Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about works related to a disabled facilities grant. It is unlikely investigation could reach a clear enough view now. On the point about alleged damage, Mr X could reasonably take court action.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that, when his home received adaptations funded by a Council disabled facilities grant (DFG), the works included installing a machine in his loft without his knowledge. Mr X says this damaged his loft, his home is now colder and has some damp, he fears there is a fire risk, and he has been caused worry.

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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

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. In 2017 the Council provided a DFG for work to install a shower at Mr X's home. Mr X states he did not realise at the time that any machinery would be installed in his loft. Mr X’s and his wife’s disabilities prevent them getting into the loft, so only earlier this year, when a relative went to find something in the loft, did Mr X discover there was what he describes as a piece of machinery in the loft related to the shower. (It is not clear what this is, but it presumably concerns working the shower or extractor fan.) Mr X fears the machinery could affect his heating and electricity and might be a fire hazard. He also says the installation of the machinery damaged some of his loft insulation, making his home colder, and might have caused damp in part of his house. Empty boxes seemingly related to the machine have also been left in Mr X’s loft.
7. With DFGs, councils are usually only responsible for offering the grant and confirming the works have taken place. Councils are not responsible for precisely how the works are done or the quality of works. Those are the responsibility of the contractor doing the works and of the householder, unless this Council expressly took on such responsibilities in this individual case.
8. It is unlikely we could reach a clear enough view now about the extent of the Council’s responsibility for the works. Even if we could establish that, it is unlikely we could reach a clear enough view on balance now about whether there was any fault by the Council in having this machine installed at all or in how it was installed. So, investigating the complaint now is unlikely to achieve any worthwhile result.
9. The courts could consider the alleged damage to Mr X’s property if Mr X cannot resolve that through an insurance claim. So the restriction in paragraph 3 applies to the alleged damage. I appreciate Mr X is elderly and has disabilities. I also recognise there might be cost implications to court action, though that does not automatically make it unreasonable to expect someone to take court action. The questions about whether negligence occurred and, if so, what damage it caused and how to put matters right are not straightforward legally, especially as the Council itself did not carry out the works. In the circumstances, this point is more properly for the courts than for the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

10. I appreciate the situation is worrying and difficult for Mr X. However, we will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. It is unlikely investigation could achieve anything worthwhile now. The point about alleged damage is one on which it would be reasonable for Mr X to take court action.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman