Summary: Mr X complained about poor quality workmanship and delays during building work and adaptations to his home, funded by a Disabled Facilities Grant. The Council was at fault. There was poor workmanship which, along with delays, caused Mr X considerable inconvenience and distress. The Council accepted it was at fault and has already acted to complete the work to the required standard. It proposed a remedy payment to Mr X of £350 in recognition of the distress caused. This is an appropriate amount and it will now offer this to Mr X. It has also agreed to take action to improve its services to prevent future injustice to others.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about poor quality workmanship and delays during building work and adaptations to his home. The work was funded by a Disabled Facilities Grant and completed by contractors arranged by a home improvement agency working on behalf of the Council. He says the poor workmanship and delays have caused him distress and it has taken a significant amount of time and effort to resolve his concerns.
2. He wants the Council to review its procedures to ensure its contractors work to an acceptable standard and to provide a financial remedy to acknowledge the distress caused.

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. 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)

5. 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

6. I read Mr X’s complaint and spoke with him about it on the phone.
7. I made enquiries of the Council and considered the response received.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
9. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background information

10. Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG) are grants awarded by councils to disabled people who need adaptations to help them remain in their home.
11. Wychavon District Council has a contract with a home improvement agency (the agency) to arrange and complete adaptation works approved under a DFG. The contract says the provider shall not assign or transfer the whole or any part of this contract or sub-contract any part of the service to which this contract relates without prior written consent of the Council.
12. The Council says as part of its contract with the agency, the agency has an approved contractor list, which list contractors it has vetted and approved to complete works under the DFG contract on the Council’s behalf.
13. Approved contractors must adhere to a Code of Conduct. This requires them to have appropriate insurances, meet customer care standards, start and complete works within agreed timescales and ensure all works are completed to the required standard. If a contractor sub-contracts part of the work, they are responsible for the standard of work completed.

What happened

14. In 2019, Mr X applied for a DFG for adaptations to his home. The Council approved his application in November 2019. The approved works included converting Mr X’s garage to extend the downstairs bedroom, installing external access ramps and installation of a level access shower.
15. The Council asked the agency to complete the work on its behalf. The agency allocated the work to an approved contractor, contractor A, who agreed to start the work in February 2020. However, the contractor did not start until March 2020 and then had to leave the site at the end of March due to restrictions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. The Council says contractor A sub-contracted the work to another contractor, contractor B, without its knowledge or approval. Contractor B was not on the agency’s approved contractor list.
16. Contractor B re-started work in June 2020. There was further delay in July due to COVID-19 restrictions, and the work was completed in August 2020.
17. Mr X says he told contractor B he was dissatisfied with the standard of the works in August 2020. Contractor B agreed to complete additional works. The agency says Mr X initially told it he was satisfied and it did not become aware of Mr X’s ongoing concerns until October 2020. It said it did not complete a site visit on completion of the works due to concerns related to COVID-19 and relied on verbal feedback from Mr X and the contractor.
18. At the end of August, Mr X sent the Council a satisfaction form which said he was satisfied with the completed works. The Council said it did not know Mr X’s had ongoing concerns until November 2020 when he submitted his complaint. It said Mr X’s completed satisfaction form had not noted any concerns.
19. Between September and October, contractor B visited several times to complete repair works. Mr X says the repairs were of poor standard and he remained dissatisfied.
20. Mr X complained to the agency, who visited Mr X’s property in October 2020. It agreed with Mr X that the works were below the required standard. It says this was when it first became aware there were problems. The agency discussed the case with contractor A and said it was during these conversations that contractor A told it they had not completed the works themselves but had sub-contracted it to contractor B. The agency told contractor A to revisit and complete the works to the required standard. Contractor A did not attend Mr X’s property when agreed and so the required works remained incomplete.
21. Mr X complained to the Council in November 2020. He complained of ongoing delays, poor service and poor quality workmanship. He asked the Council to replace the contractor to enable the work to be completed to the required standard.
22. The Council and the agency met with Mr X. They agreed to instruct a different contractor to complete the repairs.
23. In December, the Council appointed contractor C, who met with Mr X, agreed a list of required works and started work.
24. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint. It accepted the work by contractor B was below standard and apologised to Mr X for this. It said it would work with the agency to ensure others did not experience similar problems. It said it had now arranged a new contractor to complete the adaptations and it would arrange a site visit during the works and a full inspection once the works were completed.
25. Mr X remained unhappy and escalated his complaint through the Council’s complaints process. He said he did not feel the Council had thoroughly investigated his complaint or acknowledged the distress and inconvenience the poor workmanship and delays had caused him.
26. Contractor C completed the works in February 2021 and Mr X was satisfied with the standard of the work.
27. The Council provided a final response to Mr X’s complaint. It accepted there had been poor quality workmanship but said as soon as it became aware of the issues, it had acted to remedy them and arranged for the works to be completed by a different contractor. It said the work was now complete and awaiting a final inspection.
28. Mr X remained unhappy and brought his complaint to us.
29. In its response to our enquiries, the Council said it accepted there was poor workmanship and delays, but it had worked with the agency and Mr X to resolve the issues and the work was now complete. It said because of contractor A’s behaviour in this case and its non-compliance with the contract and code of conduct, it had removed it from its approved contractor list.
30. It said it accepted the poor workmanship and delay had caused Mr X distress. It offered him £350 as a remedy in acknowledgement of the distress caused.

Analysis

31. 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. This also applies to any organisation then sub-contracted to provide them.
32. There was delay completing the approved works between February and August 2020, but these delays were mainly due to restrictions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. This was beyond Council control and was not fault.
33. Contractor A broke the DFG contract and the contractor Code of Conduct by sub-contracting the work to contractor B in March 2020, who did not complete the work to the required standard. Contractor A then further contravened the Code of Conduct by failing to remedy contractor B’s poor workmanship between August and December 2020 and by providing poor customer service to Mr X. This was fault and led to ongoing delay, frustration and inconvenience for Mr X, who then spent considerable time and trouble trying to resolve the matter.
34. The agency says it did not know contractor A had sub-contracted the work to contractor B until October 2020, but accepted that, had it completed a site visit in August 2020, it may have identified the problems sooner. I agree the agency should have completed a site visit to check the quality of the work in August 2020. It did not do this and this was fault.
35. When the agency and the Council became aware of Mr X’s ongoing concerns and contractor A’s actions, they appropriately worked together to reach a satisfactory resolution and ensure the work was completed to the required standard. However, the delay, poor workmanship and poor customer service caused Mr X considerable inconvenience and distress.
36. I have found fault with the actions of contractor A and the agency, but the Council remains responsible for the actions of organisations and services provided on its behalf. The Council took action to complete the work to the required standard, but has accepted the delays and poor workmanship caused Mr X distress and inconvenience. It has offered Mr X £350 as acknowledgement of this. This figure is in line with our guidance on remedies and the Council has agreed to now offer this to Mr X.
37. The Council has appropriate contractual arrangements with the agency and a contractor code of conduct. In light of this case, the Council acted appropriately by reviewing the actions of contractor A and decided to remove it from its approved contractor list. The Council has agreed actions to reduce similar problems arising for others in future.

Back to top

Agreed action

38. Within one month of the final decision, the Council will write to Mr X and offer him £350 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the poor workmanship and delays. It should pay Mr X this amount if he accepts.
39. Within three months of the final decision, the Council will:
• Remind relevant agency staff that it should visit each property after the completion of DFG adaptation works to inspect and verify the works completed, unless there is good reason not to do this.
• Write to all contractors on the approved contractor list to remind them of the contractor Code of Conduct and the need to adhere to it.
• Review its procedure for how it assesses and approves applications for its approved contractor list to ensure it is sufficiently robust.

Back to top

Final decision

40. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault and the Council has agreed action to remedy the injustice caused and improve Council services.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman