Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the standard of property works funded by the Council under two sets of DFGs in 2018 and 2021. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant investigating the more recent works funded by the Council. We cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants in respect of works completed in 2018 given the passage of time.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Mr X) complains about the standard of alterations to his bathroom which were funded using a disabled facilities grant (DFG) given by the Council in 2018. He also complains in respect of a second DFG and more recent works completed in 2021. This relates to the standard of alterations to his kitchen, as well as the installation of a step lift and works to make his internal and external doors more wheelchair accessible.
2. In summary, Mr X says the DFGs were provided to fund works which would enable him to live an independent life in light of his medical needs. He therefore says his needs are not being met which is a cause of hardship and distress. Mr X wants the Council to remedy the alleged substandard works.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Importantly, the works in both sets of cases were funded under a DFG. This means that while the Council has funded the works, Mr X’s contract for the works are between him and the appointed contractor. Where the complainant has entered into a contract with the building contractor, any complaint about the quality of the work would be for the complainant to take up with the contractor. However, the Council does have a role in supervising and inspecting the works and ensuring these have been carried out in a good and workmanlike manner.
6. The adaptations to Mr X’s bathroom were completed in 2018. The Council has informed it did not receive any notice of any defects from Mr X in the first year of warranty. The alleged faults are historical and relate to matters over five years ago since 2018. I recognise Mr X says the works are substandard which is an ongoing issue, but we would not now be able to reach a meaningful view of the complaint given the passage of time. There would be practical limitations on our ability to gather evidence and assess any injustice. We also cannot apply current standards, guidance, or professional expectations to historical situations. We would not therefore be able to assess the Council’s role of supervising the works at the time of their competition and achieve the outcome Mr X wants.
7. As regards to the more recent home alterations in 2021, Mr X says there are problems relating to suitability and work standard. In response, the Council has inspected the issues, sought advice from an occupational therapist and made further recommendations to address Mr X’s concerns. In my view, the Council’s response to Mr X is consistent with its role as an administrator to the contract between him and the contractor. We are therefore unlikely to find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant investigating the more recent works funded by the Council under a DFG. We cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants in respect of works completed in 2018 given the passage of time.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman