Summary: Mr X complained about delays in carrying out bathroom adaptations and about the quality of the work. The Council delayed allocating a contractor to carry out remedial work and this was fault for which it has already apologised. This was an appropriate remedy. Further delays in completing the works were not as a result of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained on behalf of himself and his mother Mrs Y. He complained the Council delayed completing bathroom adaptations and failed to ensure the work was completed to a satisfactory standard. This left him and his mother without washing facilities for several months and caused them time and trouble and frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)f 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

4. I have considered the information provided by Mr X and discussed the complaint with him. I have considered the Council’s response to my enquiries.
5. I gave Mr X and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered any comments I received before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

COVID-19

6. From March to May 2020, England was in the first of three national lockdowns. People could only leave their home for limited purposes including travelling to and from work, but only where this was absolutely necessary. In May 2020, the Government said people who could not work from home should return to the workplace. In September 2020, the Government announced new restrictions including working from home. A second national lockdown came into force from November to December 2020. The third national lockdown was in place from January to March 2021.

Disabled Facilities Grant

7. Councils have a statutory duty to give grants to disabled people for certain adaptations. These are called disabled facilities grants. Councils are also responsible for ensuring subsequent works are arranged, carried out and the necessary quality checks made.

What happened

8. In March 2020 Contractor 1 started work to install a ground floor bathroom with level access shower in Mrs Y’s home funded through a disabled facilities grant. There is an upstairs toilet in the property. The work halted later in late March due to the national lockdown because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Mr X says this left him and Mrs Y without access to shower/bathing facilities. Mrs Y went to stay with another relative during some of this time.
9. Mr X contacted the Council mid-May to advise he had not been able to have a shower for two months and wanted the work completed as soon as possible.
10. Contractor 1 went back to the property when the lockdown was lifted and completed the works in early June. The bathroom was usable and accessible from then onwards.
11. Mr X contacted the Council in June 2020 raising issues with the quality of the works. The Council noted Mr X said the workmanship was poor, the door handle and frame were weak and the pipework was not straight. The Council called Mr X back and left a voice message for him to contact it about his issues.
12. Mr X called the Council twice to raise issues about the works. In August 2020 Mr X formally complained to the Council about the quality of the works. He said the tiles were not straight and the floor was not level, paint was peeling from the walls and the pipework was not satisfactory. He said they had previously been left without a bathroom for months. He wanted the work put right but not by Contractor 1.
13. The Council responded to the complaint mid-August 2020 and advised it had requested another contractor to urgently complete the remedial works to rectify the issues identified. It said during the national lockdown contractors were requested to identify where clients would be left without appropriate facilities so contingencies should be explored. It said Mr X’s lack of facilities was not brought to its attention by the contractor and it apologised for this.
14. The Council allocated the case to Contractor 2. Contractor 2 produced a report for the Council in September 2020 and agreed to carry out the remedial works. This included re-fitting the toilet, re-doing and then boxing in pipework and re-levelling the floor. In November 2020 the Council agreed to the quote Contractor 2 provided. Mr X contacted the Council again in December 2020 to again complain about the quality of works undertaken by Contractor 1.
15. Mr X requested a bath be installed in the bathroom. In December 2020 the Council contacted Contractor 2 to advise the remedial works should include installing a bath and associated tiling and replacing the bathroom door.
16. A second national lockdown came into force from November to December 2020. The third national lockdown was in place between January and March 2021.
17. Contractor 2 started work at the property in late February 2021. It identified problems with a leaking pipe under the floor and so had to remove the floor and some plaster at the property, install a dehumidifier and leave it to dry before it could replaster and repair the floor.
18. In late March 2021 Mr X contacted the Council. He said he had some issues with Contractor 2 and they had told him they were going to close the job and return it to the Council. Mr X did not have a working bathroom at that time. The toilet was not installed and the shower was not accessible. Mr X contacted the Council again in late April and reiterated he had issues with the contractor.
19. In May 2021 another company, assigned to install a step lift at the property, advised it was returning the job to the Council. It reported Mr X had called up to six times a day and was abusive on the phone. The Council reallocated this work to another company.
20. In May 2021 Mr X complained the shower tray was not level. In June 2021 Mr X contacted the Council again with concerns the floor and window were not level. He said the work was taking too long and he was unhappy with the workmanship. Contractor 2 advised the Council the shower tray was not on the original list of concerns and its functionality would not be affected. The Council advised Contractor 2 not to proceed further until it had received confirmation that Mr X was happy for the work to continue. Contractor 2 advised the Council it spoke with Mr X who did not confirm whether or not he wanted Contractor 2 to proceed and complete the works. Mr X made further calls to the Council raising his concerns about the quality of the work. Contractor 2 offered to return and complete the works if the Council would ensure Mr X understood the works were to be as agreed.
21. The Council contacted Mr X and he agreed to look at employing his own contractor to carry out the remaining works.
22. In June 2021 Contractor 2 advised the Council Mr X had called them 66 times and left 8 text messages in one day, some of which it said were offensive. The Council agreed to ask Mr X to contact it and not the contractor. Contractor 2 agreed to visit the property to remove building materials and debris from the site.
23. Mr X called the Council several times in early July requesting an update on progress with the adaptations. He called again in mid-July. He said the floor was uneven. He said Contractor 2 took up the floor to address a leak and installed the shower tray but it was not level. The Council called Mr X and again discussed the possibility of him finding his own contractor. Mr X rejected this option as he said he had already tried to do this unsuccessfully. The Council agreed to refer it to another contractor. Mr X made repeated calls and texts to the Council requesting an update as he and Mrs Y did not have access to bathing facilities.
24. The Council emailed Mr X in late July 2021. It advised Contractor 2 had refused to continue with any of the agreed adaptations. It said it had offered Mr X the option of using his own contractor, but Mr X had said that was not possible. It advised a representative from Contractor 3 would be in contact to assess whether they were willing to complete the works. The Council asked Mr X to refrain from making calls as the tone of his calls and his messages were offensive. It asked him to limit all future contact regarding adaptations to the Occupational Therapy DFG service only as they had agreed to act as intermediaries.
25. In late July Mr X emailed the Council. He advised Contractor 3 had attended. He raised concerns that the contractor was trying to turn a small job into a larger one and made disparaging remarks about the contractor. Contractor 3 decided not to accept the work.
26. In August 2021, the Council contacted Contractor 4 who agreed to carry out the remedial works which included re-levelling the floor, installing a new shower tray and re-installing the window. Contractor 4 started work in September 2021. Mrs Y completed a customer feedback questionnaire in November 2021 which confirmed she was satisfied with the quality of the completed work.
27. Mr X remained unhappy about the delays with the work and the periods they were without a shower or bath and complained to the Council in March 2022. The Council responded in April 2022. It advised works were placed on hold due to the pandemic in March 2020. The contractors had confirmed Mr X and Mrs Y had access to running water and a toilet at that time. Due to the extreme circumstances caused by the lockdown it considered a strip wash would have been deemed acceptable whilst waiting for works to be completed. It partially upheld the complaint.
28. It said there was a delay between the first and second contractor and apologised for this. It said works had since been completed satisfactorily and additional delays were experienced as a consequence of his behaviour to the contractors. It advised Mr X to come to us if he remained dissatisfied.

Findings

29. Work started on Mrs Y’s adaptations in early March 2020 but had to be halted later that month due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the national lockdown. Although this meant Contractor 1 left Mr X and Mrs Y without access to a shower or downstairs toilet, the contractor was satisfied there was running water and an upstairs toilet at the property. Although a strip wash is not ideal, given the extreme circumstances of the pandemic I cannot say it was fault for Contractor 1 to leave the property in that condition at that time.
30. When the lockdown was lifted Contractor 1 completed the work and Mr X and Mrs Y had a usable bathroom available from early June 2020.
31. Mr X was dissatisfied with the quality of the works and it was not until Mr X formally complained that the Council allocated a second contractor to carry out remedial works. This delay of around two months was fault and caused Mr X frustration. However Mr X and Mrs Y had access to a usable bathroom at that time and were not without bathroom facilities. The Council has already apologised for the delay which was a satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.
32. The Council agreed to address Mr X’s concerns about the quality of the works by allocating a new contractor, as Mr X had requested. There was a delay in Contractor 2 starting works but this was due to further national lockdowns, and therefore not Council fault. When Contractor 2 started work it discovered a leak in an under-floor pipe. It therefore had to remove plaster and the floor to repair this and install a dehumidifier to dry out the damp. I have considered the evidence available and cannot say, even on the balance of probabilities, what caused the leak and whether it was due to fault by a contractor.
33. Contractor 2 did not complete the works and Mr X was therefore left without a usable bathroom and without access to a shower or bath for around seven months from the March 2021 to September 2021. This was a significant delay but this was not because of Council fault or fault by the contractor acting on its behalf. There was a breakdown in the relationship between Contractor 2 and Mr X. Mr X was dissatisfied with the quality of their work and Contractor 2 had concerns about Mr X’s behaviour. Mr X repeatedly called Contractor 2 and left messages which the contractor found offensive. Contactor 3 then decided it take over the works due to Mr X’s behaviour when they visited. Mr X then agreed to seek his own contractor but was unable to find one which added to the delay. Contractor 4 later completed the works to Mrs Y’s satisfaction. During this time the Council took appropriate steps to try to resolve the situation. It was not at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I have completed my investigation. There was some fault by the Council in the delay in allocating a contractor to carry out remedial works. The Council has already apologised for this which was sufficient remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman