Summary: Ms X complained about delays and poor-quality workmanship of a wet room she had installed under a Disabled Facilities Grant. The Council was at fault. Its contractor took too long installing the wet room and poor quality of works has led to ongoing problems and snags. The Council agreed to make a payment to Ms X to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused. It has also agreed to commission an independent survey of the wet room to identify and resolve any ongoing issues caused by the initial contractor’s works.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about delays and poor-quality workmanship around the installation of a wet room under a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). Ms X said the work started two years ago and is still not fully complete and has numerous ongoing problems.
2. Ms X said the matter has caused her distress and inconvenience which she said is still ongoing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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. I spoke to Ms X about her complaint and considered information she provided.
6. I considered the Council’s response to my enquiry letter.
7. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG)

8. Disabled Facilities Grants are paid to help towards the cost of adaptations to the home of a disabled person. DFGs 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.
9. A council should decide a grant application as soon as reasonably practicable. In addition, the timescales for moving through the stages and completing the agreed works will depend on the urgency and complexity of the works required. The Home adaptations for disabled people good practice guide' gives the following timescales:
• Urgent and simple works – 55 working days
• Non-urgent and simple works – 130 working days
• Urgent and complex works – 130 days
• Non-urgent and complex works – 180 working days
10. Where the Council arranges and commissions a contractor to carry out DFG works, the Council remains responsible for the quality of the works carried out.

What happened

11. In May 2021 Ms X applied to the Council for a DFG to fund a wet room and level access shower in her house. The Council carried out visits, completed drawings and obtained a quote for the works from one of its approved contractors (Contractor 1). The Council approved the grant and January 2022 and commissioned Contractor 1 to carry out the works.
12. Contractor 1 started the works on the wet room in May 2022. It told Ms X the works would be completed in around 10 days.
13. The Council said its project officer visited Ms X between June and October 2022 to meet with Contractor 1. However, it is not clear how the quality of works or the time being taken was considered.
14. Ms X complained to the Council in January 2023. She said Contractor 1 had taken eight months to install the wet room and there were still things going wrong and incomplete. This included regular leaks, non-working extractor fan and mold. Ms X said the quality of work was poor and she did not want Contractor 1 back in her house. Ms X said she had commissioned her won contractors to rectify some of the issues caused by Contractor 1.
15. The Council responded to Ms X in February 2023. It said it was aware of the issues with Contractor 1 and accepted the time taken to complete the wet room far exceeded the timescales quoted originally. It also accepted there were issues with the quality of work. The Council said it had already reimbursed Ms X for the works she had paid for. It said the service provided was far below what it expects and it had decided not to renew its contract with Contractor 1 who would no longer carry out works on behalf of the Council.
16. Ms X asked the Council to escalate her complaint to stage two of the complaints procedure. Ms X said she has had numerous leaks which has caused damage to the floor. She said the Council has not taken into consideration the distress caused. The Council’s stage two response said it would carry out a comprehensive re-inspection of the wet room.
17. During the rest of 2023 Ms X experienced numerous issues with the wet room which required her to commission her own contractors to carry out the repairs. This included:
• A leak discovered under the floor because of boiler pressure dropping.
• Excavation work on the floor to replace defective piping.
• Floor repairs and new flooring.
• Refixing the radiator and wash basin.
18. Records show the Council fully reimbursed Ms X for these works.
19. Ms X reported a new leak in November 2023 after the initial repair work was completed in the August. The Council commissioned one its plumbing contractors who carried out more repairs.
20. During 2024 the Council arranged for works on the extractor fan and also moved the fan switch.
21. Ms X remained unhappy with the Council’s handling of the matter and complained to us. She said leaks were still occurring and other snags still existed which she blames on the initial poor-quality work from Contractor 1.
22. The Council confirmed to us at the time of writing there was no current leaks and the extractor fan was operational. It said the wet room has been operational and in regular use by Ms X.
23. With regards to the re-inspection of the works the Council offered to carry out in the stage 2 response, it has not provided me with any evidence this was carried out, although Council officers have regularly liaised with Ms X about her concerns. The Council has agreed to commission an independent surveyor to carry out a full inspection of the wet room and the works to identify any ongoing issues.

My findings

24. As explained above, where the Council arranges and commissions a contractor to carry out DFG works, the Council remains responsible for the quality of the works carried out. The Council approved Ms X’s DFG in early 2022 and Contractor 1 started work in May 2022. The Council has accepted in its February 2023 complaint response that the works took too long and was of poor quality which was not in line with the guidance referred to above and is fault.
25. While the Council noted its officers carried out site visits, I have seen no evidence of oversight of the quality of works. Given the time taken, these visits were missed opportunities to identify the poor quality of the works earlier.
26. Since Contractor 1 stopped working on the wet room Ms X has experienced numerous ongoing issues as outlined above. These, on balance are probably linked to the initial poor-quality works from Contractor 1. It meant Ms X has had the inconvenience of sourcing her own contractors to carry out repair works, although it is positive to note the Council has fully reimbursed Ms X for any monies she has spent.
27. The Council agreed to carry out an inspection of the wet room in early 2023. Again, while it carried out various visits there is no evidence it carried out a survey which may have identified the issues such as defective pipework and leaks earlier. Not carrying the inspection as promised was fault.
28. While Ms X has, in the main been able to use the shower and toilet for long periods she has reported on going issues which is causing her avoidable distress and inconvenience. The Council has agreed to commission an independent survey of the wet room which will identify any ongoing issues for the Council to rectify.

Back to top

Agreed action

29. Within one month of the final decision the Council agreed to take the following action:
1. Apologise to Ms X and pay her £600 to acknowledge the distress, frustration and inconvenience caused by the poor quality of works, the delays completing her wet room under a DFG and for not completing as full inspection of the wet room earlier. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.
2. Arrange and carry out the independent survey of the wet room and the works completed to identify any defects or problems which have resulted from the initial works carried out by Contractor 1.
30. Within three months of the final decision the Council should resolve and fix any issues and problems with the wet room which are identified by the independent survey.
31. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I completed this investigation. I found fault and the Council agreed to my recommendations to remedy the injustice caused by the fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman