Summary: Mr X complains that works to his bathroom 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 redo the bathroom. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council facilitated the works at Mr X’s property or in the way it responded to Mr X’s reports of defects and offered to carry out remedial works. So, we have completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. I have called the complainant Mr X. He complains the Council has allowed inadequate Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) works at his property to install a level access shower. Mr X says;
• the works took too long to complete, and he and Mrs X cannot use the shower. This is because the water pressure is too low and it floods the bathroom, so they have to wash standing at a washbasin.
• the shower pump is too noisy causing a nuisance to his neighbours.
• the builder cut into the block floor when installing the shower drain which is not allowed as it is a party floor shared with his neighbours.
• the builder left mess and rubbish on the grass outside the property.
• the Council has failed to ensure remedial work is carried out in the bathroom and their bedroom which has caused them distress and inconvenience in having to deal with the matter.
2. Mr X would like the Council to redo the bathroom or give him the grant money to employ a builder to build the bathroom to Mr X’s needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

4. 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

5. I have read the papers submitted by Mr X and discussed the complaint with him. I considered documents provided by the Council and its responses to Mr X’s complaints.
6. 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

7. Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG) are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Councils have a statutory duty to provide grant aid to disabled people for adaptations. Before approving a grant, the Council must be satisfied the work is necessary and appropriate to meet the disabled person’s needs and is reasonable and practicable.
8. An occupational therapist (OT) carries out the needs assessment. The Council also carries out a means test of the disabled person to work out how much it will award. The maximum amount of a grant is £30,000.
9. ‘Home adaptations for disabled people: a detailed guide to related legislation, guidance and good practice’ is non-statutory guidance, published by the Homes Adaptations Consortium. It says all major adaptation work needs to be visited by a supervising officer at least once whilst they are in progress and, where work continues beyond a week, more often. In all visits, the disabled person and carer should be involved and given the opportunity to comment on the progress of the work and raise difficulties or queries.
10. The work must usually be completed within twelve months of the Council approving the application.
11. The grant application was managed and overseen by a Home Improvement Agency (HIA), an in-house service provided by the Council, which applicants may instruct to manage the whole DFG process on their behalf.

Events leading to the complaint

12. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
13. Mr X lives in a first-floor property. He contacted the Council in 2020 for help because he was having difficulty transferring in and out of the bath and climbing stairs to the property. An occupational therapist (OT) carried out an assessment and spoke to Mr X who wanted a level access shower installed. The OT considered Mr X’s current bathroom inappropriate and recommended a level access shower.
14. Mr X applied to have a stairlift installed and bathroom works done under a DFG. The Council sent the plans for the bathroom with level access shower to Mr X in October 2020. The plans included a wall mounted shower chair for Mr X to use while bathing. Mr X agreed with the OT the plans were suitable and signed a contract in December 2020 with a builder to carry out the works. Mr X signed a further agreement to use the Council’s HIA to manage the works. The Council approved the DFG and assessed Mr X’s contribution as £608.29 payable to the builder.
15. The Council expected the works to take about a week to complete. It rescheduled the start date to the end of January 2021 as Mr X was unwell. The works progressed including some extra private works Mr X requested. On 8 February 2021 an HIA technical officer visited in response to Mr X’s concerns about the standard of works by the builder, the time taken, and mess and rubbish left outside.
16. The technical officer spoke to Mr X and the builder and proposed a plan to complete the works. The Council considered this addressed the issues. Mr X told the builder not to attend so he could check the suitability of some items for the shower room. Mr X raised further issues and asked the builder not to attend on other occasions. The Council says the technical officer worked to try and progress matters and it agreed to Mr X’s request for a building control officer to visit to check the work so far.
17. The Council documents record the building control officer noted a small hole in the bathroom floor by the toilet which was an existing service hole and designed in the construction of the property. The builder had to break part of the area by the service duct to enable the pipe work to be fitted. The officer noted there was already a bit of missing floor around the soil pipe before the builder started the works, but Mr X had not been able to see this. The building control officer considered the work was of a decent standard and recorded ‘apart from the issue with the hole in the floor I have no concerns about the level of workmanship or materials used so far ‘. Once the builder repaired the hole the building control officer had no concerns but identified some other non-urgent jobs needed completing.
18. The builder returned to the job at the end of February 2021 and completed the works by 3 March 2021. Mr X remained unhappy and concerned about the works. The OT visited Mr X’s property and confirmed the works met his needs.
19. Council officers visited Mr X’s property in March 2021 in response to Mr X’s concerns about the shower temperature not being hot enough, low water pressure and causing flooding in the bathroom. Mr X considered the works were faulty. The Council explained to Mr X the level access shower was to help provide him with accessible facilities to manage his personal hygiene. The power of the shower was lower than his previous one because that discharged into a bath using gravity waste. The new shower had been set to work with a pump and so would be less powerful.
20. The officers found Mr X had altered the water pressure on the shower valves to have a more powerful shower. This upset the balance of the pump so it could not drain the water away making it flood out onto the bathroom floor. An officer arranged for the builder to return the next day to rebalance the valves and to check if the temperature and pressure could be increased. The officers asked Mr X not to alter the valves.
21. Two officers visited Mr X on 12 March 2021 in response to concerns he raised. Mr X complained to the Council following the visit he wanted the Council to redo the bathroom or reduce his financial contribution. Mr X asked the Council to arrange an independent assessment of the adaptations. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaints in April 2021. It noted Mr X’s concerns were
• The level access shower adaptation did not meet his needs. The OT confirmed the shower adaptation was appropriate in meeting Mr X’s needs and was as the agreed plans.
• Mr X wanted a bathroom he would like, not the one provided. The officers confirmed with Mr X he received a copy of the bathroom plans before the works started and agreed to them.
• Mr X considered there was not enough space for him to use the shower, so water flooded on to the floor. The OT confirmed there was enough space for Mr X to fit in the shower area. But noted he pushed the shower curtain out when washing his lower limbs. The OT suggested Mr X used the wall mounted shower chair and sat to wash his lower limbs. Or stood elsewhere in the shower to do this. Mr X declined the suggestions.
• Mr X could not sit on the wall mounted shower chair as the controls were too close and he could catch himself on them. The OT acknowledged this, and suggested Mr X sit at a slight angle to reduce the risk of this happening which Mr X declined. Officers offered to fit smaller or other shower controls to reduce the risk, but Mr X declined.
• Mr X wanted the shower to be on the short wall behind the shower chair. The officers confirmed this was not practical but suggested fitting a shower holder bracket on that wall so the shower hose could be positioned behind him when showering. Mr X declined the suggestion.
• Mr X considered the wall mounted shower chair to large and wanted a free-standing shower chair. The OT advised Mr X the wall mounted shower chair was a standard size and provided enough support for him. But she could arrange for a free-standing chair as Mr X requested. Mr X declined the offer.
• Mr X was concerned about noise from the pump. The technical officer found three non-urgent items which needed sorting including the over run on the pump. This needed adjusting to minimise the noise from the pump gulping air while it ran to allow the shower tray to fully discharge excess water.
• The officers noted Mr X’s photographs of water moving across the bathroom floor. The officers explained once the water starts running the flow switch tells the pump to start working and it should have drained the water. The officers considered the pump appeared not to activate and the shower curtain not being used to deflect the water back into the tray. But the Council was willing to investigate the pump if it did not work as intended.
• Mr X’s belief the builder cut into the block floor to lower the drain which was not allowed as it was a shared party floor with his neighbour below. The Council explained the builder confirmed he did not penetrate the concrete floor as they used a specialist pump and trap. The Council did not consider the builder disturbed the floor other than a small hole in the pre-existing service duct to allow pipework to be fitted behind the toilet. The building control officer noted the builder had to break out part of the concrete floor to connect the new wastes to the original connection on the soil vent pipe. But once repaired it was no longer an issue.
• Mr X’s concerns about mess and rubbish left by the builder. The building control officer reported the mess was no worse than normal for such a project. And could be resolved by the builder carrying out a general clean at the end of the works which had now been done.
• Mr X’s concern the builder made a hole in the bedroom all to access the pipework and had just patched and filled it but not painted it. The Council confirmed that decorating was not part of the DFG.
22. The Council considered officers had suggested reasonable and practical steps to address Mr X’s concerns. The officers considered the work had been completed to a high standard and met Mr X’s needs. The Council declined Mr X’s request to redo the bathroom or to waive his contribution towards the works. The Council agreed to Mr X’s request for an independent inspection of the adaptations to try and resolve the complaint.
23. An independent consultant carried out the inspection in June 2021. The Council considered and accepted the findings. The report considered the bathroom had been ‘modified to a satisfactory standard’ and set out some remedial work which the Council agreed to carry out. The work was to
• remove and replace the shower controls in position to be confirmed on site and allow for altering the plumbing to suit.
• remove and replace holed sections of the wall panelling.
• remove and refit the trims to the wall panelling to ensure flush fitting.
• provide and fit cover roses to the radiator pipework and the service pipework to the wash handbasin.
• make good the plasterboard in the bedroom with new plasterboard and a skim finish and decorate.
24. The report suggested the Council obtain a commissioning certificate for the pump installation to show it has been fitted to comply with the manufacturer’s requirements.
25. The Council apologised it had been unable to resolve matters before and would ensure the recommendations were dealt with as soon as it could. The Council said it remained willing to move or replace the shower controls and place a shower holder on the wall behind the shower chair. The Council said it also remained willing to replace the wall mounted shower chair with a free standing one, although it was aware Mr X had previously declined these suggestions.
26. The Council noted Mr X did not want the original builder to return so it would arrange for a different one to complete the work. Or Mr X could arrange a builder and send the quote to the HIA. The Council agreed to arrange the work as a priority. The Council advised Mr X he still needed to pay his contribution of £608.29 to the original builder.
27. The Council arranged for a representative of the pump manufacturer to visit and check the shower installation. The representative confirmed it was installed according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The Council clarified the existing floor construction would not allow a bigger bore pipe. So, the flow of the shower had been reduced to cater for the output of the pump and was considered acceptable by the representative. The Council confirmed the visit from the building control officer and the independent surveyor showed the shower installation had been done correctly although it agreed to carry out some remedial work. The Council reminded Mr X he could arrange for a builder to submit a quote, or the Council could do this.
28. The Council acknowledged it had not realised the works needed some remedial action and it had taken longer to resolve than hoped. So, it decided to waive Mr X’s contribution of £608.29 towards the works as a goodwill gesture. This was to recognise the issues and for any upset and time and trouble caused to Mr X in pursuing matters. It was also for any further inconvenience during the remedial works.
29. As Mr X remains unhappy, he has asked the Ombudsman to investigate his complaint. Mr X maintains the work is not of a satisfactory standard, the design and fitting of the shower installation is wrong, the low water pressure causes an issue, and the builder has wrongly broken into the party floor.

My assessment

30. Mr X and the Council clearly have differing opinions on the quality of works carried out at Mr X’s property. 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 to remedy Mr X’s concerns.
31. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body about the quality of the work carried out or its suitability. 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. There is no evidence of fault in this case.
32. This is because the evidence provided so far shows the Council has inspected and where appropriate taken action to resolve Mr X’s concerns about his new level access shower. This included where Mr X has reported problems with the water flooding, water pressure, noise from pump and quality of the works. Officers visited and inspected the works. The officers assessed the works as satisfactory and appropriate for Mr X’s needs.
33. In addition, the Council arranged for a building control officer to inspect the works, an independent surveyor to assess it and for a representative of the pump manufacture to visit to inspect the installation in response to Mr X’s concerns. These all concluded the works were satisfactory and correctly installed. The Council responded to Mr X’s concerns about damage to the party floor. The Council confirmed the builder did not break into the party floor as they used a specialist pump and trap, and the building control officer found no issues with the floor.
34. As a means of resolving Mr X’s complaint the Council has agreed to carry out remedial works identified by the independent surveyor. It has agreed to waive Mr X’s contribution to the works of £608.29. I do not consider that any further investigation will add anything to the investigation already carried out by the Council. Or that I can achieve a different outcome for Mr X from that already offered by the Council as a way forward. It is for Mr X to act on the Council’s offer to complete the works required.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman