Summary: Mrs X complains the Council encouraged her to have a second disabled facilities grant (DFG) on the basis this would repay her for costs incurred repairing damage to her property caused by the first DFG, but it failed to do this leaving her out-of-pocket. After its first response to Mrs X’s complaint, the Council failed to make its position clear and failed to respond to some of her correspondence. This left Mrs X unable to make informed decisions about the work she was unhappy with. The Council needs to apologise and pay financial redress.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, complains the Council encouraged her to have a second DFG on the basis this would repay her for costs incurred repairing damage to her property caused by the first DFG, but it failed to do this leaving her out-of-pocket.

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, sections 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mrs X;
• discussed the complaint with Mrs X;
• considered the comments and documents the Council has provided in response to my enquiries;
• considered the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies; and
• shared a draft of this statement with Mrs X and the Council, and invited comments for me to consider before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

5. Mrs X has physical disabilities and uses a wheelchair. The Council agreed a DFG to pay for adaptions to her home to meet her needs in November 2016. The adaptations were to provide:
• wheelchair access to a bedroom, toilet, shower and living room; and
• accessible oven, increased access to worktop and storage space and safer flooring in the kitchen.
6. The contractor did the work between November 2017 and February 2018. The Council completed the DFG in March 2018, paying £29,765.
7. Mrs X complained about the quality of the work, including damage to her property, and a breakdown of relations with the contractor.
8. When the Council replied to Mrs X’s complaint on 5 July 2018, it said:
1. there were clear instances where the contractor could have dealt with the work better;
2. the work could have been better managed from start to finish, including managing Mrs X’s expectations about what could be accommodated as minor adjustments without incurring further costs to either party;
3. Mrs X had turned down the offer of a discretionary DFG to pay for unforeseen works;
4. it accepted there were areas for improvement:
1. a Customer Liaison Officer would improve communication between customers and contractors;
2. sub-contractors would no longer be allowed to do private work alongside contracted work;
3. a more robust approach to agreeing specifications at the start and agreeing who would pay for any changes before doing them;
4. better contract management;
5. firmer and more formal communications with customers with greater challenge to unreasonable requests;
6. contractors and sub-contractors to maintain the on-site customer diary;
5. these works needed putting right:
1. three door thresholds made suitable for wheelchair access;
2. adjust kitchen doors to minimize heat loss;
3. kitchen hob not sealed;
4. “crack” in bedroom wall;
5. bedroom and kitchen flooring;
6. adjust en-suite shower room door to ensure it locked.
9. The Council noted Mrs X did not want the contractor to do any more work to her home and had asked the Council to pay for an independent social worker to do a fresh assessment of the work required to meet her needs. Regarding the works which needed putting right [see e) 1-6 in the previous paragraph], the Council said it was reasonable for the contractor to have an opportunity to put right any poor work. It said an officer from the Home Assistance Hub would be onsite when the contractor did any work. It said this approach would avoid the extra cost of employing an independent occupational therapist and another contractor.
10. The Council said the Home Assistance Hub had identified additional works which would improve the overall scheme. Although Mrs X had turned down the offer of a discretionary DFG, that option remained available. It said this was the most cost-effective way to pay for any additional work which had already been undertaken and further modifications. It said the Council would not meet any of the additional costs or pay for an independent occupational therapist, as its own occupational therapists were qualified to decide what adaptations might be needed.
11. The Council offered to pay Mrs X £300 to reflect the problems she had experienced over the DFG and the time and trouble she had been put to in making her complaint. It told her she could complain to the Ombudsman.
12. Mrs X was not happy with the Council’s response so wrote again on 3 January 2019. She rejected its offer of £300 and said it should pay her £3,000 to reflect the problems she had been caused (affecting her health) and the costs she had incurred on repairs and improvements.
13. Before replying to Mrs X, the Council noted:
• it had asked her to provide a breakdown of the costs she had incurred but she had not provided one, so should invite her to do this again;
• grant funding was not normally retrospective, but in this case it was willing to consider it;
• retrospective funding was dependent on Mrs X applying for grant funding and an occupational therapist agreeing works were necessary and appropriate;
• grant funding would not pay for any remedial work which was the responsibility of the contractor
14. When the Council wrote to Mrs X in February, it:
• said its offer of £300 was reasonable and proportionate and was not intended to cover the cost of additional works to repair faults;
• said the remedy for completing outstanding work was to use a DFG;
• said it was still open to Mrs X to apply for a DFG to cover “additional modifications”; and
• invited Mrs X to provide a breakdown of any additional costs she had incurred so it could consider whether any further grant funding could be paid.

As Mrs X did not accept the £300, it has not been paid to her.

15. On 30 May Mrs X sent the Council a list of the outstanding issues and the costs of putting them right:
• Kitchen flooring and pelmet – £1,000 for materials and labour
• Garden – £500 to replace a broken lamp post
• Garden – £1,287 paid to replace wooden decking damaged by the weight of building materials placed on it
• Upstairs bedroom – £1,000 to redecorate after the contractor broke through the wall to insert a roof support beam
• Upstairs bedroom – £470 to replace the carpet
• Upstairs bedroom – £1,000 for the wardrobe damaged by the roof support beam
• Downstairs bedroom – £1,000 to replace window damaged by other work
• Downstairs bedroom – an unspecified sum to insulate the concrete floor
• Downstairs bedroom – £711.95 for fitting a radiator and thermostatic valves throughout the home
16. On 3 July the Council identified these actions:
• review the evidence for retrospective grant funding;
• review the evidence for further grant funding;
• inform Mrs X of the decisions and signpost her to her solicitor if she was still not happy and remind her she could complain to the Ombudsman.
17. An Occupational therapist visited Mrs X on 20 August to assess the need for further adaptations to her home.
18. On 27 September Mrs X asked the Council to confirm it was dealing with her request for recompense for the damage to her home. She said her solicitor had asked for an update. The Council did not reply.
19. On 13 December Mrs X wrote to the Council saying she had been told any further DFG would not cover the cost of work resulting from the damage to her property under the previous DFG. She asked the Council to confirm if it was its responsibility to cover these costs or if she needed to take legal action against the contractor. The Council did not reply. Mrs X says she did not pursue the matter at the time because of ill-health and because she did not want to cause problems which might affect the second DFG.
20. In October 2020 the Council approved a second DFG which was completed in November 2020, costing £6,040. The DFG was to:
• provide ramped access to the garden;
• fit a “smart control” for the heating in each room;
• widen and extend the path from the ramp at the kitchen door to the patio area;
• provide a mechanical widow opening mechanism;
• control to open/close the curtains and blinds in the bedroom;
• replace gate with a smaller gate with a lock accessible from both sides, extend fencing and make good the paving;
• replacement thresholds.
21. In June 2021 Mrs X produced an updated list of the outstanding issues and the costs of putting them right:
• Kitchen flooring and pelmet – £1,500 for materials and labour
• Kitchen worktop corners and sealing hob – £574.89 paid
• Garden – £500 to replace a broken lamp post
• Garden – £1,287 paid to replace wooden decking damaged by the weight of building materials placed on it
• Upstairs bedroom – £1,000 to redecorate after the contractor broke through the wall to insert a roof support beam
• Upstairs bedroom – £400 to replace the carpet
• Upstairs bedroom – £300.75 paid to replace the wardrobe damaged by the roof support beam
• Downstairs bedroom – £800 to replace window damaged by other work
• Downstairs bedroom – £512 paid for fitting a radiator and thermostatic valves

Is there evidence of fault by the Council which caused injustice?

22. The Council told Mrs X in July 2018 the contractor should be allowed to make good any problems with the original works and set out what those problems were. Given the breakdown in relations with the contractor, the Council offered to have someone on site when the contractor was there. That was not fault by the Council.
23. The Council told Mrs X she could apply for a further DFG to cover the cost of “additional” work already undertaken and “further modifications” to meet her needs. That did not extend to covering the cost of putting right problems caused by the contractor.
24. After Mrs X wrote again in January 2019, the Council noted it had already asked her to provide a breakdown of any costs she had incurred. But there is no evidence to support that claim. It is clear from the Council’s internal communication (see paragraph 13 above), that its position had not changed (remedial work was for the contractor). But when it wrote to Mrs X, it told her “the appropriate remedy for completing outstanding work” was to apply for a further DFG, which would also cover “additional modifications”. The Council’s vague reference to “outstanding work” led Mrs X to think a DFG would cover the cost of making good the problems caused by the contractor. That was fault by the Council.
25. Mrs X provided the Council with a breakdown of the costs for completing outstanding work in May 2019. Although the Council identified the actions it needed to take in response to this information, including signposting Mrs X to her solicitor, there is no evidence it took that action, despite Mrs X writing to the Council again in September 2019. That is fault by the Council. It left Mrs X unclear about what a further DFG might cover. It was not until late 2019, when the Occupational Therapist explained what a further DFG would cover that Mrs X realised it would not cover the cost of making good the problems caused by the contractor.
26. The Council’s faults have caused injustice to Mrs X as they have prevented her from making informed decisions about what action to take over the work she was not happy with. In particular, the Council should have signposted Mrs X to her solicitor over the claim for damages to her property.

Back to top

Agreed action

27. I recommended the Council within four weeks:
• writes to Mrs X apologising for the problems she has been caused;
• pays her the £300 it originally offered to reflect the time and trouble she has been put to in pursuing the complaint; and
• pays her a further £1,000 to reflect the distress she has been caused and for being denied the opportunity to make informed decisions about the work she is unhappy with.

The Council has agreed to do this.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I have completed my investigation, on the basis of fault causing injustice which requires a remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman