Summary: Mrs B complains about the standard of work completed by contractors on behalf of the Council. Mrs B says there are multiple faults in the work, some of which are hazardous, and the Council did not properly inspect the work on completion. She asks the Council to provide recompense so she can instruct tradesmen to rectify the problems. The Ombudsman does not find fault in how the Council responded to Mrs B’s concerns.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mrs B, complains about the standard of work to her property. The Council funded improvements to Mrs B’s home, to remove hazards. It did so under its discretionary housing assistance policy. Mrs B says she raised problems with the Council throughout the period of the works and it did not properly respond. She says it did not inspect the completed work, which had many faults. Mrs B says that she no longer trusts the Council or its contractors. She asks the Council to provide financial recompense, so she can instruct her own tradesmen to fix the problems.

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. I considered the information provided and obtained further information about the complaint from Mrs B by email, then made enquiries of the Council. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mrs B and the Council for the comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. In 2019 the Council agreed a discretionary grant for small works to Mrs B’s home. Mrs B signed a contract for the works with the Council, which contained conditions. One of the conditions was that the works were specified, procured, and supervised by the Council. It said the payment of the grant was conditional on the eligible works being carried out to the satisfaction of the Council.
6. The agreed works included a range of improvements to the bathroom and kitchen to reduce hazards, along with an asbestos survey and electrical repairs. The work started in early March 2019 and was completed at the end of that month.
7. In May 2019, Mrs B’s daughter contacted the Council to request further decorating work as she said there were patches of paint left on the walls in the kitchen. The Council did not complete the additional work as it was outside the remit of the grant.
8. Mrs B also reported a leak behind the new washbasin. The contractors visited and could not identify a leak.
9. In April 2020 Mrs B requested the Council change a light in the bathroom. It attended and did so.
10. In August 2020 Mrs B made a claim for compensation regarding defects in works to the shower. The Council passed the matter to its insurers as a personal injury claim. The insurers did not uphold the claim or Mrs B’s appeal against its decision.
11. Mrs B’s son, Mr B, submitted a formal complaint to the Council about the standard of work in October 2020. He listed the following issues with the work:
• Loose towel handles and toilet handle
• Door and door handle of poor quality
• Flimsy light cord
• Toilet seat had no hinges at the bottom and has completely come off
• Sink and pedestal were not the same and had a leak
12. Mr B said there were many other issues. He said the Council was meant to attend the property and inspect the quality of the work but did not.
13. The Council asked to arrange for one of its officers to attend the property and assess the issues. Mr B declined due to concerns about coronavirus but sent photographs. He asked instead to be compensated so the family could instruct their own builders. He raised concerns about the quality of the Council instructed contractors.
14. In the Council’s stage one complaint response it says it could not find any record of the family raising the issues complained about at the time works were completed. It said an officer was due to visit the property in May 2019 but when the Council declined to complete decorating works Mrs B’s daughter asked for the contractor not to attend. However, it said a colleague from its team visited to follow up on the major works that were completed.
15. Mrs B was not satisfied with the response and said she had raised concerns with the Council frequently throughout the works. She asked to escalate her complaint to stage two of the complaint procedure.
16. The Council’s stage two response addressed each of the issues Mrs B had identified. It said the work done was inspected in May 2019 at the same time the contractors attended to look at the report of the leak. It said that at that time the Council did not routinely carry out follow up inspections of work. However, it had now amended its post-work procedures to include such inspections.
17. The Council accepted there had been some service failures in the work to the home, based on the photographs provided, so upheld the complaint. It offered again to arrange a new inspection of the work and to remedy the issues raised. It said that due to coronavirus restrictions it appreciated Mrs B may want to wait a while but asked her to get in touch when there was a suitable time.
18. Mrs B does not want the Council to return to her home as she says she does not trust it’s contractors to rectify the works to a good standard. She asks the Council instead to provide financial compensation so she can instruct her own builders to complete the works.

Findings

19. I do not find fault in how the Council responded to Mrs B’s complaint.
20. It is clear the Council did not complete a formal inspection or sign off of the completed work and did not routinely do so at that time. The contract with Mrs B says the Council will procure the work and only pay the grant if the work is completed to its satisfaction. This means the Council had responsibility for overseeing the works and should have been satisfied with the quality of completion. However, it is for the Council to set its own policies and procedures on how to ensure work is completed to its satisfaction. There was no legal or policy requirement for the Council to visit and formally inspect the work at that time so I cannot find fault with it not doing so. I note it has now updated its procedures to include such an inspection in future works.
21. Had Mrs B raised concerns about the quality of work at the time of completion, the Council should have responded to this and, if necessary, inspected and rectified any problems. However, I have not seen any evidence that Mrs B did so. I can see that she was in regularly contact with the Council and asked them for specific things such as further decorating work and a light change. However, there is no correspondence available that shows she raised concerns at any point in 2019, about the specific things she later complained about in 2020. It was at least 15 months after the work was completed that there is any evidence Mrs B raised concerns about the specific issues listed at Paragraph 11. Therefore, I cannot find fault with the Council not rectifying any issues at an earlier point.
22. The Council has accepted that some parts of the work may not have been completed to the right standard. It has offered to inspect and rectify those issues. I understand Mrs B considers the trust between her and the Council has been broken and would rather use contractors she instructs herself. However, I cannot instruct the Council to pay Mrs B a set amount of money for her own tradesmen. The Council will need to inspect the property to assess the details of what needs to be rectified. It is also the Council’s decision as to whether it uses its own contractors to do so. It would be making the rectifications in line with its original grant contract that made the Council responsible for procuring and deciding the scope of any necessary works.
23. I understand the offer remains open for Mrs B to allow the Council to inspect the issues and rectify any defects in the work should she choose to do so. I understand in the past Mrs B has raised concerns about coronavirus. However, the Council has made it clear she can contact it at a time she feels comfortable having someone attend the house. I would also note that any risk related to coronavirus would exist regardless of whether it is council officers and contractors attending the house, or ones instructed privately by Mrs B.

Back to top

Final decision

24. The Council is not at fault in how it responded to Mrs B’s concerns about the quality of work to her home.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman