contractor A used plaster rather than cement to build the partition wall between the living room and bedroom but said the wall was sound.

35. The Council apologised to Ms X in its final complaint response in February 2020, agreed to fund a hotel stay for Ms X and her family and arrange storage of their belongings elsewhere in the house while remedial work was completed at the property. Remedial work was agreed for the utility room; bedroom; external flank wall; rainwater pipework; bedroom window; paving; isolation switches; UPVC door and rear lawn. The schedule of works included decorating the living room, new ground floor bedroom and partition wall in the lobby. The Council also agreed for an independent surveyor to conduct a review of three additional items identified by Ms X. It said if the surveyor identified any defects linked to the build they would be added to the schedule of works. These items were:

• Examine the roof for leaks and identify if any remedial work is required;
• Examine the soakaway to confirm it works;
• Review the condition of the bathroom to determine if works are required or if the condition is considered ‘normal wear and tear’

36. The Council agreed to contact Mr Y and Ms X to progress the schedule of works that required completing. The Council did not contact Mr Y and Ms X until 15 October 2020.
37. The Council arranged for an electrician to visit the property in early November 2020. The electrician inspected the property and carried out further tests. Mr Y and Ms X were not happy with the survey nor the conduct of the electrician. The Council arranged for another electrician to carry out safety checks at the property. However, I understand this was postponed due to Covid-19 pandemic.
38. In response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries the Council said that it had appointed a surveyor to review the three outstanding items listed in paragraph 34. Mr Y and Ms X requested that the surveyor complete a full inspection, but the Council said the inspection would be limited to the three items stated. I understand that the survey was due to be carried out in January 2021 but was delayed due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic.

Analysis – was there fault leading to injustice?

39. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider how a Council manages the grant procedure and any works funded by the grant. It is not to decide if those works should be approved or to comment on the details of what is needed. The schedule of works was put out to tender and following this contract was awarded to a contractor, Contractor A. The project was managed by the HIA on behalf of the Council. I find no fault by the Council here.
40. The Council is not responsible for the standard of works. At the start of the process the HIA clearly told Mr Y the contract of works was between him and the contractor. The actions of the contractor are not within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. Therefore, any claim against the contractor is for Mr Y and Ms X to take forward.
41. The Council was responsible for supervising the works, monitoring progress, and challenging the contractor where appropriate. Most of the records the Council has sent in come from the HIA. They show the work started two weeks later than agreed on 25 August 2017 and quickly ran into difficulties. The Council accepts the original works were completed to a poor standard and that it fell short of its management of the contract. The HIA also acknowledged that the project had caused considerable disruption to day-to-day life for the family.
42. Ms X says, it has taken the Council three years to complete the works to the property, rather than the sixteen weeks the work should have taken. Although the Council says the majority of the works were completed within 12 months, this is a significant delay and I understand some remedial work is still outstanding. Ms X says during this period, Mr Y had to live in the property that was not accessible for his needs and their family had to live in the property while contractors undertook works. Ms X says this caused considerable stress. The Council concedes there were delays in completing the project and it is clear from the documentary evidence that Contractor A initially estimated sixteen weeks to complete the work. That seems an ambitious target given the extent of the build and the fact the family remained living in the property throughout the period. In my view setting such a short deadline for a complex build unreasonably raised Mr Y and Ms X’s expectations. I recommend in future the Council work closely with contractors to create a realistic plan, particularly when it is intended for the occupier and or their family to remain living in the property during the works.
43. It is also clear there were specific delays which added further delay to the project. That included repetition of work such as replacing the roof and patio. Delay was also caused by tradespeople or workmen not attending the site. The HIA carried out frequent inspections of the work but failed to take prompt action when it identified that works were not progressing nor when tradespeople were not on site. The HIA also failed to identify issues with the roof and no action was taken until Ms X raised further concerns in February 2018. I find the Council was at fault as it could have flagged the concerns about workmanship sooner so the rectification works might then have been completed sooner. The Council also accepts that in some instances Mr Y and Ms X were not provided with any timescales for completion of ongoing works.
44. The build was completed in June 2018. Ms X and her family had to live in unsuitable living conditions for six months longer than should have been necessary, especially during winter months of 2017/2018 when the roof was unfinished and left open to the elements. Ms X says the new bedroom was left without windows or doors, it was bitterly cold, and the property was left unsecure. The Council disputes this and says the main living area was never left unsecured or open to the elements as temporary screens were put in place. Because I was not there, I cannot say what happened, however based on the correspondence I have seen, the delays in completing the work caused Ms X, Mr Y and their children significant amounts of avoidable stress and discomfort. They suffered the inconvenience and disruption of repeated visits by contractors which in some instances failed to resolve the issues. Ms X had to repeatedly contact the HIA, speak to Contractor A about poor workmanship and complain about the lack of communication and delay. She felt exhausted and frustrated because matters had gone on for so long.
45. I cannot say the delay was solely caused by the Council’s actions or lack of. There was poor workmanship and management of the project by Contractor A. I do not criticise the Council for delays which were outside of its control. Those included delays relating to wrong breeze blocks being delivered, problems sourcing the coloured bricks and unforeseen drainage works. Those delays are not fault.
46. When the Council identified that the roof was unsatisfactory it inspected the property and agreed that the work could not be signed off as complete. The Council allowed Contractor A the opportunity to correct the work and subsequently decided to remove the contractor from the job. It also removed the contractor from its approved list to prevent future problems. This was good practice. To put things right for Mr Y and Ms X the Council the Council appointed a new contractor to repair the roof. I also find that the Council acted promptly and repaired faulty electrics in the bathroom and fixed a broken door.
47. In summer 2019 the Council investigated Ms X’s complaint. I have carefully considered the documentation and understand that Mr Y and Ms X raised concerns about the schedule of remedial works proposed by the Council. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to specify what the schedule should contain. The Ombudsman is not a right of appeal. Instead, the role of the Ombudsman is to consider the administrative process followed by the Council in deciding the remedial schedule of works. I note that Mr Y and Ms X disagree with the independent surveyor’s report undertaken in 2019. The Council have accepted the report and, on that basis, proposed a schedule of remedial works. The Council has reached its decision after the surveyor visited and inspected the property and therefore, I find no fault in the way it has reached its decision. The Council also requested a second electrical inspection.
48. In February 2020 the Council agreed to contact Mr Y and Ms X to progress the schedule of works. The Council also agreed for an independent surveyor to conduct a review of three additional items as mentioned in paragraph 34. However, the Council did not contact Mr Y and Ms X until 15 October 2020. That was fault. Once it did make contact, I find the Council acted quickly to instruct an electrician and surveyor to visit the property. I understand the surveyor’s visit had been delayed due to Covid-19 which was outside the Council’s control. The Council has already apologised for the lack of communication and delay, however this fault added to Ms X and Mr Y’s continued frustration and distress.
49. It is Mr Y’s and Ms X’s view that the surveyor should carry out another full inspection. The Council reviewed the last surveyors report and agreed to a new survey for three additional items. Again, this is not a decision I cannot criticise. It is a decision the Council is entitled to reach.
50. The Council responded to Ms X’s stage one complaint in a prompt and timely manner. A further response was provided in October 2019. Ms X’s complaint was escalated to stage two in November 2019 and a final response was provided two months later. In total the Council took seven months to investigate the complaint. The evidence shows that the Council met with Ms X and Mr Y in July and August 2019 and during this period an independent surveyor was instructed to visit the property. In accordance with the Council’s complaint process the final response was delayed by four weeks and Ms X had to chase the Council for an update. This caused Mr Y and Ms X further distress and uncertainty and contributed to the delay in progressing the work.
51. Ms X says the adaptation and extension works were not designed to be wheelchair accessible. The Council has acknowledged the wheelchair turning circle illustrated in the first draft of plans may have indicated that the extension was going to be suitable for a wheelchair user. I do not find the Council at fault here, whilst the first draft plans may have been misleading and raised Mr Y’s and Ms X’s expectations, there is no further documentary evidence to show that the works were required to be a wheelchair friendly build. The OT sought the opinion of Mr Y’s GP and hospital consultants and decided the bedroom was not required to be wheelchair accessible.

Back to top

Remedy

52. Although the project was managed by a HIA the Council remains responsible and so it is the Council to which we make recommendations.
53. The Ombudsman has published guidance to explain how he calculates remedies for people who have suffered injustice as a result of fault by the Council. Where there is an unreasonable delay in a person receiving adaptations that would have improved their daily life, the Ombudsman recommends a payment of £150-£350 per month, depending on the impact of the delay on the complainant.
54. While some inconvenience and disruption must be expected in a project of adaptation, to remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified in paragraph 43 I recommend the Council pay Mr Y and Ms X £1500 for the distress caused by living in what was in effect a building site for at least six months longer than they should have, as well as the inconvenience caused to Mr Y by no having access to a bedroom and bathroom suitable for his needs. In reaching this figure, I have also considered that the delay was not solely caused by the actions of the Council but poor workmanship by the contractor. That has led me to the recommendations set out above using a monthly figure of £250 per month.
55. In line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, to remedy the distress and uncertainty caused by the faults identified in paragraph 47, I recommend a payment of £300.

Back to top

Agreed action

56. Within four weeks of my final decision the Council will:
1. Apologise to Ms X, Mr Y and their family for the faults identified in this statement.
2. Pay Ms X and Mr Y £1500 as per paragraph 54.
3. Pay Ms X and Mr Y £300 as per paragraph 55.
4. Pay Ms X a further £350 for her time and trouble taken in pursuing her complaint with the Council; and
5. Contact Ms X and Mr Y and agree clear timescales for completion of remedial works identified.

Within three months of my final decision the Council will:

6. ensure any agreed schedule of works is implemented without delay and take timely action to prevent any ongoing injustice, and
7. review its working practices setting out the roles and responsibilities of each party in the DFG process.

Back to top

Final decision

57. I have found fault causing an injustice to Ms X and Mr Y. The Council has agreed to my recommendations, and I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman