Summary: Mrs B says the Council failed to provide her with clear guidance about the disabled facilities grant process, failed to properly consider her needs, failed to take action when the works completed by the contractor are not fit for purpose and wrongly paid the contractor. There is no fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs B, complained the Council:
• led her to believe the contract was between the Council and the contractor;
• failed to provide her with clear guidance about the grant process and her rights and responsibilities;
• failed to ensure the contractor she used was qualified to complete the works;
• failed to properly consider her needs;
• failed to act when the works completed by the contractor are not fit for purpose and there are outstanding works which need resolution;
• wrongly paid the contractor.
2. Mrs B says the Council’s actions means she is left with a bathroom which is not fit for purpose and this is impacting on her medical conditions and mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mrs B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
6. Mrs B and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

7. Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG) are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (the Act). 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.
8. The Act says where works have not been executed to the satisfaction of the applicant, the local housing authority may, at the applicant’s request and if they consider it appropriate to do so, withhold payment from the contractor. If they do so, they may make the payment to the applicant instead.
9. If a council thinks the work is satisfactory it can continue to pay the builder even though the applicant may disagree.

What happened

10. Mrs B has medical conditions and an occupational therapist completed a referral to the Council for disabled adaptations for her bathroom. The Council contacted Mrs B and said a member of the adaptations team would contact her to complete a survey and create a specification of work for the recommended adaptations. The Council provided Mrs B with grant application forms.
11. A Council officer visited Mrs B’s property on 27 February. The following day he sent Mrs B a proposed plan and asked if she wanted to go ahead with the adaptation. The Council then sent Mrs B a schedule of works. As Mrs B had signed the form agreeing for the Council to contact the three contractors she had identified the Council sent those contractors a copy of the schedule of works.
12. The three contractors the Council consulted provided quotations for the works. The Council wrote Mrs B on 4 May to tell her it had awarded a DFG based on the lowest estimate provided. That letter told Mrs B if she wanted to use a different contractor she should contact the Council before beginning any work. Mrs B did not do that and the contractor with the lowest quotation began the work at Mrs B’s property.
13. The contractor contacted the Council on 14 August to provide an invoice for the works. The Council’s technical officer and the occupational therapist visited to inspect the works on 16 August and identified some snagging issues. Mrs B also raised some concerns about the work at that visit. The Council contacted the contractor to ask it to complete the snagging identified.
14. The contractor visited rs B’s property and completed some, but not all, the work on 29 August. Mrs B’s representative contacted the Council the same day to raise concerns about the work completed. Mrs B’s representative also said there was a leak through the ceiling from the works to the bathroom.
15. The Council advised Mrs B’s representative to contact the contractor to sort out the leak and asked for dates for a Council officer to visit to inspect the completed works. The Council also contacted the contractor and asked it to contact Mrs B to arrange to visit to deal with the leak.
16. Mrs B’s representative told the Council it was unreasonable to expect Mrs B to allow the contractor back into the property. He suggested an impartial independent expert carry out an assessment of the completed works.
17. In response the Council reminded Mrs B’s representative that Mrs B had employed the contractor and only the contractor could resolve the problems. The Council said it was a decision for Mrs B to make if she wanted to appoint an independent expert to assess the completed works. The Council pointed out if Mrs B employed a different contractor to resolve the issue it would not be grant funded. The Council said Mrs B would also run the risk that the guarantee on any work carried out by the current contractor would be null and void. The Council therefore encouraged Mrs B to contact the contractor.
18. The Council said it intended to authorise payment to the contractor and said if it did not do so the contractor could then pursue Mrs B for payment through the courts. The Council said that would result in it cancelling the grant and Mrs B would be liable for paying the contractor if the court directed her to do so. The Council said it would delay payment of the invoice until it was clear on the steps Mrs B was taking to contact the contractor and allow access to remedy the leak.
19. On 2 September the contractor told the Council he had spoken to Mrs B’s representative. The contractor made clear he was happy to return and sort out any problems with the shower. He said Mrs B’s representative had said he did not want the contractor to come back.
20. The Council contacted Mrs B again on 6 September to reiterate it would still expect Mrs B to allow the contractor to return to resolve the issue. The Council said its decision about whether to pay the contractor would be based solely on whether it considered the work satisfactory and whether Mrs B had provided the contractor with an opportunity to address any significant snags it may be responsible for. The Council reiterated any dispute about the workmanship or credentials of those employed by the contractor were matters for Mrs B to take up with the contractor directly. The Council asked Mrs B to confirm by 8 September whether she had made an appointment for the contractor to visit and, if not, the Council would approve payment of the invoice. The Council subsequently extended the period for Mrs B’s response.
21. In response Mrs B’s representative again raised concerns about the suitability of the work completed and the qualifications of the contractor. Mrs B’s representative also pointed out under the Act the Council could withhold payment of the grant to the contractor and pay it to the applicant. In response the Council made clear it did not consider it appropriate to withhold payment and make the payment to Mrs B instead as it had inspected the work and the contractor was willing to return.
22. The Council paid the contractor 90% of the invoice amount and said it would release the remaining 10% if and when the contractor was allowed access to the property to complete the outstanding works.
23. Following a complaint from Mrs B the Council accepted the information provided about the grant process could have been clearer. The Council apologised and said it would pass on the concerns about the contractor to the organisation which compiled the directory of contractors. The Council also said it would review the information provided to applicants about contractors and the applicant’s responsibility when awarded a DFG.

Analysis

24. Mrs B says the Council led her to believe the contract was between the Council and the contractor. Mrs B says as evidence of that she completed a form to give the Council permission to contact contractors. Mrs B also says despite the fact she named two contractors on the form she completed the Council contacted a third contractor and then appointed that contractor to complete the work. Mrs B says she was never told she could select her own contractor and as the Council managed the whole process she had no reason to believe the contract was between her and the contractor.
25. I am satisfied the information the Council provided to Mrs B made clear although the Council could contact contractors on her behalf the contract remained between Mrs B and the contractor, rather than the Council. That information was clearly recorded on the permission slip Mrs B completed to give the Council permission to contact the contractors on her behalf. That information was also recorded on the notes for the schedule of work. I am therefore satisfied the Council made clear from the outset the contract was between Mrs B and the contractor.
26. I am also satisfied the letter the Council sent Mrs B about the grant application process made clear Mrs B could discuss with the surveyor her contractor choices and that she would need to notify the Council of her chosen contractor. As well as that, the notes for the form Mrs B completed to give the Council permission to contact contractors on her behalf made clear that although she could use the Council’s approved list she could also choose her own contractor. I therefore could not say Mrs B was forced to use the Council’s contractor or that it failed to tell her she could use a different contractor.
27. I am also satisfied when Mrs B completed the form giving the Council permission to contact contractors on her behalf she listed three, rather than two, contractors. I am satisfied the Council contacted all three contractors named by Mrs B and it was one of those contractors which carried out the work. I have therefore seen no evidence to suggest the Council forced Mrs B to use a specific contractor or one she had not identified.
28. Given what I have said above I have found no evidence to suggest the Council failed to provide Mrs B with clear guidance about the grant process and her rights and responsibilities. I recognise though when the Council responded to the complaint it accepted the information it provided was not as clear as it could have been and it intends to amend that information to make the process clearer. I welcome that. However, having considered the documentary evidence I do not consider any lack of clarity in the documentation for the grant process warrants a finding of fault.
29. Mrs B says the Council failed to ensure the contractor she used was qualified to complete the works. I understand Mrs B’s concern about the suitability of the contractor given she has experienced some difficulties. However, I am satisfied the list Mrs B chose the contractor from is one managed by a separate organisation. That organisation, with the Council’s trading standards department, carries out the required checks before a contractor is included on the list. The fact remains though the contract is between Mrs B and the contractor. Any concerns Mrs B has about the quality of the works completed are ones she will need to pursue with the contractor as the Council has no responsibility here, beyond the checks which took place before the contractor was added to the list. I am satisfied though the Council has agreed to notify the organisation that manages the list of the difficulties that have occurred in this case.
30. Mrs B says the Council failed to properly consider her needs both in the assessment process and when signing off elements of the work. For the assessment process I am satisfied the schedule of works was drawn up in response to the recommendation from the occupational therapist. If Mrs B had concerns about the proposed works I would have expected her to raise those concerns in response to the schedule of works. I have seen no evidence Mrs B raised concerns before the work began. I therefore have no grounds to criticise the Council in terms of the assessment process.
31. For the completed works, I understand Mrs B does not believe the works have been completed properly. Mrs B also has concerns about whether they are accessible for her. I am satisfied the Council has considered Mrs B’s concerns given an officer visited to inspect and then communicated with the contractor about some outstanding works. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the contractor has made clear to the Council repeatedly that it is happy to return to Mrs B’s property to complete the outstanding works. The contractor has also made clear it is happy to carry out further works to amend the location of the shower head so it is accessible to Mrs B. I therefore could not say the Council failed to take any action on the concerns Mrs B raised.
32. However, the Council does not have any responsibility for the quality of the work undertaken. That is a matter for Mrs B to take up with the contractor. I am satisfied the Council has carried out an inspection visit and is satisfied the works have been completed in accordance with the schedule of works to the Council’s satisfaction with the exception of some snagging works. I am also satisfied the Council has liaised with the contractor to arrange the completion of those snagging works.
33. I appreciate Mrs B is reluctant to let the contractor return to the property. I understand why she takes that view. However, it is not fault for the Council to decide the works are satisfactory after undertaking a visit and as it is satisfied the contractor is willing to return to complete the snagging issues. In those circumstances the outstanding issues are matters between Mrs B and her contractor and are not for the Council.
34. I also appreciate Mrs B’s concerns that by releasing most of the grant money the Council has given the contractor no incentive to work with her to address the outstanding issues. I am satisfied though the Council put payment on hold to give Mrs B an opportunity to make an appointment with the contractor for him to return to complete the outstanding works. Only when Mrs B made clear she would not allow the contractor back into the property did the Council pay 90% of the grant. I cannot criticise the Council for doing that given it was satisfied a small number of snagging works were required and the contractor was willing to return to resolve those issues.
35. Mrs B says the Council sought to intimidate her by inferring the contractor could take civil action against her. Mrs B also says the Council threatened her with the loss of grant funding if she did not allow the contractor back into the property.
36. Mrs B is referring here to an email from the Council on 1 September 2023 to her representative. In that email the Council advised Mrs B’s representative if it did not release payment to the contractor the contractor could then pursue Mrs B for payment through civil action in the courts. The Council said if that happened the Council would cancel the grant and Mrs B would need to make a private payment to the contractor if the court directed her to.
37. I understand why that would have been unwelcome information for Mrs B given she felt she had legitimate concerns about the work the contractor completed. However, I am satisfied the information the Council provided Mrs B with was factual. I am satisfied the Council likely gave Mrs B that information to explain, in part, why the Council considered it appropriate to pay the contractor for the work completed. I do not consider it fault for the Council to provide Mrs B with that information, however unwelcome it might have been. I have seen no evidence to suggest the Council provided the information to intimidate Mrs B. Instead I am satisfied the Council likely provided that information so Mrs B knew the potential implications of the Council withholding payment. I therefore have no grounds to criticise the Council here.
38. I have seen no evidence to suggest the Council colluded with the contractor as Mrs B suggests. The evidence I have seen satisfies me when communicating with the contractor the Council made clear the snagging issues it considered needed addressing.

Back to top

Final decision

39. I have completed my investigation and do not uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman