Summary: Mr X complains about how the Council dealt with the installation of a wet room funded by a disabled facilities grant for Y. The Council is at fault as it has not satisfied itself that the wet room as constructed meets Y’s needs and it did not satisfy itself that the works were of a satisfactory standard. This has caused uncertainty to Mr X which the Council will remedy by arranging an independent occupational therapist assessment to determine if the wet room meets Y’s needs and clarify the works it is willing to remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council dealt with the installation of a wet room at his property which was funded by a disabled facilities grant. In particular he complains

• The surveyor instructed the wet room be installed in the wrong place and not in the location recommended by the occupational therapist.
• The conduct of the housing improvement agency and contractor was unacceptable. This includes an officer making unacceptable remarks about Mr X’s daughter and a contractor urinating on the floor in the property and which was walked through by Mr X’s daughter.
• The Council wrongly signed off the works as complete.
• The Council’s offer to pay for the completion of the works does not include all the unfinished works associated with the disabled facilities grant.
• The Council has failed to deal with Mr X’s claim for damage caused to his property and belongings by the contractor.

2. Mr X considers conduct of the contractors, wet room in the wrong location and the incomplete works have caused significant distress to him and his family and damage to their mental health.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

3. I have investigated how the Council decided on the appropriate location of the wet room and how it has considered the outstanding works.
4. I have not considered Mr X’s complaint about the unacceptable conduct by an officer of the home improvement agency (HIA) and contractor or his complaint about damage caused to his and his neighbour’s property.
5. The Council is responsible for meeting the assessed needs of Y but there is no requirement for it to administer the works to meet these needs. In this case the works were administered by the HIA on behalf of Mr X. The HIA is an independent organisation. The contract for the works was between Mr X and the contractor. So, I do not consider I have jurisdiction to investigate the conduct of the officer of the HIA and contractor. This includes Mr X’s complaints about the contractor damaging his and his neighbour’s property.
6. Mr X has also recently raised concerns that the Council has not paid the invoice for the independent survey. I have not investigated this matter as it is a new issue which has arisen since we started our investigation. The Council must have the opportunity to consider the complaint and respond to Mr X before we can investigate.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

7. 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)
8. 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)
9. 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

10. I have:

• Considered the complaint and the information provided by Mr X;
• Made enquiries of the Council and considered the information provided;
• Invited Mr X and the Council to comment on the draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

11. Disabled Facilities Grants are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Councils have a statutory duty to give grants to disabled people for certain adaptations. Before approving a grant, a council must be satisfied the work is necessary, meets the disabled person’s needs, and is reasonable and practicable.
12. The March 2022 guidance identifies five key stages to delivering home adaptations:

• Stage 1: First contact with the service. Councils should ensure the public has access to information and advice about the DFG process.
• Stage 2: First contact to assessment and identification of the relevant works. An occupational therapist (OT) will assess the person’s needs and potential solutions through home adaptations.
• Stage 3: Identification of the relevant works to submission of the formal grant application. The person completes and submits the application form together with designs and costing for the works (where necessary).
• Stage 4: Grant application to grant decision. The Council will check the application and issue a decision letter. If a council refuses a grant, it must explain why.
• Stage 5: Approval of grant to completion of works. The works are arranged and carried out and the necessary quality checks made.

13. The Council’s policy is to offer grant applicants a choice to use the local HIA or use their own independent surveyors. If an applicant chooses to use the HIA then it will act as the contract administrator.

What happened

14. The following is a summary of the key facts relevant to my consideration of the complaint. It does not include everything that has happened.
15. Mr X applied for a disabled facilities grant (DFG) for a wet room for his daughter, Y. An occupational therapist (OT) assessed Y. I understand they recommended a wet room to be constructed at the rear of Mr X’s garage extension.
16. A different OT then assessed Y. She asked for a joint visit with the HIA to establish what works could be carried out to meet Y’s needs. The OT, a private sector housing officer from the Council and an officer from the HIA visited the site and decided to look at creating a wet room and toilet within an area of the kitchen. The Council’s records note the officers considered the cost of a scheme for a wet room in Mr X’s preferred location of the garage extension would not be reasonable or practicable as the floor level was lower, the roof would have to be raised and the walls were single skin. There was also an issue with the mains drains running to the rear.
17. The OT recommended a wet room for Y to be funded by a DFG. The recommendations show this was to facilitate access or movement for the carer as well as access to bathe and shower.
18. The Council’s records show Mr X elected to use the HIA rather than appointing his own surveyor. Mr X has said the Council did not inform him he did not have to use the HIA or that he could use his own contractor.
19. The HIA drew up the proposed scheme and schedule of works which Mr X approved. The HIA appointed a contractor. The contract for the works shows it was between Mr X and the contractor.
20. The works started in November 2021. Mr X contacted the Council to report and provide CCTV footage of unacceptable behaviour from the contractor including urinating on the floor of Mr X’s property. Mr X also reported unacceptable comments made by an officer of the HIA about Y. Mr X further raised concerns that the location of the wet room prevented Y from using the garden unsupervised as it blocked the sight lines from the house.
21. Mr X raised a complaint about the conduct of the HIA and contractor under the Council’s whistleblowing policy as he considered they had placed his family at risk. A senior officer reviewed Mr X’s complaint and visited him. She explained the Council did not have a contractual relationship with the HIA or contractor in relation to the works at Mr X’s property. The Council has said the officer suggested a number of options to resolve the complaint but these were not to Mr X’s satisfaction so the officer referred Mr X to the Council’s complaints procedure. Mr X has said he accepted some of the options proposed by the officer.
22. The HIA responded to Mr X’s complaint and appointed another contractor to finish the works. Mr X submitted a further complaint and said the contractor had also damaged a number of the family’s belongings and damaged a neighbour’s wall which was now unstable.
23. In June 2022 Mr X confirmed to the HIA that the contractor could be paid but he would not sign off the works due to his complaints about the HIA and first contractor. The HIA informed the Council that the works had been completed. In response to my enquiries, the Council has said it accepted the works had been taken to practical completion by the contractor. But it acknowledged there were some snags to be resolved.
24. The Council held a meeting with Mr X and his local councillor in July 2022. The purpose of the meeting was to find ways of resolving the complaint. Mr X’s recording of the meeting shows the Council agreed to explore moving a wall to improve the sight lines to Mr X’s garden and carry out a visit to record the snags to be passed to the HIA for resolution. The Council said Mr X should seek a new assessment for Y if he considered the wet room did not meet Y’s needs. The Council and Mr X corresponded further regarding what works were outstanding.
25. The Council wrote to the HIA highlighting the outstanding issues but the works were not completed.
26. The Council sent its final response to Mr X’s complaint in November 2022. It:

• acknowledged some outstanding remedial work had not been completed. The Council invited Mr X to submit three quotes from his chosen contractors to undertake the work and it would fund the works. The Council included a list of works it would pay for including works to resolve water leaks and replacing a worktop.
• acknowledged Mr X was unhappy with other issues with the HIA and contractor. It offered a payment of £500 to cover any other outstanding issues and a further £500 to acknowledge the distress caused by the lack of resolution to all the snags.
• Invited Mr X to instruct his own surveyor to determine if the wall could be moved to improve sight lines in the garden.

27. The Council agreed for Mr X to instruct an independent surveyor to visit his property to confirm the list of outstanding works. The surveyor concluded that the wet room was too small to be used as intended and did not meet building regulations. The survey also found the works could be undertaken to improve the sight lines in the garden to a structural engineer’s opinion.
28. The Council considered the report and agreed to additional works including the installation of a shower curtain or screen and correction of the threshold of the shower floor. It also asked Mr X to provide two quotes for a structural engineer. The Council considered building regulations did not apply to the adaptation.
29. The Council also said the measurements of the wet room had been agreed by the OT as being sufficient and safe to meet Y’s needs. Mr X has said Mrs X has suffered an injury when showering Y due to the wet room being too small.
30. The Council provided a list of the outstanding works to be undertaken to Mr X. The list did not include a leak in the kitchen and replacement of the worktop as it had previously undertake to do subject to Mr X obtaining three quotes. Mr X considers the Council is breaching the undertaking it gave at the resolution meeting in July 2022.

Analysis

Location of the wet room

31. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council decided that it would not be reasonable or practical to construct the wet room in Mr X’s preferred location. The Council has explained why it considered a wet room in the area of Mr X’s choice would not be reasonable or practicable. I am mindful that the first OT’s view was that a wet room should be constructed in Mr X’s preferred location. I also note Mr X disputes the Council’s reasoning. But the Council made its decision that it would not be reasonable and practicable following a further assessment and consideration at a site visit. It has also explained the reasons for its decision. So, on balance, there is no fault in how the Council reached its decision.
32. However, the key issue is whether the wet room meets Y’s assessed needs. I am not persuaded the Council has properly considered this matter and this is fault. The surveyor’s report says the wet room is of insufficient size to be used as intended. Mr X has said Mrs X has suffered an injury as the wet room is too small for a carer to attend to Y while showering. This casts doubt on whether the wet room meets Y’s assessed needs. The Council advised Mr X to seek a further OT assessment. But the Council has a duty to meet Y’s assessed needs so it should satisfy itself that the wet room does meet Y’s needs given the surveyor's observations. The Council’s failure to do so causes uncertainty to Mr X as to whether the wet room meets Y’s needs.
33. In order to remedy this injustice the Council should arrange for an independent OT to assess whether the wet room as constructed meets Y’s needs. The Council can instruct an OT from another council to carry out the assessment provided they have not had any prior involvement in the case.

Outstanding works

34. The Council has acknowledged there are a number of snagging issues with the works. We consider the Council’s duty to meet the assessed eligible needs of an applicant is not discharged until the works are completed to a satisfactory standard. The Council’s SLA with the HIA says the Council will check completed jobs. There is no evidence to show the Council satisfied itself that the works were satisfactory, such as carrying out a visit to the property. On balance, this is fault.
35. The Council is taking appropriate action to remedy the outstanding works as agreed at the resolutions meeting in July 2022. The Council has identified the outstanding works and will meet the cost of these subject to Mr X providing quotes. It has offered a payment of £500 to meet the costs of the bathroom floor and to acknowledge the distress caused by the delay in resolving the matter. This is an appropriate and proportionate remedy and in accordance with our guidance on remedies.
36. However, the list of outstanding works issued to Mr X in March 2023 no longer includes the water leak in the kitchen and damaged worktops. This may be a typographical error but the Council should confirm with Mr X whether or not it will still meet the costs of addressing these items.

Back to top

Agreed action

37. That the Council will:
1. arrange for an independent occupational therapist to carry out an assessment of whether the wet room as constructed meets Y’s needs. If the occupational therapist considers the wet room does not meet Y’s needs then the Council should consider an appropriate remedy.
2. clarify with Mr X whether it will still meet the costs of repairing the water leak and damaged worktop in Mr X’s kitchen subject to quotes provided by him as it had previously undertaken to do. If the Council will not meet these costs, it should explain its reasons to Mr X.
3. review its procedures for disabled facilities grants to ensure the Council satisfies itself that works undertaken for a disabled facilities grant are of a satisfactory standard. This is to ensure the Council is properly discharging its duty to meet an applicant’s assessed needs.
38. The Council should take the action at a) and b) within one month of my final decision. It should take the action at c) within two months of my final decision.
39. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

40. Fault causing injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman