Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s supervision of grant aided disabled facilities at Mr X’s home. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the quality of work and the suitability of some features of disabled grant works which the Council authorised at his home. He says the works should not be signed off until he is satisfied with them.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says the work to his bathroom and provision of a stairlift under a disabled facilities grant approved by the Council is of poor quality. He says the space between toilet and washbasin is insufficient and that the finish of tiling and plumbing is of poor quality.
7. The Council inspected the works and is satisfied that the work meets the requirements for Mr X’s medical needs which were recommended by the Occupational Therapist who assessed him. the facilities were installed within the limited space of Mr X’s bathroom and comply with British Standards and are usable according to his needs.
8. Mr X also complained about the stairlift which was fitted because he says it is unsafe and does not work. The Council told him that it would add a support grab rail at the top even though this was not recommended in the specifications. The loss of power was due to the system not being charged up and was quickly resolved. The work on this feature has not yet been signed off as complete by the Council but when it is there will be a standard defects period for any matters which occur after this.
9. When considering complaints, we may not question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer any opinion on whether or not we agree with the judgment of the Councils’ officers or members. Instead, we focus on the process by which the decision was made, and where we find fault in that process. If there is no fault in the process, we will not uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s supervision of grant aided disabled facilities at Mr X’s home. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman