Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how bathroom adaptation works were completed by the Council’s contractors. This is because an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X’s parents were awarded a disabled facilities grant by the Council for bathroom adaptation works. Mr X complains the contractors did not adequately survey the property before carrying out the adaptation works. He says this led to installations that would have been rejected if they were given time to consider the options. He also complains the contractors failed to explain the negatives of certain installations.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The issues Mr X complains about are mainly related to the installation methods used by the contractors and sub-contractors to complete the bathroom adaptations. Mr X says that if these methods had been properly discussed with him, he would have declined to go ahead with the adaptations. He also says the installation methods used meant he had to spend £1000 to redecorate his bedroom.
6. The Council’s Occupational Therapist assessed Mr X’s father before deciding on what adaptations were necessary. The Council has assessed the works and concluded the adaptations met the specifications of the OT assessment. Therefore, while we acknowledge Mr X is unhappy with how the adaptions were completed, ultimately the adaptations do meet Mr X’s father’s assessed needs. So, an investigation into the complaint is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.
7. Further, as the bathroom adaptations met the Council’s specification, it is unlikely any investigation into the matter will conclude the expense of redecorating the bedroom was a direct consequence of any fault by the contractor.
8. Mr X also complains about the works being of poor quality. The Council has accepted there are some outstanding issues regarding the work completed to the bathroom and has asked its contractor to resolve the issues. The Council has also told Mr X it can ask its contractors to make some of the cosmetic changes Mr X wants, such as changing the wash basin unit to one which meets his preference.
9. Further, the Council has implemented service improvements following Mr X’s complaint to address the concerns raised. The Council has updated its policy and the information provided to people prior to adaptations. We consider these improvements appropriate and proportionate. Therefore, an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman