Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Disabled Facilities Grant because we are satisfied with the actions the Council proposes to take to remedy any fault.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council paid contractors for work carried out under a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) despite contractors not carrying out the work to a suitable standard. He also complained:
• Of the workmen being rude and damaging his carpets
• that his property had leaks and other problems following the work.
• that Council staff forced him to go upstairs during an inspection of his property
• he was left without toilet or shower facilities for two weeks during the works.
2. Mr Y said the problems caused him inconvenience and he is worried his property is not safe.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
4. 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 an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
• if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, and the Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y applied for a DFG to carry out work to install a new bathroom in his home. He asked the Council to assign an approved contractor in March 2021. The Council visited Mr Y’s home to inspect its existing layout before contractors did the work.
7. Mr Y complained to the Council about the work after the contractors had finished. The Council visited Mr Y’s property to inspect and discuss the complaint with Mr Y in April 2022. In the Council’s complaint response, it:
• apologised for questions its officers asked which Mr Y found intrusive and their encouragement of Mr Y to accompany its officer in their inspection of his property, including the upstairs. While Mr Y may have found this upsetting, the Council’s apology is sufficient to remedy any upset Mr Y had and I am satisfied by the Council’s actions in response to the complaint. Consequently, we will not investigate this further.
• apologised for any upset caused by the contractor’s behaviour said it had spoken to the contractor about workers being rude. I am satisfied the apology the Council has given is sufficient to remedy any upset therefore we will not investigate this complaint.
• found Mr Y had access to the upstairs bathroom during the works for the periods when the work being carried out meant he was unable to use the downstairs bathroom and said that some disruption would be a part of any home during extensive works. While this may have been less convenient for Mr Y, there is not enough evidence of fault on this issue to justify our investigation so we will not investigate.
• upheld Mr Y’s complaints about the leak and other issues such as the water pressure in the shower being too high. It agreed Mr Y could arrange for contractors to complete the extra work and that he could submit the invoices to the Council for payment. We would consider this a suitable remedy to the problems Mr Y has experienced and are therefore satisfied by the actions the Council proposes to take. Consequently, we will not investigate this issue.
8. Although Mr Y is unhappy the Council decided to pay the contractor for the work, 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. If the Council thinks the work is satisfactory it can continue to pay the contractor even though the applicant may disagree. Here, the Council inspected the work following Mr Y’s complaint and found it to be satisfactory and paid the contractor. As it inspected the property to determine its view on the work, it is unlikely we would find fault in its decision to pay the contractor.
9. Mr Y also complained about the contractors damaging his carpets during the work. As Mr Y says the damage was caused by the contractor, he would need to raise this issue with the contractor. It is unlikely we would find the Council at fault for damage caused by another party. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because we are satisfied with the actions the Council proposes to take to remedy any fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman