Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that work caried out under a Disabled Facilities Grant was not completed. That is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained that work to her bathroom completed under a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) was not completed. She said the contractor completing the work failed to fit a glass screen for the newly installed shower; had left holes in the wall under the sink; did not paint two doors; did not install splashbacks and had removed an old sink that she intended on selling.
2. Miss X said the work completed to the bathroom did not reflect the cost. She said she did not want the Council to sign off the work in her bathroom as complete until the outstanding work was finished.

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, and
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

4. We cannot investigate a complaint where the body complained about is not responsible for the issue being raised. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council agreed to adapt the bathroom at Miss X’s property following an assessment by the Occupational Therapist (OT). That adaptation was for the removal of the bath and the installation of a level access shower.
8. In its complaint response the Council said Miss X asked to keep the bath. The Council said it agreed to that request, but that decision increased the cost of work. It said that increased cost was not covered by the DFG because provision of a bath was not part of Miss X’s assessed need. Therefore, Miss X would need to meet the additional cost of funding the work. It understood that a charity had met that additional cost.
9. In respect of the works not being complete the Council said:
• The contractor had installed the shower to specification with a full-length weighted shower curtain. It said it did not install glass doors as these could present as a hazard to a disabled person using a shower.
• The contractor had refitted the vanity unit in the bathroom after installing the new floor. However, Miss X asked the contractor to replace the vanity unit with a new sink. That resulted in the wall having an unfinished appearance. The Council said the removal of the vanity unit was not part of the agreed work and any associated redecoration costs was not included in the grant funding. It said any agreement about the removal of the sink was between Miss X and the contractor and she would have to contact them if she wanted it returning.
• The contractor had varnished the two doors and that the doors did not require further painting.
10. The Council provided photographic evidence to Miss X of the installed vanity unit and varnished doors.
11. The Council said it could not assess the snagging issues she had complained about because she was refusing to let it visit her property. It said without access to assess the completed work, it would have to pay the contractor as it was satisfied the work was completed correctly.
12. Although Miss X is unhappy with the Council’s response to her complaint, we will not investigate it further.
13. Miss X has not been caused a significant injustice by the Council’s decision to install a shower curtain. There is also insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to install a shower curtain.
14. Although Miss X believes the contractor has left the work unfinished, the Council’s complaint response and photographic evidence demonstrates the contractor completed the work as agreed. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation.
15. The Council is not responsible for the actions of the contractor. Therefore, any complaint about the removal of Miss X’s old sink is outside of our jurisdiction.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman