Summary: The Ombudsmen find fault with the Council for its repairs handling, delay adapting Mr Y’s bathroom, delay in dealing with the complaint Miss X made on his behalf, and for poor communication with Mr Y and Miss X throughout. The Council has agreed to apologise, make payments to Mr Y and Miss X, and act to improve its services.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained on behalf of her relative, Mr Y that the Council:
1. Delayed repairs to Mr Y’s property
2. Delayed adapting Mr Y’s bathroom to meet his disability needs
3. Delayed dealing with her complaint
4. Failed to communicate effectively throughout the process.
2. Miss X says as a result, Mr Y spent longer than necessary in a property without disabled adaptations and in a state of disrepair, affecting his physical and mental health. She has been put to avoidable time, trouble, and distress pursuing the matter with the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

3. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, we 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. We refer to this as ‘injustice’. Injustice may include distress, inconvenience or being put to avoidable time and trouble. 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. The LGSCO considers 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)
5. The LGSCO investigates complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
6. The Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS) approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The HOS considers the evidence and establishes if there has been any ‘maladministration’, including circumstances where a landlord behaved unreasonably, treated the complainant in an inappropriate manner of failed to comply with its obligations. (Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme)
7. The HOS Dispute Resolution Principles are ‘be fair’, ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’ – we will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.
8. We make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
9. If the LGSCO is 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)
10. Following an investigation, the HOS may order a member landlord to take steps to put things right. (Paragraphs 54-55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme)

Back to top

How we considered this complaint

11. Miss X’s complaint covers matters that fall into the jurisdiction of both the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) and the Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS).
12. Each Ombudsman has therefore investigated the parts of the complaint which are within its jurisdiction and jointly considered the parts of the complaint that are within both jurisdictions. This decision statement covers both investigations. We will say which Ombudsman is making a particular finding.
13. We spoke to Miss X and considered the information she provided.
14. We made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
15. We referred to LGSCO’s guidance on remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
16. Miss X and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on a draft decision. We considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What we found

Disabled adaptations for council tenants

17. Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG) 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.
18. DFGs are available to people of all ages in all housing tenures. Council tenants can apply for a DFG in the same way as any other applicant. (Disabled facilities Grant (DFG) Delivery: Guidance for local authorities in England 2022)
19. However, councils should fund adaptions to their own housing stock through their own revenues and not the DFG budget. Some councils therefore have a different policy or process for adapting their own housing stock.
20. Our approach to adaptations for council tenants is that councils should either use the same process to assess all applications for adaptations, irrespective of tenure, or else have a scheme that does not treat council tenants less favourably.
21. This is because DFGs are mandatory grants. Councils must pay them where the statutory tests are met. We may be critical of councils which:
• Do not tell their tenants they can apply for a DFG; and/or
• Maintain a separate policy or scheme for adapting their own properties which treats their tenants less favourably than applicants from other tenures or fails to consider the statutory tests.

The Council’s policies

Repairs

22. The Council’s repairs policies and the Right to Repairs legislation advise that plumbing leaks are classed as an emergency repair, to be repaired in 1 day.

Adaptations

23. The Council’s policy on adaptations for tenants with disabilities has not been updated since 2008. So far as is relevant to this complaint, it says:
• It will give the tenant an estimated start date for the works and how long the works are likely to take
• It will keep the tenant informed of any changes
24. The Council’s internal guidance on adapting its own housing stock says:
• It will apply the same criteria and terms as for a mandatory DFG
• If the Council takes too long or refuses to do the works, the tenant can apply for a DFG.
• If applying for a DFG, the tenant needs the Council’s permission, as landlord, for the works. The Council cannot unreasonably refuse permission.

What happened

25. Mr Y is a tenant of the Council. He has health conditions which affect his mobility and his breathing.
26. In September 2021, Miss X contacted the Council on behalf of Mr Y. She raised concerns about Mr Y’s ability to access the bath. She asked the adaptations team to discuss the case with the repairs team, because the bathroom was also in significant disrepair.
27. In October, an Occupational Therapist (OT) from the County Council visited Mr Y at home to assess his needs. In November, Miss X contacted the Council to ask for an update on the works to Mr Y’s bathroom.
28. The OT sent the referral to the Council in March 2022. The OT said Mr Y had not been able to climb in and out of the bath for 10 years. The OT assessed Mr Y to need:
• A level access shower
• Grab rails
• A shower seat
• A new sink and toilet
29. In April, Mr Y signed a form to confirm he agreed to the proposed works to his bathroom. In early May, the Council approved the works.
30. In January 2023, a surveyor from the Council visited Mr Y to measure the bathroom for the adaptations. In February, the Council sent drawings and specifications for the works to the OT to approve.
31. In March, the Council wrote to Mr Y. It said it needed to test for asbestos and have any asbestos removed before it could do the works to the bathroom.
32. The OT confirmed the proposed works met Mr Y’s needs in April. The Council requested a quote from its contractor. Miss X wrote to the Council to complain that it had been over a year since the OT sent the referral and Mr Y was still living with extensive damp and mould and without accessible bathing facilities. The same month, after contact from Miss X, the Council raised a repair for damp and mould in the bathroom and bedroom.
33. In mid-May, the Council arranged for an independent damp survey. The independent surveyor identified high moisture levels in some areas of the bedroom and bathroom wall plaster, believed to be caused by an ongoing bathroom leak. They recommended the Council repair the defective pipework, for which the bathroom needed to be removed. They also recommended the Council re-insulate, board and replaster the walls where necessary.
34. In late May, the Council repaired a leak in the bathroom after a report from Miss X. In early June, Miss X reported a further leak, and the Council visited and repaired the leak. The records show the Council noted the pipes were in a poor condition and needed to be replaced. The Council liaised with the officer dealing with the adaptation in June. Since the adaptation works were booked for July, the Council decided to do all the work together.
35. In late June, the contractor said it would start the works in July. The Council then wrote to Mr Y to tell him when the works would start. Around this time, Miss X or Mr Y reported a further bathroom leak which the Council attended and repaired 2 days later.
36. Miss X complained to the Council in early June 2023. The Council responded to the complaint in mid-July. It said:
• the contractor installing the level access shower would complete the works needed to the pipes in the bathroom.
• the contractor would also redecorate the bathroom, hallway, and bedroom.
• It would replace the blown windows
• It accepted it had taken too long to progress the works
• It apologised for its delay responding to the complaint.
37. Miss X asked the Council to consider the complaint at stage two of the complaint process. The Council responded in August. It apologised for the delay responding to the complaint. It said the works to Mr Y’s bathroom were now complete.
38. When we spoke to Miss X in November 2023, she told us the works to the bathroom were complete. However, there were outstanding issues of disrepair. This included blown windows and issues with internal doors.

Our findings

39. We set out our findings on the complaint in the order they appear in paragraph one.

Repairs

40. Miss X complained that Mr Y experienced damp and mould for 3 years, but the HOS’s investigation focuses on reports from April 2023, the only reports of damp and mould present in the repairs records provided which date back to 2021. After the April report, the Council was provided an independent survey report in mid-May, which said there was an ongoing leak and recommended defective pipework to be replaced. The Council completed leak repairs in late May and early June within 1 day of their being reported. A further leak in late June was completed in 2 days, before works for defective pipework were completed at the end of July as part of Mr Y’s bathroom adaptation.
41. The Council’s response was not satisfactory. After the April damp and mould report, it took a month to act and request an independent survey. Before the permanent repairs in July, there were temporary leak repairs to different plumbing elements in May and June which involved some delays. The Council’s May leak repair was prompted by a report from Miss X or Mr Y, and not the damp report it received 2 weeks earlier referring to ongoing leaks. The repair in late June was also slightly beyond the 1 day timeframe. There is no evidence until late June that the Council considered the report’s findings, including that the bathroom needed to be removed for pipework to be repaired. This was too long especially given Mr Y’s stated vulnerabilities.
42. It is understandable that the Council did not want to do repairs that may be redone by the adaptation works, but it should have demonstrated that it considered the May survey in a more timely manner, and that the 3 months to resolve the defective pipework was the result of timely and appropriate decision-making. This should have included consideration of the impact on the property and Mr Y of the works not being completed until July. While the extent and impact of the damp, mould and leaks does not seem to have been significant, Mr Y will have been impacted by matters not being resolved until pipework repairs in July and decorations completion in August, and it is not reasonable that he will have paid full rent. The HOS finds maladministration in the Council’s handling of the repairs, and orders compensation which reflects the identified issues and what 5% of the rent will have been for a 3 month period, based on Regulator of Social Housing figures.

Adaptations

43. In response to our enquiries, the Council said it took so long to adapt Mr Y’s bathroom because it first needed an assessment by the OT from the County Council. It said backlogs resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic also affected its ability to adapt the bathroom. It said that at the time Miss X complained, the wait for adaptations was three years. Despite this, it completed the works to Mr Y’s bathroom in 18 months. It said Mr Y had a working toilet and bathing facilities throughout.
44. LGSCO finds fault with the Council. It took 17 months to start works identified by the OT in March 2022. There is no evidence of any activity by the Council to progress the works between approving them in May 2022 and visiting to measure up in January 2023.
45. The OT’s report said Mr Y could not get in and out of the bath. It is not, therefore, sufficient to say Mr Y had working bathing facilities. He spent over a year without accessible bathing facilities. This denied him the dignity of being able to bathe properly. This is a significant injustice to Mr Y.
46. The Council’s policy says its tenants can apply for a DFG if it takes too long to do the adaptations. There is no evidence the Council told Miss X or Mr Y they could apply for a DFG. LGSCO finds this was fault.
47. The government guidance on DFGs says most applications should go from first contact to completion within six months. The Council told Mr Y in April 2022 that its waiting list for adaptations was three years. On balance, had it told Miss X that Mr Y could apply for a DFG, it is likely she would have supported him to do so. Under the DFG process, Mr Y would likely have been able to access necessary bathing facilities in his home by September 2022 at the latest. Instead, it took until August 2023. This is a significant injustice to Mr Y.
48. The Council has not updated its policy for adapting its housing stock since 2008. This is fault. The Council should review its policies and procedures regularly to ensure they reflect current law, guidance and relevant case law.

Complaint handling

49. The Council accepted fault for delays responding to the complaint at stage one and two of its complaint process. LGSCO and HOS agree this was fault.
50. Miss X complained in early June 2023. The Council should have responded by 22 June. It did not do so until 14 July. This delay of over three weeks was fault. There is no evidence the Council wrote to Miss X to tell her about the delay or when she could expect a response. This was fault.
51. The records show Miss X contacted the Council at least seven times to ask for a response or an update. This caused Miss X avoidable distress and time and trouble chasing the Council. This is an injustice to Miss X.
52. We also find fault with the Council for failing to identify and respond to Miss X’s complaint in April 2023. Miss X clearly expressed dissatisfaction with the delay. The Council should have dealt with this as a complaint. Failure to do so delayed Miss X and Mr Y’s access to the complaints process and then the Ombudsmen. It meant Miss X had to contact the Council several times expressing her complaint. This in an injustice to Miss X.

Communication

53. Miss X says the Council communicated poorly with both her and Mr Y. She says despite providing her contact details and asking the Council to contact her instead of Mr Y, it did not do so. She says when she or Mr Y reported repairs, it could be weeks or months before the Council did anything. She said contractors would attend without any warning or notice, so Mr Y was not in. Or would arrange an appointment and then fail to attend.
54. The records show Miss X communicating with the Council on Mr Y’s behalf from 2021. However, there is no evidence the Council sought written consent from Mr Y until June 2023. This was fault. Instead, Mr Y had to give verbal consent each time Miss X called. It also meant the Council did not keep Miss X’s contact details to arrange repairs or provide updates.
55. Delay seeking proper consent from Mr Y raises a wider concern. We are satisfied in this case that Miss X was acting in Mr Y’s interests and with his consent. However, the Council should have sought to confirm this earlier. Mr Y is a vulnerable adult. Ensuring it seeks proper consent from those representing vulnerable adults is an important part of safeguarding. We have made recommendations to improve the Council’s service in this regard.
56. There is no evidence that, after the damp and mould reports in April 2023, the Council effectively communicated with Mr Y about its plan and actions. There is no evidence Mr Y was provided an effective update after the May survey. There is no evidence that Mr Y was effectively updated about what was being done about the leaks and pipes until the July complaint response. This left Mr Y without clarity for 3 months about what was being done to bring a lasting resolution to the issue, and clearly led to excessive chasing from Miss X and Mr Y. The HOS finds a service failure in the Council’s communication about the repairs.
57. LGSCO finds fault with the Council in how it communicated with Mr Y and Miss X about the adaptations to the bathroom. There is no evidence the Council contacted Mr Y or provided any updates from when he signed the agreement for the works in April 2022 until it wrote to him in March 2023 to tell him about the need for an asbestos survey. This left Mr Y without any idea when works might start. This avoidable uncertainty and distress is an injustice to Mr Y.

Back to top

Action required

HOS orders

58. Within two weeks of our final decision the Council should apologise to Mr Y for the faults identified by both Ombudsmen in line with page 6 of HOS’s Remedies Guidance and LGSCO’s guidance on Making an effective apology.
59. The HOS orders that, within two weeks of our final decision, the Council should pay Mr Y £470 for the issues identified.
60. The HOS orders that within two weeks of our final decision, the Council should review the case and consider service improvements. This should include consideration of how it ensures:
• Damp and mould reports are responded to in a timely manner.
• Survey findings are reviewed, actioned and communicated to residents in a timely manner.
• Similar decisions to delay repairs and combine them with other works are made in a timely manner and take into account the impact on the property, residents and their vulnerabilities.
61. The landlord should provide both Ombudsmen with evidence it has complied with the above orders.

HOS recommendations

62. The Council should liaise with Mr Y to ensure that his health conditions are recorded in order for these to be appropriately taken into account by its staff and contractors.

LGSCO agreed action

63. Within two weeks of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to Miss X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology
• Pay Mr Y £250 a month for the injustice caused by the 12 months he spent without access to bathing facilities because of delays by the Council, for a total of £3,000.
• Pay Miss X £200 in recognition of her avoidable distress and time and trouble.

64. The Council should also take the following action to improve its services within three months of the final decision:
• Produce information for Council tenants about the adaptations process, including that they can apply for a Disabled Facilities Grant and how to do so.
• Ensure the Council keeps tenants awaiting adaptations informed of the progress of the works and provides regular updates.
• Remind relevant staff that where a family member or other representative contacts the Council on behalf of someone else, it should promptly seek written consent from the individual to deal with the representative.
• Review and update the “Adaptations for tenants with disabilities” policy, taking into account the current law, guidance, and case law.
65. The Council should provide both Ombudsmen with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

66. We have completed our investigation. There was fault by the Council. The action we have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman