Summary: Mr X complained that works to his home carried out under a Disabled Facilities Grant were of poor quality and led to problems in his home. Mr X would like the Council to remedy the outstanding issues. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council facilitated the works at Mr X’s property or in the way it responded to his reports of defects and carried out remedial works.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall refer to as Mr X complains that adaptations to his home are of poor quality and have led to problems in his home, including damp, low water pressure, boiler problems and leaks. Mr X would like the Council to remedy the outstanding issues.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the information provided by Mr X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with Mr X; and
• Mr X 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

Key facts

5. In August 2017 the Council awarded Mr X a Disabled Facilities Grant for a new extension with a level access shower. The Council appointed a contractor and facilitated the works, which were completed in October 2017. Following completion of the works Mr X reported a number of defects which the contractor addressed within the 12 month defect liability period. This included replacing a defective extractor fan; removing paint splashes on the pipework, sink, and boiler; repairing the flooring and fitting a larger radiator.
6. In early 2019 Mr X complained about the workmanship. This was outside the 12 month defect liability period. A technical officer (Officer 1) visited and identified damp in Mr X’s bathroom. The Council states there was no evidence the extension had breached the existing damp proof course, but as a gesture of good will it agreed to fund and undertake a damp survey and the remedial works. The Council also agreed to investigate Mr X’s concerns about the boiler.
7. As Mr X’s health declined, he decided to sell his property to move to more supported living accommodation. Mr X contacted the Council to request copies of paperwork relating to the works at his property so that he could market it for sale. Mr X’s support worker then contacted the Council in January 2020 to request this paperwork. They also advised Mr X was concerned about an intermittent problem with his central heating, issues with rainwater runoff on his roof and low water pressure. Officer 1 visited Mr X and agreed to send copies of the outstanding documents.
8. Mr X’s support worker contacted the Council again in June 2020 to question the validity of the documentation provided. They also complained, on Mr X’s behalf:
• That the building was unsafe, and the work had been done haphazardly. Mr X was concerned the works had required major correction work, not all the snags had been dealt with, and there had been no safety or building inspections.
• The cost of correcting defective work had exceeded the budget and Mr X was concerned the Council would seek the additional cost from him.
• Officers had ridden roughshod over the process, operating independently of Mr X’s interests and Officer 1 had delayed and failed to follow up on promised actions. This had caused Mr X to feel frustrated, angry, and stressed and he no longer wanted any contact from Officer 1.
9. In response, the Council confirmed Building Control had inspected and approved the works and a Gas Safety certificate had been issued in relation to the boiler. As the Council did not have a copy of the electrical certificate it arranged for an electrician to contact Mr X to test the installation and provide a new certificate.
10. The Council also confirmed it had carried out additional work outside the scope of the grant at no cost to Mr X. The Council did not intend to seek a contribution for the cost of the works from Mr X. The Council also confirmed it considered the works were of a standard it would expect and were in accordance the Building Regulations and Gas and Electrical safety requirements.
11. In August 2020 Mr X made a formal complaint about the poor quality of work. An officer visited Mr X to discuss his concerns and then responded in September 2020. The Council noted that the electrical safety certificate was still outstanding and reiterated its offer to instruct an engineer to test the electrics and provide the necessary certificate.
12. The Council also confirmed it would complete the following mainly cosmetic works at no cost to Mr X:
• Replace the external mastic to the windows within the wet room and lobby
• Remove the external grille to the original extractor fan and fill the cavity behind with expanding foam;
• Provide a door stop to the wet room;
• Investigate the water pressure to the shower and rectify any issues.
13. In relation to Mr X’s concerns about the boiler, the Council noted this was re-located to facilitate the works and that since then Mr X had had problems with the wireless thermostat losing connection to the boiler. Although this may not be wholly attributable to the works, the Council agreed to investigate and remedy any issues with the boiler or thermostat at no cost to Mr X.
14. Mr X was not satisfied by the Council’s response and in February 2021 he asked for his complaint to be reviewed. He complained the filler inserted into the cavity was leaking, the door stop had been fitted incorrectly, the water pressure had dropped significantly, and he was still having issues with his central heating. Mr X did not consider the work was of a high enough standard.
15. The Council’s response noted Mr X had not said where he wanted the door stop fitted, but the Council had offered to re-locate it if Mr X arranged access. The Council also confirmed it had investigated the water pressure. As it had not carried out any works to the water services into Mr X’s property, it did not consider any drop in water pressure could be attributed to the works at Mr X’s home.
16. In relation to Mr X’s central heating the Council noted it had agreed to replace the wireless thermostat. A qualified heating engineer had now inspected Mr X’s central heating system and found no fault. The Council considered the works to Mr X’s property were of an acceptable standard and had received the necessary approvals and certificates.
17. As Mr X remains unhappy he has asked the Ombudsman to investigate his complaint. He maintains the work is not of a satisfactory standard and there are still outstanding issues.
18. In response to my enquiries the Council states the contract on which these works were based states that all materials, goods, and workmanship must be to the ‘reasonable satisfaction’ of the contract administrator. A technical officer issued a Certificate of Practical Completion in October 2017 and has confirmed the extension was built to a good standard. They state all materials were to British Standards, and codes of practice adhered to. Building Control visited the site at all relevant stages and works were passed with no issues.
19. The Council states the original intention was to form an intersection between the new roof and the existing garage, but this was not possible due to the poor condition of the garage roof covering. The Council replaced the garage roof as an unforeseen variation to the grant. The original contractor carried out this work. Following Mr X’s complaint another company inspected the work and confirmed the ponding effects were likely to be due to the overlapping of sheet materials. There was no evidence of any internal leaks, and the roof system appeared to be performing its duties.
20. In relation to the extension roof the Council states it is a GPR (Glass Reinforced Plastic) high performance roof, comprising of three layers. It states there is no evidence to suggest the roofing system was not installed correctly or that the materials are of lesser quality than specified. The Council states the top layer roof will have some overlaps, but this is a deliberate design feature of this type of roof.
21. The Council notes Mr X’s extension was completed in October 2017, but Mr X did not contact the Council in relation to a drop in the water pressure until February 2020. It states there are no known issues with water pressure within the new extension shower room or the existing ground floor kitchen, which suggests it is a problem with the water services within Mr X’s property. The Council does not consider the drop in water pressure within Mr X’s house is a direct result of the work undertaken in 2017.
22. Mr X complains of ongoing issues with his boiler, but the Council states a gas engineer has issued a Gas Safe - Home Owner’s Safety Certificate. It would be unlawful to do this if there was an issue with the boiler. The Council changed the wireless thermostat and arranged for the boiler to be checked again in October 2020 when Mr X alleged it was losing pressure, but no faults were found.
23. In response to the draft decision Mr X has reiterated his concerns about the quality of workmanship and the number of faults that needed correcting. He is concerned that the Council sent the same contractors back to correct their defective work and does not trust that issues are resolved. Mr X states the Council has admitted the contractors broke a water pipe when they built the extension. Although the shower room is not currently damp he does not feel confident the issue has been resolved. Mr X maintains there are ongoing problems with the water pressure to his shower and there are issues with his central heating. In addition, he remains concerned about the way the roof looks.
24. Mr X would like the Council to arrange for reputable trades people to come out and fix the outstanding issues so that he can sell his property.

Analysis

25. Mr X and the Council clearly have differing opinions on the quality of work undertaken at Mr X’s home. Mr X asserts the work is of poor quality, required significant repairs and is still not complete, while the Council considers the work satisfactory and states it agreed to carry out additional work as a gesture of goodwill.
26. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which decisions are made. We cannot question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer an opinion on the judgment of the Council’s officers unless there is evidence of fault in the way the decisions were taken.
27. The Council has inspected and where appropriate taken action to resolve Mr X’s concerns about his new shower room. Including where Mr X has reported problems outside the 12 month defect liability period, and two or three years after the works were completed. The works have received building control and gas and electrical safety certificates confirming they meet the required standards.
28. In addition, the Council has twice arranged for a heating engineer to check Mr X’s boiler, and no faults were found with the system.
29. Mr X is unhappy with the appearance of and pooling water/ runoff on the roofs to both his garage and the new extension. The Council states this is an established and trusted flat roof system, and some overlap is a deliberate design feature. There is no evidence of leaks or defects with the roofs construction.
30. Nor is there evidence the works undertaken in 2017 caused a drop in water pressure within Mr X’s house. Mr X and his support worker contacted the Council several times following the completion of the works to raise issues and report defects. But he did not complain about low water pressure until more than two years after the works were complete.

Back to top

Final decision

31. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council facilitated the works at Mr X’s property or in the way it responded to his reports of defects and carried out remedial works.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman