Summary: Mx Y complained on behalf of Ms Z about the Council’s handling of her Disabled Facilities Grant. Mx Y says the adaptations did not work properly and did not meet the requirements of the contract when the Council signed them off. Mx Y also complained about the Council’s handling of the complaint. Mx Y says the Council’s actions caused Ms Z unnecessary distress and anxiety. We have found fault by the Council and recommend the Council apologises to Ms Z and makes a payment to address the injustice identified.

The complaint

1. Mx Y complains on behalf of Ms Z about the Council’s handling of her Disabled Facilities Grant. Mx Y says the adaptations did not work properly and did not meet the requirements of the contract when the Council signed them off.
2. Mx Y also complains about the Council’s handling of her complaint and says Ms Z has been caused unnecessary distress and anxiety by the Council’s actions. Mx Y would like the Council to apologise, arrange for the works to be rectified by a third-party contractor, and to make improvements to its processes to avoid a repeat of these issues.
3. Mx Y also complains about the standard of work carried out by the contractor.

Back to top

What I have investigated

4. I have investigated the complaints listed at paragraphs one and two. The final section of this statement explains the reason I have not investigated the complaint listed at paragraph three.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
7. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
8. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
9. 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

10. I discussed the complaint with Mx Y and considered the information they provided.
11. I made enquiries to the Council and considered the information it provided.
12. Mx Y and the Council have had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I have considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Disable Facilities Grants

13. Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG) are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. There is also detailed guidance on good practice.
14. Councils have a statutory duty to provide grant aid to disabled people for certain adaptations.
15. The Council will need to check that the proposed works are:

• necessary and appropriate to meet the disabled person’s needs.
• reasonable and practicable depending on the age and condition of the property.

16. Councils will often consult an occupational therapist (OT) from the social services department to carry out the assessments.
17. The grant is means tested with a maximum payable amount in England of £30,000.
18. Councils must usually complete the works within 12 months from the date it approved the DFG.

What happened

19. Ms Z has a disability which requires her to use a wheelchair. In 2018, Ms Z applied to the Council for a Disabled Facilities Grant to make adaptations to her home.
20. The Council agreed Ms Z’s application for a grant in respect of adaptations to her bathroom and the installation of an electronic entry system on the gate and door of her property.
21. In October 2018, the Council approved a schedule of works which listed the adaptations required and gave the total cost as £18,589. The works included the installation of a key fob operated, powered gate and door entry system and video enabled intercom with a door open and close function.
22. In January 2019, the Council agreed that a building company, Contractor A, would carry out the works at Ms Z’s home for the cost identified by the schedule of works.
23. On 23 January 2019, Ms Z signed a contract with Contractor A for them to carry out the works at her home. The contract named the Council as the Contract Administrator.
24. Mx Y assisted Ms Z with communicating with the Council and Contractor A regarding the adaptations.
25. On 9 April 2019, Mx Y, acting on behalf of Ms Z, emailed Contractor A to say they had asked the Council’s Senior Technical Officer (STO) to delay signing off the works until the following day. They said Contractor A had not completed the gate/door entry system as well as some other jobs. Mx Y asked Contractor A to let them know if the unfinished jobs could not be completed before the STO was due to visit the following day.
26. On 15 April 2019, the Council’s STO visited Ms Z’s home. The STO and Ms Z signed a completion certificate to say the contractor had completed the works.
27. The Council says the only outstanding works at this stage were additional items that Ms Z had arranged for Contractor A to carry out privately, so were not part of the DFG contract, or were items Ms Z did not require.
28. Mx Y says the door entry system was not working properly at the time, and other areas of work within the DFG were not complete. Mx Y says the Council’s STO reassured Ms Z that the system would be made to work, and the issues would be sorted out. They say Ms Z signed the completion certificate on this basis.
29. On 17 April 2019, Mx Y emailed the Council and Contractor A to tell them about some “significant issues” with the works carried out. Among the issues identified, Mx Y said the intercom was not working correctly and there was no way of opening the gate from the garden. Mx Y asked the Council and Contractor A to provide reassurance that they could provide a working system.
30. Mx Y emailed the Council and Contractor A again on 20 April 2019. They said the door/gate entry system was still not working properly and the system kept disconnecting from the internet.
31. On 29 April 2019, Mx Y emailed the Council and Contractor A to tell them about some additional issues with the installation and to arrange a meeting to discuss the problems with the gate and door entry system.
32. Mx Y emailed the Council and Contractor A again on 8 May 2019. They said the gate and door entry system were not fit for purpose and were a danger to Ms Z and her assistance dog.
33. The Council says it emailed Mx Y, Ms Z and Contractor A to arrange a meeting.
34. On 12 May 2019, Mx Y emailed the Council and Contractor A and told them the situation had got worse since their last email. Mx Y said Ms Z had been unable to get into her house and that the door had closed on her. Mx Y said Ms Z was hurt as a result. They said in addition to this, in a separate incident, the door would not open, and Ms Z had to call the emergency services to assist her. Mx Y said the door, gate and intercom system continued to malfunction. They said Ms Z required a working system instead of a meeting.
35. The following day, the Council emailed Contractor A. It asked them to investigate, provide a report on the system issues and the required remedial actions, and to resolve the issues.
36. Mx Y emailed the Council on 13 May 2019. They said Contractor A had visited Ms Z and had removed a cover from the door entry system to avoid it overheating. Mx Y said they were not satisfied with this as a solution because it left wires and cogs exposed. Mx Y provided the Council with a video recording of the entry system not working properly.
37. On 14 May 2019, the Council asked Contractor A to send an electrician to investigate the issue and find a solution as a matter of urgency.
38. Mx Y emailed the Council on the same day. They said an electrician had visited but the system continued to malfunction. Mx Y said a temporary solution was not possible as this would not solve the problem of Ms Z getting into the house if the system locked her out. Mx Y asked when the system would be replaced with one that worked.
39. On 15 May 2019, the Council asked Contractor A to provide a range of options to resolve the problems with the electronic entry system, and timescales for when these resolutions may be achieved. Contractor A agreed to visit Ms Z’s property on the following day.

What happened next

40. Contractor A visited Ms Z’s home on 16 May 2019. The Council says Contractor A agreed the system was not working properly and replaced a faulty motor. It says Contractor A also discussed internet connectivity issues regarding the electronic entry system.
41. The following day, Contractor A emailed Mx Y to say it had identified a possible solution to some of the problems. It said it could replace the existing key fobs with new ones so the signal could carry further. Contractor A said it realised this did not resolve all the problems identified however.
42. Mx Y replied and said they hoped a working and reliable system would be in place within a month, as discussed at the meeting on 16 May 2019.
43. On 28 May 2019, Contractor A replaced the key fobs with the extended range units. The Council says Ms Z was happy with this and Contractor A believed it had rectified all issues with the system. The Council says Ms Z told Contractor A she did not want it to fit a “push pad” to the gate exit because of security advice received from the Police.
44. The Council says Ms Z reported connectivity issues with the system to Contractor A in June 2019. It says Ms Z reported that the intercom and buzzer were not working and that the range of the key fobs was inadequate. The Council says Contractor A considered the issues may be due to a weak internet signal and suggested that Ms Z replace her Wi-Fi router for one with a better signal. It says Ms Z declined this option.
45. On 8 July 2019, Mx Y emailed the Council and Contractor A. Mx Y said they had previously emailed on 19 June 2019 to ask about progress with completing the work at Ms Z’s home but did not receive a reply. Mx Y said Contractor A agreed on 16 May that the existing system was not fit for purpose and Ms Z required a replacement. Mx Y said Contractor A said it would complete this work within one month but had not done so.
46. The following day, the Council asked Contractor A to provide a timescale for a resolution to the issues.

Ms Z’s complaint to Contractor A

47. Ms Z complained to Contractor A on 9 July 2019 about delays in carrying out the work and the issues regarding the gate and door entry system. Ms Z said Contractor A had previously said it would consider installing an alternative system.
48. Mx Y emailed the Council and Contractor A on 22 July 2019 and said they had not heard from either party about correcting the issues with the gate and door entry system. Mx Y said if the Council and Contractor A did not resolve the matter, Ms Z would have no option but to take legal action.
49. On 23 July 2019, the Council told Mx Y it had asked Contractor A to investigate the issues with the system.
50. Mx Y agreed for Contractor A to visit Ms Z’s property on 26 July 2019.
51. On 7 August 2019, Mx Y asked the Council to clarify who held the contract of work for the adaptations at Ms Z’s home. The Council told Mx Y the contract was between Ms Z and Contractor A. Mx Y says the Council told them Ms Z would need to sort out the issues with Contractor A, although the Council could also ask Contractor A to carry out works.
52. On 21 August 2019, Contractor A responded to Ms Z’s complaint. It provided a list of works to be carried out, including the installation of an internal release button for the gate. Contractor A said this was part of the original specification and apologised for not previously fitting it.
53. On 25 August 2019, Ms Z wrote to Contractor A telling it she intended to take legal action against it if it did not provide a full refund.
54. Contractor A replied on 17 September 2019. It offered to explore the faults and to rectify them if possible. Ms Z declined Contractor A’s offer to re-examine the faults.
55. At about this time, Ms Z asked a third-party contractor, Contractor B, to inspect the works at her home. Contractor B produced a report of its findings.
56. Mx Y emailed the Council on 10 March 2020. They said the issues with the system remained unresolved and had worsened. Mx Y said they had sent numerous emails to the Council since May 2019 to ask what was happening. They said the Council had told them it was up to Ms Z to sort things out because she held the contract with Contractor A. Mx Y asked the Council its view on Ms Z making a complaint through its complaints procedure.
57. The Council replied the following day and asked for any correspondence between Ms Z and/or Mx Y and Contractor A, to help it understand the situation.
58. On 17 March 2020, Mx Y emailed the Council. They said “We need to move forward urgently” with the matter at Ms Z’s property and said time had passed without the full involvement of the Council. Mx Y said Ms Z had no confidence in Contractor A and they had considered the Council’s proposal about using another Contractor to rectify the faults. Mx Y asked what the Council would do to fulfil its duty of care to Ms Z if this option did not go ahead.
59. The Council replied on 18 March 2020 and said it had discussed with Contractor A the option of working with Contractor B. It said Contractor A had requested a copy of Contractor B’s report.

Ms Z’s complaint to the Council

60. On 18 May 2020, Mx Y complained to the Council. They said Contractor A did not complete the works satisfactorily and asked that an alternative contractor carry out the rectification works.
61. The Council responded on 2 June 2020. It said the STO had tried to work with Ms Z and Contractor A to resolve the issues. It said the contract and administration had been undertaken correctly, and the system was functioning when it was inspected and signed off. The Council said the contract was between Ms Z and Contractor A, and the STO had always contacted Contractor A in a timely manner to ensure it was aware of the issues and was taking corrective action. It acknowledged Ms Z had identified system issues two days after the works were signed off, and said it had an agreed action plan. The Council said Contractor A denied saying the system was not fit for purpose, and said Contractor A had offered mediation, but Ms Z had rejected this option.
62. Mx Y wrote to the Council on 12 June 2020 and asked for clarification as to whether the Council had considered her complaint through its corporate complaint process. Mx Y said the Council was the contract administrator and alleged it had breached one of the conditions within the contract. They disagreed with the Council’s response and said the contractor had not completed the works when the Council inspected. Mx Y said the Council had assured Ms Z the works would be completed, but the gate and door video intercom and control system had never worked properly. Mx Y asked the Council to pay the costs of a third-party contractor to carry out remedial works to the system.
63. The Council says Mx Y provided it with a copy of Contractor B’s report on 16 June 2020.
64. The Council replied to Mx Y on 23 June 2020. It said it was only responsible for overseeing the DFG process and that customers enter into a contract directly with the contractors. The Council said customers should complain to the contractor in the first instance. It said if the complaint remains unresolved, the Council may consider issues raised about the works undertaken by the contractor, but this is not a complaint about a Council service and does not fall within the Council’s complaints procedure. The Council said if Mx Y was unhappy with the service provided by the Community Safety Team, it would consider this under its corporate complaints procedure.
65. On 26 June 2020, Mx Y spoke to the Council. The Council says Mx Y considered the Council did not inspect the works properly and considered this to be a failing under the conditions of the contract. The Council told Mx Y on 30 June 2020 that it would treat this matter as a complaint. It said Mx Y should expect a response by 24 July 2020, but said that due to the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the Council’s services, a response may be delayed.
66. On 9 July 2020, the Council emailed Mx Y. It said the STO was happy to arrange a meeting with Ms Z’s chosen contractor with a view to carrying out an assessment. Mx Y replied on the same day and told the Council Contractor B had already visited and produced a report. Mx Y said they had already provided this to the Council and that the way forward was for the Council to arrange payment to Contractor B.
67. Mx Y emailed the Council again on 15 July 2020. They said Contractor B had agreed to visit Ms Z’s property again to further investigate and had agreed to discuss its findings with the Council. The Council emailed Mx Y the following day and agreed to pay the costs of Contractor B’s further investigation.
68. On 19 July 2020, Mx Y emailed the Council and said Contractor B had arranged to meet with a representative of the manufacturer of the system at Ms Z’s home on 19 August 2020.
69. The Council emailed Mx Y on 23 July and 7 August 2020 to say there was a delay in providing its complaint response.
70. On 19 August 2020, the representative of the system manufacturer and Contractor B met at Ms Z’s home to establish any defects in the system.
71. The Council emailed Mx Y on 21 August and 4 September 2020 to say there was a delay in providing its complaint response.
72. On 9 September 2020, Contractor B provided the Council with a copy of its report and a quote for completion of works at Ms Z’s home. It also provided a copy of a report by the representative from the system manufacturer regarding the video app-based intercom system.
73. The Council emailed Mx Y on 14 September 2020 to say there was a delay in providing its complaint response.
74. On 21 September 2020, the Council emailed Mx Y to discuss Contractor B’s report. It said Ms Z’s existing internet speed was not sufficient to operate the intercom system consistently. It said Contractor B had agreed a replacement intercom unit would not be required if Ms Z could increase her internet strength.
75. The Council emailed Mx Y on 2 October 2020 to say there was a delay in providing its complaint response. Mx Y replied to the Council on the same day and asked that the investigation of Ms Z’s complaint was prioritised. The Council replied and said the complaint investigation was in its final stages. It said it was working hard to ensure the matter was thoroughly investigated and said it would provide a full response as soon as possible.
76. The Council emailed Mx Y on 15 October and 30 October 2020 to say there was a delay in providing its complaint response. Mx Y replied to the Council on the same day to ask the reason for the delay.
77. The Council apologised to Mx Y on 2 November 2020 for the delay. It sent further emails to Mx Y on 12 November, 27 November, 11 December and 23 December 2020 to say there was a delay in providing its complaint response.

The Council’s complaint response

78. On 24 December 2020, the Council provided Mx Y with its complaint investigation report. It said to the best of the STO’s knowledge, the works which formed part of the DFG were complete at the time they were signed off. It said Ms Z had also signed the completion certificate to say she was satisfied with the works.
79. The Council said some of the works identified as being unfinished were not part of the work schedule. It said the works were certified by the installer who had relevant certification and so should therefore be compliant.
80. The Council said its procedure is to conduct a site visit with the client and to carry out a visual check. It said it gains confirmation from the client that they are satisfied with the works before it signs them off. The Council said it does not have a standard inspection form because each job is different, but the inspecting officer takes notes and photographs as part of the sign off process.
81. The Council said Contractor A had recommended a different Wi-Fi router was installed but said Ms Z had declined this. It said some options to resolve the issues were not agreed by Ms Z and some were not agreed by Contractor A.
82. The Council said it needed more information about Ms Z’s broadband speed and said it agreed to change the system to one with a SIM card if the appropriate speed could not be met by Ms Z’s internet provider. It also agreed to replace the mechanism on the gate as suggested by Contractor B’s report. The Council also agreed for Ms Z to appoint her own contractor to carry out the required works. It asked Ms Z to provide a revised quote based on the works agreed and said it would pay the costs.
83. The Council said it was satisfied the STO was correct in signing off the works. It said it had carried out its contractual obligations but apologised for the delay in investigating the complaint.
84. Ms Z remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and brought her complaint to us.

Analysis

85. I have decided to exercise discretion in investigating this complaint back to 2018. This is because the Council provided its complaint response to Ms Z on 24 December 2020. Ms Z brought her complaint to us within 12 months of the Council’s response.

Is there evidence of fault?

86. The amount of information available was considerable. In this report I have not made reference to every element of that information but I have not ignored its significance.
87. Mx Y says the adaptations did not work properly when the Council signed them off and they did not meet the requirements of the contract. The Council says the inspecting officer is satisfied that to the best of their knowledge, the works which formed part of the DFG were complete at the time they were signed off.
88. There is therefore a difference in the accounts given by both parties. In these circumstances, the record of the visits carried out by the inspecting officer should provide clarification of any issues raised at the time. The Council says more visits were made to Ms Z’s property than usual because of issues identified when Contractor A carried out the adaptations to the bathroom. The Council says that in total, it made 11 site visits, with the final visit to sign off the works being on 15 April 2019.
89. In order to determine how the inspecting officer satisfied themselves the adaptations were working properly and met the requirements of the schedule of works, I requested copies of the inspecting officer’s notes and records. I have seen a copy of the completion certificate signed by Ms Z and the inspecting officer, but the Council has not provided any other documents from the site visits. The Council says it holds no other information and the site visits were observations of ongoing works. It says it does not record these observations on any forms.
90. This explanation does not support the Council’s complaint response from 24 December 2020. In addition, the Council is unable to provide evidence of how it conducted the inspection or how the inspecting officer satisfied themselves the contractor had completed the works.
91. I acknowledge the Council says Ms Z signed the completion certificate to say she was satisfied with the work carried out. But, Mx Y says the inspecting officer reassured Ms Z the system would be made to work, and Ms Z signed the completion certificate on trust that this would be the case.
92. Without being present at the time, it is not possible for me to say whether the system was working or not. While I have no reason not to believe Ms Z and Mx Y’s account, the same applies to the Council’s account. I have therefore reviewed the available evidence to make a finding based on the balance of probabilities. This means I have weighed up the available relevant evidence and based my findings on what I think was more likely to have happened.

Evidence reviewed

93. I have considered the correspondence from Mx Y to the Council about the issues identified two days after the works were signed off. I have also considered the system manufacturer’s report which identified that Ms Z’s internet speed was not fast enough to meet the minimum requirements of the system. The report said “without an upload speed above 1Mbps the system would never operate correctly…”
94. I have also considered Contractor A’s complaint response of 21 August 2019. This acknowledges an internal release button for the gate had not been fitted, despite this being part of the original specification.
95. I acknowledge the Council says Ms Z did not want this to be fitted following advice received from the Police. However, the evidence indicates Ms Z discussed this with Contractor A after the works were signed off, during the site visit on 28 May 2019. This feature is specified on the schedule of works, and in its complaint response, Contractor A apologised for not fitting it. I consider this is evidence the release button was not installed prior to the Council signing off the works.
96. I consider on the balance of probabilities, it is more likely than not the door/gate entry system was not working correctly when the works were signed off. This is because of the system manufacturer’s comments that the “system would never operate correctly” due to Ms Z’s low internet speed, and because of the issues reported by Mx Y just two days after Ms Z and the Council signed the completion certificate.
97. I acknowledge the contract for the adaptations was held between Ms Z and Contractor A. Only a court can determine if a breach of contract has occurred, and I acknowledge Ms Z is taking legal action against Contractor A. As Contract Administrator, the Council’s role was to inspect the work on behalf of Ms Z and reject work that failed to meet the requirements of the contract between her and the contractor. Based on the above explanation, I consider it is more likely than not the Council signed off works which did not meet the requirements of the work schedule.
98. I acknowledge the Council liaised with Ms Z, Mx Y and Contractor A to try to resolve the outstanding issues and has agreed to pay Contractor B to rectify these issues. I also acknowledge Ms Z could have allowed Contractor A to continue to carry out the rectification works. However, the evidence shows Contractor A did not rectify all the issues identified and the relationship between it and Ms Z deteriorated. Despite the Council’s liaison with Contractor A, there remained a period of 20 months before the Council reached an agreement with Ms Z and the contractors about how to resolve the issues.
99. During this period, we must consider if the Council met its underlying primary duty under social care legislation (The Care Act 2014 / The Children Act 1989) to meet the assessed eligible needs of Ms Z as a disabled adult. This duty cannot be delegated to another body external to the Council. We do not consider councils have discharged their primary duty until the disabled adaptations have been completed to a satisfactory standard. I consider the period of 20 months for the Council to meet its duty to Ms Z is evidence of delay, and I have found this delay to be fault by the Council.

The Council’s handling of the complaint

100. The Council’s complaints policy says the Council will issue a response to a complaint within 20 working days, unless the complaint is complex, in which case the Council will extend the deadline to 30 working days.
101. The Council says Ms Z’s complaint was complex due to the nature of the issues raised. I acknowledge this explanation, together with the impact the Covid-19 pandemic had on the Council’s services. However, although the Council stayed in contact with Mx Y to advise them of the continued delay, it took six months to provide its response. It was the complaint response which provided the Council’s agreement to pay for Contractor B to carry out remedial works. During this time, the issues raised by Ms Z remained unresolved. The Council has acknowledged the delays in providing its response and I have found this delay to be fault.

The impact to Ms Z

102. Having identified fault, I must consider whether this caused Ms Z a significant injustice. Mx Y says Ms Z has been caused a great deal of stress and anxiety as a result of the gate and door entry system not working properly. Mx Y also says Ms Z has been locked in and out of the house and has been hit by the door due to its faulty operation. They say Ms Z has also had to call the emergency services to assist her when she was locked in.
103. I acknowledge the impact to Ms Z as stated by Mx Y, but also acknowledge Ms Z is taking legal action against Contractor A because of the faults identified. While the Council is not responsible for the quality of work carried out by the contractor, I consider the delay by the Council in discharging its duties contributed to Ms Z’s stress and anxiety and caused an injustice to her.
104. It is positive the Council identified the delays in providing its complaints response. It is also positive it has apologised to Ms Z and has agreed to pay for the remedial works. The Council says it tried to resolve the issues when it became aware of them and says it made goodwill payments for works which were not part of the contract. However, the Council says the DFG will not cover the cost of the camera installation to the gate and door entry system. It says this is additional work which Ms Z may wish to install at her own expense.
105. I have seen a copy of the quote provided by Contractor B for the installation of a camera system. This includes three CCTV cameras with a recording function. Two of the cameras are located at the front gate to provide an image of the front gateway intercom entrance area, and at the main automatic front door to provide an image of the front door intercom area. The quote says the third camera will provide an image of the pathway to the house. The quote also says Ms Z would be able to view the video system via a 7” tablet, included in the quote, so that she can view the system from any room when she takes it with her. The quote also specifies additional costs for a proposed 4th camera if required.
106. The schedule of works lists a video enabled intercom on the door and gate entry system. The total cost of works, including the video intercom system is quoted as £18,589. The Completion Notice shows the DFG approval amount was £18,589. Therefore, I consider the DFG as agreed by the Council originally covered the cost of the video enabled intercom system.

Back to top

Agreed action

107. To address the injustice arising from the fault identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within one month of the final decision:

• Provide an apology to Ms Z
• Make a payment to Ms Z towards the cost of the video intercom system. Although the DFG originally covered the cost of a video enabled system, Contractor B’s quote provides a higher specification than that originally specified by the schedule of works. (The schedule does not specify the need for CCTV, the recording of images, a third camera to cover the path, or the need for a tablet to view the video system from any room). On this basis, I have not recommended the Council pay the full cost of the system quoted for. Instead, the Council has agreed to pay a contribution of 50% of the cost of the replacement system.
• Make a payment of £1,000 to reflect the distress and anxiety caused by the delay in discharging its duties to Ms Z. This equates to £50 per month for the delay of 20 months. I acknowledge the issues were not resolved at the point the Council agreed to pay for remedial works. However, I cannot attribute this solely to the Council as the availability of Contractor B must also be considered. I have not recommended a higher monthly figure because the Council were liaising with Contractor A to rectify the issues.
• Make a further payment of £150 to Ms Z to recognise the time and trouble taken in bringing the complaint to us.
• Remind its staff to ensure they retain complete records relating to site visit inspections and approval of works completed.

108. The Council is required to provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

109. I have found fault by the Council, and it has agreed to the above actions to resolve the complaint. I have therefore concluded my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

110. I have not investigated Mx Y’s complaint about the standard of work carried out by the contractor. This is because the Council is not responsible for the quality of work carried out by the contractor and we cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman