Summary: Mrs X complains the works the Council funded with a disabled facilities grant did not meet her family’s needs, and they had to live in the property for several months while remedial works were carried out. The work carried out was defective and it took too long to put it right. This caused significant distress to Mrs X. The Council needs to apologise and make a symbolic payment to her.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains the works the Council funded with a disabled facilities grant did not meet the family’s needs, and they had to live in the property for several months while remedial works were carried out.

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. 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)
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, section 25(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mrs X;
• discussed the complaint with Mrs X;
• considered the comments and documents the Council has provided in response to my enquiries;
• considered the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies; and
• invited comments on a draft of this statement from Mrs X and the Council, for me to consider before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. The need for adaptations to the home was identified in 2021. The Council agreed to fund them with a disabled facilities grant, which it provided in the name one of Mrs X’s children. However, the adaptations were to meet the needs of the whole family. Two of the family have a condition which, among other things, causes impaired mobility and can affect the ability to hold objects. Another member of the family has a developmental co-ordination disorder. Mrs X has a wheelchair, but tries to walk when in the home. At least two members of the family have mental health issues.
7. The work was mainly to the kitchen, to create accessible facilities. However, as it involved removing an internal partition wall, the flooring needed replacing. The schedule, agreed with Mrs X, provided for vinyl sheet flooring (also called safety flooring). The Council’s Care and Repair team managed the work and appointed contractor B from an approved list.
8. At the start of the work Mrs X and her family were already staying in B&B accommodation because of other work their landlord (a housing association) was doing to their home. The Council agreed to fund the B&B accommodation while contractor B did the adaptations. Contractor B started and completed the work in July 2022.
9. The Council visited the property on 3 August to inspect the works. It identified problems with the flooring. Mrs X says the surface underneath was uneven, which resulted in her having many falls. She says the flooring was also difficult for her family to walk on in rubber soled shoes (because of their combined slip resistance). On 4 August contractor B told the Council it would correct the flooring issues on 9 August.
10. Mrs X and her family returned to the property on 8 August.
11. On 9 August Mrs X told the Council the dust from sanding the ceiling was causing problems for her family, which was made worse by spreading the work over several days rather than completing it in one go. The Council asked contractor B to complete all the dusty work in one day, to reduce the impact on Mrs X’s family. It apologised to Mrs X.
12. On 10 August Mrs X told the Council she had received a quote for £1,500 to paint the walls because of the amount of preparatory work due to Contractor B’s poor work.
13. Mrs X had expected contractor B to do some work on Saturday 12 August, but no one turned up. The Council told Mrs X contractor B had got muddled over dates but would visit on 16 August to discuss what needed doing and fix the plastering. It said it would not pay for decorating. Mrs X said she had not expected it to but had expected to get the decorating done when she returned home.
14. On 29 August Mrs X asked the Council about the outstanding work. The next day the Council told her contractor B did not want to replace the floor, but wanted an independent flooring specialist to decide whether it was “outside of the tolerance levels”.
15. In early September the Council chased contractor B about arranging for a flooring specialist to visit and about fixing baskets in cupboards. A flooring specialist visited on 14 September, and it was agreed the flooring needed replacing. After the visit Mrs X pointed out an occupational therapist had confirmed the flooring was to remain the same. She confirmed they had vinyl tiles before.
16. On 20 September contractor B noted replacing the flooring would involve re‑applying latex to provide a level surface for the flooring, so no one could enter the area for 12 hours while the latex dried. Contractor B said Mrs X’s pets could not be in the property during that time. Contractor B expected the work to take five to six days.
17. On 3 October contractor B suggested replacing the flooring with vinyl cushion flooring.
18. On 25 October the Council told Mrs X an occupational therapist had agreed to vinyl flooring instead of the safety flooring. Mrs X asked whether they would have the same problem with uneven flooring. The Council said the unevenness would be sorted out before fitting new flooring. Mrs X suggested waiting until she had had another OT assessment.
19. After an occupational therapist visited on 30 October, the Council agreed to replace the defective flooring with luxury vinyl tiles.
20. On 2 November Mrs X asked when the plastering would be fixed, and the plumbing sorted for a dishwasher. The Council said it would get back to her when contractor B returned from leave.
21. On 9 November the council replied to a complaint from Mrs X. It said:
• it accepted there had been some delay in looking at suitable alternative flooring, after agreeing the flooring had many defects;
• the defective plastering would be remedied at the same time as the flooring;
• it had arranged for a cleaner when Mrs X pointed out the dust left on furnishings when the family returned home;
• the work had taken account of the different needs of the family;
• no one had identified the need for a specific floor surface, other than that Mrs X used an electric wheelchair indoors;
• the family shared tasks in the kitchen, and it had taken account of the fact they often dropped items because of reduced grip and increased weakness;
• the kitchen had been made as easily accessible as possible to reflect the family’s needs;
• it apologised for the anxiety caused to Mrs X;
• it continued to work to resolve the flooring issue;
• given Mrs X’s objections to contractor B’s intimidating behaviour, another contractor would complete the flooring.
22. On 13 November the Council told Mrs X contractor B was looking for a supplier for the flooring. It said the work would take four days to complete. Mrs X said she would be away 18 to 27 November.
23. On 15 November contractor B asked the Council for an update. It said it needed to provide flooring samples for Mrs X to choose from. It said it would be helpful to do the work while Mrs X was away, to avoid her moving out another time.
24. On 17 November contractor B confirmed the extra cost of laying luxury vinyl tiles. The Council confirmed the work could go ahead.
25. On 20 November contractor B told the Council it was waiting for a fitting date. The Council asked Mrs X if she wanted it to arrange alternative accommodation during the remedial work. Mrs X said she would respond when she returned from holiday.
26. Contractor B arranged to do the flooring work on 18 and 19 December. They asked if Mrs X had a place for her dogs to stay during the remedial work. Mrs X asked the Council to confirm other remedial works (plastering, moving a light switch and plumbing for a dishwasher) would be done at the same time.
27. On 6 December the Council asked Mrs X to confirm her choice of flooring, which she did. The Council responded to Mrs X’s concerns about its response to her original complaint. It said:
• It denied having expected Mrs X to return to the property while the building work was carried out;
• It had agreed to correct the problems with the plastering when replacing the flooring;
• It accepted Mrs X found contractor B bullying, so had not returned to the property. If they had to return, they would only do so with a council officer;
• It had not agreed to provide a wheelchair accessible kitchen, as the family shared tasks in the kitchen, three of them could use the sink, and they preferred to use a dishwasher;
• The flooring needed replacing removing a support wall left a gap in the flooring.
28. On 18 December Mrs X told the Council contractor B did not appear to be aware that other remedial work was supposed to be completed at the same time as the flooring. The Council said it would remind contractor B about the other remedial work, but it had already told them about the work at least three times.
29. On 21 December contractor B told the Council it had completed all the outstanding work. Mrs X sent the Council a picture of incomplete plastering.
30. The Council visited Mrs X on 18 January 2024 with the Care and Repair surveyor and the contractor to sign off the works. The visit identified three areas of plastering where improvements were needed. Contractor B completed the work on 9 February.

Is there evidence of fault by the Council which caused injustice?

31. There is no dispute over the fact the flooring was not laid properly. That was fault for which the Council is accountable (see paragraph 4 above). It took five months to remedy the problems with the flooring. This included:
• nearly two months to agree the flooring needed replacing, because contractor B disputed the need to do so;
• another month and a half to agree to replace the flooring with luxury vinyl tiles; and
• another month and a half to carry out the work.
32. Not all of the delays were due to fault for which the Council is accountable, as Mrs X was not always available. She wanted to wait for another occupational therapy assessment, after which the Council agreed to install her preferred flooring. However, Mrs X had to put up with flooring which was a trip hazard and resulted in her having many falls. The stress caused by the situation also resulted in her taking an overdose.
33. The Council agreed the other remedial works would be carried out at the same time as the flooring. But further works was needed which was not completed until February 2024. This delayed Mrs X redecorating her home, which she had expected to do when she returned in August 2023.

Back to top

Agreed action

34. When a council commissions another organisation to provide services on its behalf it remains responsible for those services and for the actions of the organisation providing them. So, although I found fault with the actions of contractor B, I have made recommendations to the Council.
35. I recommended the Council:
• Within four weeks provides a written apology to Mrs X which complies with our guidance on making an effective apology and pays her £300.
36. The Council has agreed to do this. It should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I have completed my investigation on the basis there has been fault causing injustice which requires a remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman