Summary: Mrs B says the Council failed to properly inspect and wrongly signed off works completed under a disabled facilities grant when the works were not completed satisfactorily. I have found no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs B, complained the Council failed to properly inspect and wrongly signed off works completed under a disabled facilities grant when the works were not completed satisfactorily. Mrs B says fault by the Council has led to significant damage to her property as a result of a leak, with the result she has had to temporarily move out.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints of injustice caused by maladministration and service failure. I have used the word fault to refer to these. The Ombudsman cannot question whether a Council’s decision is right or wrong simply because Mrs B disagrees with it. He must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3))
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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint, Mrs B's comments and the documentary evidence and photographs Mrs B provided;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
5. Mrs B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

6. Under the terms of an agency agreement a resident can pay a fee to the Council which means the Council will procure any necessary works, inspect the works and assist in resolving outstanding issues, including snagging. As part of that service the Council appoints the contractors.
7. Approved Document P1 Section 3 is guidance for local authorities in relation to the certification, installation and testing of electrical works under Building Regulation requirements.
8. Approved Document P sets out three separate procedures of which one must be followed. These are self-certification by a registered competent person; certification by a registered third party or certification by a building control body.

What happened

9. Mrs B is disabled and received a disabled facilities grant from the Council in October 2019 to complete works in her property to create a wet room. Mrs B paid a fee to the Council and it acted as supervisor of the works and appointed a contractor. Before the contractor started work Mrs B told the Council she had identified a leak in a cupboard and the Council confirmed this would not delay works on site. The contractor began work at Mrs B’s property later in October. The works completed included electrical works, for which the contractor provided the Council with an electrical certificate. The Council’s technical officer visited the site regularly and was satisfied with the works completed, subject to some snagging issues. Resolution of those issues was delayed initially by the need to identify an alternative light for the bathroom and then by Covid 19.
10. In 2020 Mrs B raised concerns with the Council about leaks causing damp in both the bathroom and her bedroom. Mrs B also raised concerns about the safety of the electrics as she had arranged for an electrician to visit and that electrician had raised concerns. The Council agreed to send out another contractor. The second contractor agreed work was required to the electrics to make them safe. The second contractor advised the Council the leak Mrs B was concerned about was a long-standing leak which was unconnected to the works to the wet room. The Council subsequently agreed to carry out further works to address the issue with the electrics and the leak. The works were completed by September 2020.
11. Mrs B remains concerned action by the Council’s contractors have resulted in a leak to her property which has had a significant impact on the safety of the building to the point where she has had to move out temporarily. The Council remains of the view the leak issue was a pre-existing problem which was not affected by the works to the wet room.

Analysis

12. Mrs B says the Council failed to properly inspect and wrongly signed off works completed under a disabled facilities grant when the works were not completed satisfactorily. Mrs B is concerned mainly about the electrical works which were found to be unsafe and a leak which has now caused significant damage in her property.
13. For the electrical works, as I said in paragraph 8, electrical works can only be signed off by a registered person. The Council does not employ officers with the relevant qualification and therefore rely on the certificate provided by the competent person. In this case I am satisfied the Council received an electrical certificate signed by a recognised authority which certifies the work has been completed by a competent electrician and is compliant with current electrical regulations. I cannot criticise the Council for relying on that certificate. While I understand Mrs B’s concern as the electrics were subsequently found not to be compliant this does not mean the Council was at fault for relying on the electrical certificate completed by the qualified person. I am satisfied though the Council acted to ensure the issue with the electrics was resolved when Mrs B identified it.
14. For the leak it is clear this has caused significant damage to Mrs B’s property to the point where she has had to temporarily move into other accommodation. Mrs B is clear the leak was created by works to the wet room and says her builder has confirmed that. However, the Council takes a different view. The Council considers the leak is an historic one which was unrelated to the works undertaken to the wet room. The Council takes that view because it arranged for a second contractor to go into Mrs B’s property to complete the outstanding work and give a view on the source of the leak. That contractor was clear the leak came from a faulty leaking air valve in the adjacent cupboard. The contractor made clear to the Council this was an historic one based on the fact the copper pipe attached to the air valve had turned a scaly green colour.
15. Mrs B disputes there was a pre-existing leak which is responsible for the current problems in her property. Mrs B believes the current issues relate to leaks created by works to the wet room. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to adjudicate between two differing viewpoints. Nor is it the Ombudsman’s role to determine liability for the leak. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether there is fault by the Council in how it has reached its view. Given the Council based its view on the observations of a second contractor after he visited to inspect and provided the Council with a video to support his conclusions I have no grounds to criticise it. In any event the Council could not be held liable for issues caused by the work completed by the contractor, even if that were to be proved. That is because the Council has no legal responsibility for the standard of the work even though it may have approved the builder and carried out inspections. If Mrs B wants to pursue that point further she will likely need to consider legal action against the contractor Council to resolve the difference in viewpoints.that completed the works she believes have resulted in the damage to her property. In this case I am satisfied the Council went further than it needed to in arranging for a separate grant to resolve the leak given its view on the source of the leak. I therefore have no grounds to criticise it.
16. I recognise though Mrs B has concerns about the second contractor. Mrs B says the second contractor acted inappropriately by laying flooring on a surface he knew was wet and without taking damp readings. Mrs B says that, plus poor installation of pipework and fittings has contributed to the problems with the wet room which has exacerbated the problems she is now experiencing. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the second contractor denies the allegations made by Mrs B. Having considered the documentary evidence there is also nothing to suggest the contractor raised concerns with the Council about any existing mould growth in Mrs B’s property.
17. In this case the Council did not send out officers during the works completed by the second contractor due to Covid 19 restrictions. The Council has therefore relied on its final inspection of the works which did not identify any problems. Given there were no officer visits during the works completed by the second contractor (which I cannot criticise the Council for as Covid 19 restrictions were in place at the time) I cannot criticise the Council for relying on the final inspection completed by its officer which did not identify any issues. In any event, as I have made clear, the main issue here is that there is a dispute about where the origin of the leak is. While Mrs B clearly believes the actions of the Council’s contractors have caused the leaks in her property the Council takes a different view. I have made clear this is not a matter the Ombudsman can provide a determination on as only a court can determine liability issues.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I have completed my investigation and do not uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman