Summary: Mr X complained about the quality of works completed by a contractor for the installation of his wet room under a disabled facilities grant. He also said his signature was forged and stated he had not signed off on works being complete. We find the Council was at fault for failing to respond to some of his requests and for failing to record all communication correctly. This caused significant stress to Mr X. To remedy the injustice caused by fault, we recommended the Council apologise.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X complains about the quality of works completed by a contractor for the installation of his wet room under a disabled facilities grant (DFG). He also said his signature was forged and stated he had not signed off on works being complete.
2. Mr X said this has caused him significant distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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

5. I spoke with Mr X about his complaint. I considered all the information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Disabled facilities grants

7. Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs) are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Councils have a statutory duty to give grant aid 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. Councils will often consult an occupational therapist (OT) to determine what is necessary and appropriate.
8. The law sets out the purposes for which a grant may be given. This includes facilitating access by the disabled occupant to, or providing for the disabled occupant, a room in which there is a bath or shower (or both), or facilitating the use by the disabled occupant of such a facility.
9. A council should decide a grant application as soon as reasonably practicable. This must be within six months of the application. The works should be completed within 12 months of the approval.

The Councils DFG process

10. The DFG will only be approved with the owner’s consent for the adaptation to take place. The process will vary depending on whether an applicant owns the property to be adapted or where they are a tenant in a council property, social or private housing.
11. When customers advise contractors have completed the works, the technical officer visits and inspects the works against the agreed schedule with any approved amendments. Any snags are identified and communicated to the customer and the contractor if re-work is required. If no snags are identified, the customer is invited to sign the approval for payment form if they are satisfied with the works.

What did happen?

12. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a details chronology.
13. Mr X applied for a DFG for works to be completed at his property. In August 2022 officer 1 sent Mr X a letter advising him of what documents would be sent out. It also said the occupational therapist (OT) had confirmed the layout for his wet room. The letter detailed conditions and a description of the work.
14. Mr X told officer 1 he was confused by the information provided. He asked why the door to the wet room was being replaced with a sliding door and said there was no mention of where the waste pipes would go. He also said he had initially been told officer 1 would attend his property to carry out a survey, followed by two contractors attending to provide quotes. Mr X asked if this process had now changed. Officer 1 asked to call him to discuss.
15. A signed owner’s certificate form has been provided which is dated 26 September 2022. Mr X told us he did not sign this.
16. On 3 November 2022 officer 1 emailed Mr X. They stated they still required some further documents which included the owner’s certificate form. They also stated the application form noted Mr X’s property was owned by a company. They said if Mr X was the owner, they would need proof. officer 1 chased Mr X for the owner’s certificate form again in the same month.
17. Mr X provided officer 1 with the free holder’s consent form for the adaptation of the bathroom to a wet room.
18. In the same month Mr X told officer 1 one of the forms he had received stated ‘I understand that a charge may be put on my property in line with the Council’s policy as detailed in the grant conditions’. Mr X asked officer 1 to explain what this meant. He asked again twice in December 2022 and requested some further information in writing. This was in relation to the DFG contract which stated he should refer to the schedule of works which Mr X questioned. Mr X asked for this information in writing. Officer 1 requested a phone call.
19. In December 2022 Mr X emailed a family member who works in a legal department. He said despite his numerous requests for information from officer 1 in writing, they continue to call him. He also asked how the work which was due to start in January 2023 could be authorised as he said he had not signed the owner’s consent form.
20. The Council approved the DFG in December 2022. The work started on 30 January 2023. On 16 February 2023, the bathroom fitter sent a message to Mr X stating they were aware that Mr X would not sign off on the works completed.
21. Mr X asked officer 1 to rearrange the agreed meeting as he said there had been some issues with the works. He also said his neighbour wanted to speak with them about work that had affected their property. Officer 1 stated they had spoken with the neighbour. Officer 1 asked if they could attend Mr X’s property to sign off on the work.
22. On 20 February 2023 the Council said the work was signed off by Mr X confirming he was satisfied with the works carried out. There was also a revised cost of works document signed off by Mr X. This was due to a stud wall being put in place. But Mr X said he did not sign off on anything.
23. Mr X emailed the OT on 20 February 2023 after he said he had messaged them the day before. He said he wanted to talk with them about the wet room without consulting officer 1 who had been dealing with the case so far. This was because he said officer 1 does everything verbally. He said there seemed to be an urgency to sign the works off. But he said an independent inspection/survey should be carried out. He also said due to issues with the works completed, a neighbouring property had been affected. The work was signed off on the same day.
24. Mr X contacted the Council on 21 February 2023 and asked for an inspection to be carried out at his property. He chased the Council for a response three times.
25. A completion certificate was dated 21 February 2023 and stated the work had been completed on 17 February 2023. Mr X said the last day of work at his property was the 14 February 2023.
26. The following day the OT stated if Mr X was not happy with the works completed, he had the right to refuse to sign the work off. The OT gave him the number to the team who oversee major adaptations.
27. On 24 February 2023 the bathroom fitter and officer 1 stated Mr X has been refusing to return any calls or emails. The bathroom fitter said they cannot return to put right what Mr X is unhappy with unless he returns their call. Officer 1 also stated they were aware Mr X was unhappy with the work and had asked for the DFG payment to be put on hold.
28. Mr X complained to the Council in the following month. In summary he said there were several issues with the works that had been carried out and stated:
• he did not trust officer 1 who ignored his requests to communicate in writing;
• him and his neighbour had woken up to a small flood;
• the studded wall was causing mould on his neighbours property;
• despite telling officer 1 and the contractor he wanted to keep the existing radiator, it was replaced and not fitted properly;
• the door used had scratches and dents.
29. In the March 2023, a different council officer, officer 2 contacted Mr X. They asked to visit Mr X’s property to view the issues complained about and a meeting was arranged.
30. The Council sent Mr X a completion letter on 6 March 2023. It stated the Council had now completed the DFG and paid the grant. The cost included an increase for a stud wall.
31. In the same month officer 2 told Mr X it was waiting for officer 1’s response to their enquiries. Officer 2 also asked Mr X how he suggested the issues are resolved if he does not want the contractor back. They also stated the contractor may have a warranty obligation to fix issues but only if Mr X granted access.
32. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in March 2023. It said a site visit had taken place on 8 March 2023 and in summary stated:
• both officer 1 and the contractor stated they attended Mr X’s property on 20 February 2023 where they said the job was signed off by Mr X;
• an electrician had visited Mr X’s neighbour and an offer was made to redecorate anything damaged by water which was declined;
• Mr X had stated he was not aware of the agreement to fit the stud wall. But the Council stated he was involved with and informed of that decision;
• radiator was changed as per the agreed schedule of work and drawings;
• acknowledged that Mr X had asked them not to replace door with a wider sliding door. But said the OT was not consulted. The OT had now confirmed they do not require the door to be changed. But it said if Mr X remained unhappy, the builder was happy to replace it;
• Mr X signed the owners certificate form and recommended he speak with the contractor to have the issues raised looked at.
33. In response to the Council’s complaints response, Mr X asked for a review. He said:
• there were several issues with the property and he no longer had use of a safe shower;
• the last day people were at his property was the 14 February and not the 20 February 2023;
• no one has inspected the problems with his neighbours property;
• he had not been informed of any additional or revised costs to the DFG;
• he agreed with the fitter when they suggested a stud wall would make things look cleaner, but said he did not ask for it to be installed;
• his signature had been forged for the owner’s certificate, application for the revised DFG costs and request for payment of DFG.
34. The Council responded to Mr X and reiterated its previous responses. It said it had undertaken investigation into the alleged forged signature. But said it found no evidence to support this. It said this matter would sit with Mr X to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this had occurred.

Analysis

35. In response to our enquiries the Council has acknowledged that a lot of the conversations had have not been correctly recorded on the system which is fault. It said it is looking into reviewing this and offering training. From the evidence seen, Mr X did ask officer 1 to communicate in writing which was ignored. In November 2022 as stated in paragraph 18 Mr X repeatedly asked what charges would be put against his property. I have seen no evidence to suggest this request was responded to. This is fault. This caused significant stress to Mr X.
36. Mr X told us officer 1 has forged his signature on three separate documents. The Council investigated this and stated the signatures were reviewed independently by two council officers. But said it could not be determined beyond a reasonable doubt that they were made by different people. Mr X provided us with a copy of his signature and the alleged forged signatures which I have reviewed. Mr X also provided us with an email from a forensic document expert who said ‘if the signatures are handwritten forgeries they are clearly exceptionally poor’. The Council has confirmed the signatures were handwritten. But I am not qualified to determine whether the signatures were forged, and I therefore cannot take a view on any potential differences in these signatures. But I can still adequately investigate the issues raised without having to come to a view on that.
37. We have a copy of the signed owners certificate dated 26 September 2022. In November 2022 officer 1 requested a copy of this document from Mr X and questioned the ownership of the property, stating the application noted Mr X’s property was owned by a company. Mr X sent officer 1 the freehold consent form on 9 November 2022. The Council told us the reason for officer 1 requesting a copy of the owner certificate after it had been signed was because the request was for the form to be signed by the company who owned Mr X’s property. This is information the Council is entitled to request. But this was not made clear, and the Council has acknowledged this. Mr X said he did not sign the owner’s certificate and in an email in December 2022 to his family member he questioned how the work had been authorised when he had not signed the form. But I have seen no evidence to suggest Mr X raised this concern with the Council. It would have been up to him to contact the Council about this if he was not happy that the work had been authorised. I therefore cannot say the Council is at fault.
38. Mr X said he was not initially made aware of any additional costs in relation to the stud wall. Mr X said he agreed with the contractor who suggested a stud wall would make things look cleaner but said he did not ask for this to be installed. But the Council said Mr X was involved with and informed of that decision. We have two conflicting accounts of what happened and a lack of evidence to support either. Therefore, I cannot take a view on this.
39. On 16 February the contractor sent Mr X a message stating they were aware that Mr X would not sign off on the work. Mr X has provided us with a message he sent to the OT on 19 February 2023 which stated he wanted to discuss the quality of the works without involving officer 1 who he said he did not trust. He requested an independent inspection. Mr X reiterated these same concerns to the OT on 20 February 2023. Officer 1 messaged Mr X the same morning asking if they could attend Mr X’s property to sign off on the work. There is no written evidence to suggest Mr X responded to this. But officer 1 and the contractor stated they attended Mr X’s property that day where they stated that he signed off on the works. There is evidence that Mr X emailed the Council three times on 21 February 2023 requesting an inspection be carried out. There is also evidence that officer 1 tried to contact Mr X on the 24 February 2023 stating ‘the OT has told me you are not happy with some of the work, we have been trying to contact you but you never go back to us’. As I cannot take a view on whether the signature was forged, I cannot comment on whether Mr X did sign the document. But from the evidence seen, it is clear that Mr X was unhappy with the work.
40. The OT contacted officer 1 to make them aware that Mr X was not happy with the work on 24 February 2023. In response, officer 1 tried to contact Mr X to discuss this. They also emailed the Councils administration team to put a hold on the DFG payment so the complaint could be investigated. In my view, once the Council became aware of the issues raised by Mr X, it took appropriate action. I therefore cannot criticise it.
41. The Council told us the normal process for signing off on works includes officer 1 visiting the property and inspecting the work against the agreed schedule. It said any snags are identified and communicated to the client and the contractor if re-work is required. In this case the Council said no snagging list was provided from the sign off. But said Mr X subsequently provided a list of issues after the work had been paid for. In response to this officer 2 visited Mr X’s property to inspect the issues raised. Mr X told us officer 2 suggested that if another contractor could attend and correct any issues, the Council could charge the original contractor. From the evidence seen, officer 2 stated the contractor may have a warranty obligation fix the issues.
42. In response to our enquiries the Council said the offer to mediate an agreed snagging list with the contractor stands as monies have been paid. It said in recent climates it had proved difficult to get another contractor in for small jobs. But said this is open to discussion in attempts to move this forward. It said whilst it would likely not be able to use the DFG funding, it could look at other grants available for some of the works. I think this is an appropriate recommendation and the Council should make strong efforts to find an alternative contractor.

Back to top

Agreed action

43. To remedy the injustice caused by fault, within one month of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• apologise to Mr X for failing to consider his request for communication to be put in writing and for not responding to his request regarding any charges that could be put against his property;
• arrange a meeting with Mr X to discuss the option of whether a different contractor can complete any re-work required as suggested by the Council. If this is not possible, the Council should mediate an agreed snagging list with the initial contractor.
44. Within three months, the Council should provide us with evidence of any reviews or training it has held in regard to communication not being recorded on the system correctly.
45. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

46. There was fault by the Council. The actions the Council has agreed to take remedy the injustice caused. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman