Summary: Ms X complained about the standard of work carried out under the disabled facilities grant process and the local land charge placed by the Council on her property for the costs of those works. The Council has already admitted some of the work was initially not up to standard but was put right at the time. It apologised for this. This is satisfactory to remedy any injustice Ms X experienced. There was no fault in the financial information provided to Ms X about the charge on her property. The Council’s failure to highlight that the original quote for works might increase was fault. However, this did not cause Ms X a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about work carried out to her property under the Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) process.
2. She said that some of the work had to be redone because it was of a poor standard. As a result, she says she had no access to proper toilet or washing facilities for several weeks which caused her distress and inconvenience.
3. Ms X also complained the Council increased the charge on her property without her consent which has affected her financially.

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 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)
5. We cannot question whether an organisation’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)
6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

7. I spoke to Ms X and considered her view of her complaint.
8. I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided. This included information about the work carried out and complaints correspondence.
9. I wrote to Ms X and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Disabled facility grants (DFGs)

10. If a disabled person needs adaptations to their property, they may qualify for a disabled facilities grant (DFG).
11. DFGs can help with the provision of a number of facilities such as:
• access to and from the home, stairlifts, access around the home; and
• replacement of baths with level access showers or wet rooms.
12. If the disabled person is in receipt of a DFG over £5,000 and owns their property, the council will require repayment of a proportion of the grant in certain circumstances. In these cases, the council will register a local land charge against the property for the repayment.

What happened

13. Ms X has a number of disabilities. In 2020, she was assessed by an occupational therapist (OT) who recommended adaptations to her bathroom. The Council approved a DFG to carry out these works.
14. The Council appointed a contractor. Work started on 26 October and was due to finish on 6 November. However, Ms X was unhappy with the quality of some of the work and refused entry to the contractor on 2 November to complete the work or collect his tools. A Council officer hand delivered a letter to Ms X advising her the contractor would complete the works on 9 November. Ms X told the officer she would not allow access until she had spoken to her OT. This took place immediately by phone with the OT and officer. After the call, Ms X agreed to allow the contractor access on 9 November.
15. When the contractor arrived, Ms X would not let him in. The same day, the officer hand delivered a second letter asking Ms X to call the Council urgently.
16. On 12 November, Ms X contacted the Council to complain about the lack of progress. The Adaptations Manager called her back immediately and asked her to allow the contractor back in. He said any snagging issues would be picked up but the priority was to complete the work so Ms X could use the bathroom. It was agreed a senior officer and the contractor’s supervisor would meet Ms X at the property.
17. This took place on 17 November. The officer recommended further work was needed to the floor to strengthen the joists, ensure it was level and there was the correct fall towards the shower area. The shower deck also needed to be refitted. Ms X agreed a new contractor could complete the work. It had also previously been agreed the walls would be retiled as Ms X had said the tiles installed were not the ones she had chosen. At the meeting Ms X chose tiles from samples brought along and these were the same as the ones that had been fitted on the walls.
18. The new contractors arrived on 30 November, but Ms X would not allow them access because she had decided she wanted all the walls retiling.
19. The Council’s records show the works were carried out and the officer signed them off as satisfactory. The works were completed on 17 December, around five weeks later than expected.
20. Ms X was unhappy with the works and complained to the Council. Her main complaints were:
• her OT report recommended a wall mounted support arm for the toilet but the Council had fitted a floor support;
• the flooring to the bathroom was uneven and spongy, was poorly fitted with imperfections showing through and the shower tray had too much movement in it;
• the hand basin pipes needed fixing and the cold water tap leaked;
• in the cellar, pipe work had been fitted in such a way that no ceiling could be easily fitted if Ms X wanted to convert the space;
• she was left without a toilet or shower for a longer period than necessary;
• the Council had not explained she could use her own contractor; and
• the Council did not tell her it would place a charge on her property and then increased that charge to include the costs of putting the works right.
21. The Council responded and provided a detailed explanation to address each of Ms X’s complaints. It said the technical officer had viewed the works and considered them satisfactory. It said:
• due to a change in contractor, the wall by the toilet had not been strengthened to allow a wall support. However, an OT had assessed the floor support to the toilet and found it would meet Ms X’s needs;
• there were some very minor imperfections under the flooring but these were acceptable and would not cause damage to the floor or anyone using it. Significant works had been carried out to provide additional stability and strength to the existing timber floor. All work to the floor had been checked several times and was satisfactory;
• the shower was not on a slope. Case notes showed officers had explained a number of times that there had to be a slight gradient towards the shower drain to allow the water to drain away. All shower floors were built that way;
• the contractor had provided a better specification hand basin at their own cost because Ms X was unhappy with the one specified by the Council. The technical officer had checked, and it was fitted correctly. The contractor had returned to repair a leak and this work was checked by Ms X’s daughter;
• the cellar was not considered to be a habitable room suitable for conversion. The pipe work was needed for the bathroom. The technical officer was satisfied with the works and the officer responding to the complaint (the head of Housing Operations) had also reviewed the photographs of the work and confirmed the pipes had been installed correctly;
• a mobile camping toilet was provided for Ms X’s use during the day whilst the work was being carried out. The proper toilet was reconnected each afternoon for her use overnight. The works were delayed because Ms X would not allow the contractor access to her property. The Council said that these delays had led to Ms X being without the use of the shower (but not a toilet) for longer than expected;
• the works completed by the contractor had a 12 month defects period so the Council would ensure any defects were put right during this period;
• the officer had reviewed the costs of the work and could confirm the costs to address any defects had not been passed on to Ms X and were not included in the charge on her property;
• the Council’s financial assessment officer met with Ms X in February 2020 to discuss the DFG and when the Council would put a charge on someone’s property. He had explained Ms X could either use her own contractor or the Council’s service. He had left an information booklet with her which also explained this; and
• the charge had increased because additional works were needed to the bathroom.
22. The Council partially upheld Ms X’s complaint that there had been issues with the quality of some of the work and apologised for this. It confirmed this had now been put right and the works had been signed off. It did not uphold any of Ms X’s other complaints.
23. During my investigation, the Council stated that when DFG work is carried out, additional work is often required, leading to a higher cost for the work. The Council said it was not practical to inform clients of these charges on an ongoing basis.

My findings

24. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. Our role is to come to a finding on whether there was fault in the decision-making process. If we do find fault, we may ask the Council to reconsider that decision.
25. On several occasions, Ms X would not allow the contractor into her property to complete the work. Therefore, I do not find the Council at fault for any delays in completing the work or for Ms X being without a shower for longer than necessary. She could access a toilet at all times.
26. Some of Ms X’s concerns about the work were valid. When she permitted a Council officer to carry out a site visit, they agreed some remedial works were required. These were carried out without undue delay and the works were finished in mid-December. However, Ms X could have raised her concerns with the Council for consideration when it carried out its quality inspection after the works had been completed. This would have reduced any delays to the initial works and allowed Ms X access to her shower more quickly.
27. A Council technical officer inspected the works and Ms X was provided with a satisfactory and detailed response about why the works are of a satisfactory standard. There was no fault in how these decisions were made.
28. The Council’s records note an officer visited Ms X, explained the DFG process including placing a charge on her property and advised she could appoint her own contractor if she wished. When Ms X raised concerns that the charge included the costs of the remedial works, the Council reviewed the case and confirmed these costs had not been passed on to Ms X. I have confirmed this is correct during my investigation. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.
29. Ms X is unhappy the charge on her property is higher than first agreed. The Council has stated it does not routinely inform clients throughout the process when additional costs are incurred because this would not be practical. In addition, additional costs may not be finalised until after the work has been completed. This position is understandable and is not fault. However, the Council’s failure to prewarn clients that this might happen in its financial information at the start of the process is fault.
30. As a result, Ms X was not warned that the charge on her property might increase. However, she was aware of the additional works and also knew that the Council would apply for a charge on her property. The works were essential and Ms X has benefited from them. Therefore, she did not experience a significant injustice.

Agreed actions

31. Within one month of the date of the final decision, the Council has agreed to review the details it provides applicants at the start of the disabled facilities grant to include information that the costs of works may increase, leading to an increased charge on the property.

Back to top

Final decision

32. The Council has already identified it was at fault in some areas and apologised for any injustice caused to Ms X. I have identified additional fault, but this did not cause significant injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendation. Therefore, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman