Summary: Mr B complained about the actions of the Council in respect of work done by a contractor in his home under a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). He said the contractor did not advise him correctly causing him to throw away items which could have been reused. We found the Council was not responsible for the actions of the contractor, beyond ensuring the works were completed satisfactorily but its communication with Mr B could have been clearer and provided more quickly. The Council has agreed to pay Mr B £100 and improve the information it provides DFG recipients for the future.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained that Manchester City Council (the Council) failed to take responsibility for the actions of the contractors installing a wet room in his property; specifically, he said the contractor did not advise him properly about whether existing fittings could be replaced, so he threw everything away and incurred costs having to purchase replacements. He has also been caused significant distress, frustration and time and trouble in pursuing the matter.

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. 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

4. I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Mr B 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

5. In March 2021 the Council agreed to fund adaptations to Mr B’s bathroom via a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG): a mandatory grant to adapt a person’s property to meet their needs.
6. The Council’s DFG policy says any issues arising after the certified date (the date the Council deems the works are satisfactory) will be between the client and the contractor.
7. The Council visited Mr B on 7 May 2021 to complete the DFG application. During this meeting the Council gave Mr B the choice of either taking a notional payment to employ his own contractors or to allow the Council to nominate a contractor from its own framework of approved contractors. Mr B signed a form indicating he wished the Council to nominate a contractor. The form said in bold print:

“With either of the above options, it is the responsibility of the customer to choose and employ the selected contractor.”

8. In June 2021 the Council completed a survey, drawings and a schedule of works. It approved the DFG in August 2021 and sent the approval documents to Mr B and the contractor nominated from the Council’s framework. These included a copy of the schedule which said:

“The choice of contractor is entirely the Applicant's responsibility. The Local Authority is not a party to any contract made between the Applicants and Contractors, neither is it a function of the Local Authority or its Officers to ensure satisfactory performance of that Contractor.

Applicants who consider they are unable, for any reason, to properly supervise the carrying out of the contract with their chosen contractor, may decide to seek their own independent professional advice. Assistance may be available towards the cost of fees incurred.”

9. The contractor met Mr B on 28 September 2021 to talk through the installation process, what to expect and when and Mr B’s choices of tiles and floor coverings. There are no notes of what was said.
10. Work started on 20 October 2021 and took a week. On 26 October 2021 Mr B emailed the contractor to ask if they would fit some new bathroom fixtures before they finished. He said in the email that he had been unsure which items to keep and so he got rid of everything. The contractor replied saying they would fit whatever had arrived by the next day but after that they could not return as the work would be completed. Mr B thanked them for the reply and said he would engage someone else to help him.
11. Mr B contacted the Council on 5 November 2021 about the items. He said when the contractor started the work, they asked him what he wanted to keep and what he wanted to get rid of. He said that as he was not at home at the time, he asked for all the items to be removed. The next day he rang the contractor to ask what they included with the work. But he had already disposed of all the old items. He purchased new items online, but they didn’t all arrive before the contractor finished so he still had some outstanding work to complete. He said he felt it was unfair that he hadn’t been properly advised before the work started and he could have kept some of the items if he had known what was required.
12. The Council spoke to Mr B by telephone and advised him to buy free-standing items or get someone to fit them for him. The Council’s follow-up email to the contractor said Mr B was fine with the outcome.
13. On 16 November 2021 Mr B signed a form to say he was satisfied with the work done.
14. On 2 December 2021 Mr B made a formal complaint primarily about the operation of the new shower but he again mentioned having to throw away bathroom items. The Council replied regarding the shower. Mr B pursued his complaint on 5 December 2021 saying that he threw the bathroom items away due to poor advice and communication from the contractor and the contractor had not been interested in sorting out the problem.
15. Mr B said in a further email that the pre-meeting on 28 September 2021 only took five minutes, and the contractor did not go through all the briefing information or advise him properly about the bathroom fittings. He had to repurchase the items at a cost of £460. He wanted this cost refunding to him.
16. The Council replied saying the contractor had asked him at the pre-meeting and when they started what he wished to do with the existing bathroom fittings, and he had said he wanted to get rid of them. The Council advised Mr B to take up the issue directly with the contractor.
17. Mr B disputed this version of events. He said the contractor had not mentioned the issue at the pre-meeting and when they arrived to do the work his helper had called him to find out what to do with the items. He said he did not realise that the contractor would not replace the items until he rang them the next day, by which time it was too late to save them. He requested to keep only the vinyl floor times but the contractor disposed of these as well.
18. Mr B pursued his complaint further. The Council responded in February 2022 saying that the contractor had said Mr B instructed them to get rid of all the items and did not indicate unhappiness with the situation until after the works had finished. It was difficult to establish what had been said before the work started as there was no record. The Council would remind the contractor of this at their next monitoring meeting and ensure that the contractor gave clear information about what will be removed from bathrooms. The Council again directed Mr B to the contractor for recompense.
19. Mr B escalated his complaint with the Council. It sent a further response on 8 March 2022. It apologised for a contractor not turning up to resolve the shower issue. In respect of the disposal of the bathroom fittings it said:
• It had reviewed all the email correspondence and spoken to the contractor and had not found evidence to refute the contractor’s view that it had asked Mr B what he wished to do with the fittings and Mr B agreed that he had been asked. It also noted Mr B indicated he was happy with the situation until after the work had been finished in November 2021 and the initial focus of his complaint had been on the shower operation. It agreed the contractor was at fault for disposing of the vinyl floor tiles and agreed to ensure contractors explain what will be removed before they start work and to keep in regular communication with individuals throughout the process.
• The issue of recompense for the fittings was between Mr B and the contractor. The Council acts as an agent to ensure the works are completed to a certain standard and comply with the DFG legislation. The contractor said Mr B was informed at the pre-meeting that Mr B could remove the fittings or the contractor would do it, but it had no record of the conversation.
• It agreed the Council had been slow to respond to Mr B’s emails about the fittings which was due to officer leave. It also apologised that the Council did not offer any assistance with refitting the items which the contractor was unable to do.
20. Mr B continued to dispute that he had been briefed properly prior to the work starting. He also disputed that the issue was solely between him and the contractor. He said he had no agreement or contract with the contractor and the Council should intervene on his behalf.
21. In May 2022 the Council sent its final response confirming that the Council is available to provide advice on the DFG process and to ensure the work is completed to a satisfactory standard. But it did not order the work on behalf of the Council, but rather on behalf of Mr B so any outstanding issues were between Mr B and the contractor. Works completed under a DFG do not have to be done by the Council and the resident can appoint their own contractor if they wish.
22. Mr B complained to us.

Analysis

23. The Council sent several documents to Mr B as part of the DFG process, making clear that Mr B was responsible for the choice of contractor and for supervising the works done. The Council’s role was to ensure the works were completed to its satisfaction in accordance with the DFG legislation and guidance.
24. Although it is disputed what was said at the pre-meeting on 28 September 2021, it is agreed the contractor asked Mr B on the day the work started what he wished to do with the existing fittings and Mr B agrees that he instructed the contractor to remove and dispose of them. It was open to Mr B at this point to ask further questions if he wished keep the fittings and check if the contractor would refit them as part of the work. Mr B did not do this.
25. Mr B’s emails during October 2021 were very positive about the contractor and the work. Mr B also signed a form on the 16 November 2021 saying he was satisfied with the work.
26. He did not make a formal complaint about the bathroom fittings until December 2021 having only mentioned them as an issue on 5 November 2021.
27. As the contractor was not working on behalf of the Council, it is not my role to comment on its actions, but I am satisfied that Mr B had the opportunity at the pre-meeting and on the day the work started to ask questions about the bathroom fittings.
28. I welcome the Council’s efforts to resolve Mr B’s complaint once the work was completed. But given that it was not responsible for the contractor’s actions (beyond ensuring that the work was completed satisfactorily, which Mr B agreed that it was), I consider it took too long to complete this process and gave Mr B the impression that it could achieve his desired outcome, to be compensated for the loss of the items. I understand that the process was beneficial in terms of improving the overall operation of the DFG system and ensuring contractors communicate properly with clients, but the length of the process confused the boundaries and raised Mr B’s expectations.
29. The Council accepted some fault in its communication with Mr B which I agree was not as clear or prompt as it could have been, and this caused Mr B some uncertainty and distress.

Agreed action

30. In recognition of the injustice caused to Mr B, I recommended the Council, within one month of the date of my final decision:
• pays Mr B £100; and
• ensures the Council makes clear to recipients of DFGs that they are responsible for the choice of contractor, they employ the contractor, not the Council and any issues with the contractor (outside of the satisfactory completion of the works) is between them and the contractor.
31. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I consider this is a proportionate way of putting right the injustice caused to Mr B and I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman