Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about quality of works carried out under the Disabled Facilities Grant scheme. This is because the Council has already provided a suitable remedy and there is nothing further we could achieve.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains on behalf of his mother, Mrs Y. The Council arranged for adaptations to Mrs Y’s house using a Disabled Facilities Grant. Mr X says there were delays and the quality of work was poor, leaving Mrs Y without working facilities at times. Mr X says that Mrs Y experienced stress, anxiety, and loss of dignity because of this, and could not have visitors.
2. Mr X complained to the Council and says it did not handle this properly. Mr X says the Council told him it would not charge for the works until it had resolved the complaint, but then applied charges.
3. Mr X is seeking compensation and for the Council to remove the company that carried out the works from its recommended worklist.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions a council has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and Guidance on Remedies.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Many of the issues described with the early works were due to issues with an individual employee of the company contracted by the Council. The contractor later dismissed the employee. The Council worked to resolve the issues reasonably quickly once reported. The Council and its contractor accepted the first adaptations to Mrs Y’s house were of a poor standard and arranged for the work to be re-done. The total duration of the work was around five weeks, which the Council accepted is longer than it should have taken.
8. The Council says during this five-week period the contractor did not leave Mrs Y without a functioning toilet overnight, but she was potentially without a bathroom sink for around three weeks. This meant Mrs Y had to use the kitchen sink downstairs instead, which Mr X says was difficult for her due to mobility issues.
9. The Council has issued an apology to Mrs Y and offered a payment of £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused. This is in line with what we would usually recommend and our Guidance on Remedies. We cannot recommend that a Council ends a contractual relationship. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint as the Council has already provided a suitable remedy.
10. Mr X’s complaint is also about the complaints process itself. He says the Council told him it would not charge for the works until it had resolved the complaint. The Council refutes this. It would be unusual for the Council to have told him this, and I am satisfied this was a misunderstanding rather than fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has already provided a suitable remedy and there is nothing further we could achieve.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman