Summary: The Council, and KWL acting on its behalf, were at fault for delay installing a level access shower in Mr X’s home and for the poor quality of the resulting works. As a result, Mr X was without an adaption he needed for over two years and experienced avoidable distress and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, make a payment, and act to improve its services.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s delay installing a level access shower in his bathroom and the poor quality of the works. As a result, he says he has been unable to access washing facilities for years and experienced avoidable frustration and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. We investigate 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, sections 24A(1)(A) and 25(7), as amended).
5. 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

What I have investigated

6. Mr X’s complaint covers matters from 2021. The restriction in paragraph three therefore applies. I have exercised discretion to investigate the whole period. Mr X was consistent in raising issues with the Council and reasonably allowed time for works to progress before complaining. The passage of time has not affected my ability to investigate and reach sound conclusions.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered the complaint and the information Mr X provided.
8. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
9. I referred to the Ombudsman's Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
10. Mr X and the Council 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 happened – assessment and referral

11. Mr X is a tenant of the Council. He has health conditions which affect his mobility. He moved into his current property in 2021. Prior to moving in, an Occupational Therapist (OT) viewed the property with Mr X. The OT established that the property did not meet Mr X’s needs because it did not have a level access shower (LAS). However, Mr X signed the tenancy and moved in.
12. Mr X had repeated contact with the OT service throughout 2022 and 2023:
• In April 2022, after the Council told him it could take up to two years for the works, Mr X told the Council he would do the works himself and the Council closed the case. Mr X attempted to contact the Council a few days later but no one called him back.
• In December 2022, the Council mistakenly sent Mr X an appointment for a public holiday and so the OT did not attend.
• The Council tried to contact Mr X again in January 2023 but closed the case at the end of January when Mr X did not respond.
13. In April 2023, after Mr X complained that he still did not have a LAS, the Council reopened the case. It agreed to backdate any referral to 2021. The Council sent a referral for adaptations in July 2023.

My findings – assessment and referral

14. There was a delay of two years between the Council identifying that Mr X needed a LAS and completing the referral.
15. The Council had multiple contacts with Mr X over the period. It failed to respond to requests for contact and scheduled an appointment on a public holiday. Mr X also contributed to the delay by telling the Council he would arrange the works himself and not responding to contact in January 2023.
16. Overall, there was fault in the Council’s delay referring Mr X for adaptations. The Council should have acted in 2021 when Mr X signed the tenancy. It knew he needed a LAS and the property did not have one.
17. The Council acknowledged this in response to my enquiries and set out the learning and improvements it has identified:
• If a person cancels an OT assessment or works, or says they will do the works themselves, the Council now sends a letter to confirm it will close the case in four weeks. This allows a cooling off period and avoids any potential miscommunication
• It uses a form when viewing properties which prompts staff to request any adaptations needed in the new property
• It is now its standard procedure to make three attempts at contact on different days by phone and then to follow up in writing. Where the Council has missed contacts but then struggles to contact the person back, it now expects staff to attempt different methods of contact, such as email or contacting other professionals involved
18. These are good service improvements which I welcome.

What happened – referral to works starting

19. The Council’s adaptations service received the referral in July 2023. A surveyor visited Mr X in August. The Council identified it needed an asbestos report, which it commissioned. It chased this up twice in September.
20. Mr X complained to the Council. The Council responded at stage one of its complaint process in mid-September. It accepted that the delay progressing his adaptations was “unacceptable”. It said:
• The surveyor would chase up the asbestos report again
• Draft plans and schedule of works were in progress
• Once the OT approved the plans, it would raise a work order with its contractor
• The contractor would contact Mr X to arrange a date for works to start
21. The OT approved the plans in early October and the Council raised a work order with its contractor, KWL. KWL is a company wholly owned by the Council. It was acting on behalf of the Council in delivering the works to Mr X’s home.
22. KWL told the Council in late October it had cancelled the work order because Mr X did not agree to the works as drawn.
23. In November, in response to Mr X’s stage two complaint, the Council offered £3,000 as a remedy for the delays.
24. The Council visited Mr X at home in December. In January 2024 it shared amended plans with Mr X which he approved. The Council raised a new work order with KWL.

My findings – referral to works starting

25. The Council acted promptly when it received the referral in July 2023. The asbestos report caused delay but this was not the Council’s fault. It chased this appropriately.
26. However, the delay from October 2023 to January 2024 was fault. There is no evidence the Council shared the plans with Mr X before asking KWL to do the works. Had it done so, the delay would have been avoided.

What happened – works

27. KWL started works in January 2024. It reported these complete in February. However, Mr X complained to the Council in March. He said the works were incomplete, KWL left the bathroom in a poor state and he had no access to a bathroom for three months.
28. As part of its investigation of the complaint, the Council visited Mr X’s home at the end of March. In its complaint response, the Council said the standard of the work “is not satisfactory” and it had requested these be done again to a higher standard. It upheld Mr X’s complaint about the delay and the quality of the works.
29. “In recognition of the poor workmanship, miscommunication and the length of time it is taking to complete the adaptations”, the Council offered Mr X £1,000.
30. KWL started works again in late April. It reported them complete in late June.
31. In July, Mr X told the Council about more issues with the quality of the works. He said the floor level was wrong, meaning water ran away towards the bathroom door instead of into the drain. The Council visited Mr X’s home to inspect the works. The Council took pictures of issues including the floor level, issues with plastering and painting and other examples of poor workmanship.
32. The Council therefore raised a new work order with KWL in August. KWL reported this complete in mid-December. KWL was delayed starting the works because Mr X was in hospital. In December, Mr X once again reported issues with the flooring and other quality issues.
33. The Council completed another site visit. It said the “works are not satisfactory as the flooring is breached, painting not as agreed and the room was not cleaned down before or after painting nor were the rest of the rooms affected by the works”. The Council told Mr X the only dates available before Christmas for the contractor to fix it was 23 and 24 December. Mr X said he would prefer to wait until the new year.
34. KWL did the works in early February 2025 and the Council visited and signed off the works in mid-February. At that visit, Mr X signed to confirm he was happy with the works.

My findings – works

35. The Council, and KWL acting on its behalf, were at fault. It took over a year from works starting in January 2024 to complete the works to an acceptable standard.
36. The Council carried out multiple site visits and documented numerous issues with the quality and finish of the works. KWL had to lift and relay the flooring three times. KWL left the property in a very poor state of cleanliness and from the pictures it is clear did not take adequate care when plastering, painting, and sealing.
37. I am particularly concerned that KWL repeated the same or similar issues with quality more than once. The Council resorted to having a surveyor make multiple site visits, sometimes twice a day, while works were ongoing to maintain oversight. This was an appropriate approach in this case but did not address the underlying cause of the poor quality works. KWL is owned by the Council and does many adaptations and repairs on behalf of the Council. The Council should have acted to identify and address the systemic causes of the repeated failings in this case. Not to have done so was fault.

Injustice

38. The Council backdated Mr X’s referral and says that this means the delay referring did not delay the works because Mr X would still have been on the waiting list in July 2023. The government guidance on disabled adaptations sets target timescales which councils should aim to achieve in 95% of cases. This says it should take 35 working days to complete an assessment and identify the works needed. The whole process up to completing the works should take no more than 180 working days. If the Council had referred Mr X in December 2021 as it should have, he should have had the works to his bathroom complete by August 2022.
39. Instead, Mr X waited until February 2025. This delay of two and a half years caused Mr X significant injustice. He was without an adaptation he needed until February 2024. He then lived with the frustration and distress of the poor quality works, the repeated need to have contractors return who then left the property in a poor state, and periods where he could not use his shower without water getting into his hallway.
40. The Council has offered Mr X a total of £4,000 in remedy for the impact of the delays. This is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused by the delay up to February 2024. Our guidance on remedies recommends a payment of between £150 and £350 a month for lacking essential adaptations like a bathroom. £4,000 over 18 months is within that range.
41. However, there is further injustice to Mr X which requires a remedy for the continued issues after February 2024.

Back to top

Action

42. To remedy the injustice to Mr X from the faults I have identified, in addition to the £4,000 already offered, the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise to Mr X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology; and
2. pay Mr X a further £2,000 for the distress, frustration and difficulty caused by the repeated poor quality works and periods where he could not use his bathroom.
43. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
44. The Council should also take the following action to improve its services:
1. Using this case as a case study, carry out an in-depth review of processes and procedures with KWL to identify why the works had to be repeated or repaired so many times before they were of an acceptable standard and identify learning to improve communication, timeliness, and quality
2. Based on the review, produce an action plan setting out how the Council, and KWL on its behalf, will improve communication and improve the timeliness and quality of Disabled adaptation works
3. Refer the outcome of the review and the resulting action plan to the relevant scrutiny committee or Cabinet Member to ensure democratic oversight
45. The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action it has taken within six months of my final decision.

Back to top

Decision

46. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman