Summary: Ms B complained that the Council had failed to rectify leak damage in her bathroom following works under a Disabled Facilities grant. We have not found fault with the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Ms B complained that the London Borough of Ealing (the Council) failed to rectify leak damage to her bathroom following work under a disabled facilities grant (DFG). This has caused her distress and financial loss.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. 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)
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 and have not investigated

6. I have exercised discretion to investigate the complaint back to December 2022 when Mrs B obtained the first leak detection report. There are good reasons because Mrs B’s health condition means it takes her a long time to read, digest and respond to correspondence.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Ms B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Ms B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Disabled Facilities Grants

9. Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG) are for people with a qualifying disability who need adaptations in their home to make it safer and easier for them to get around and perform everyday tasks.

What happened

Background

10. Ms B is disabled. In 2021 the Council approved work to her bathroom under a DFG. This included repairing a leak to the cold water feed behind some boxing and leaking shower pipes. The work was completed on 22 June 2021.

Leak discovery

11. In October 2022 Ms B contacted the Council about a leak from the bathroom which was causing mould and affecting her hallway flooring.
12. In November 2022 the Council’s contractor who had done the work came out to inspect the situation. Ms B said the contractor was rude and dismissive towards her and suggested the leak could be dog urine. The Council said the work was now outside the defects liability period of six months, but it would see if any of its contractors had leak detection equipment. They did not, so the Council advised Ms B to get her own report on the source of the leak.

Leak detection report (1)

13. The report dated 8 December 2022 identified a leak somewhere in the hot water feed pipe, probably under the floor. The report said there was no evidence of a leak on the mains pipework. It recommended stripping back the bathroom to repair the mould and moisture damage. Rather than excavating the floor to repair the existing pipework, it proposed rerunning ‘the pipework’ above ground to prevent future problems. The accompanying drawing showed the proposed new routes for the hot and cold water feeds. It also said all materials on the walls and floor within the property that are wet will require removal for forced drying of the structural materials of the property.
14. In response to the report the Council said the report did not conclude that the leak was due to the DFG work done by the Council in 2021. The Council confirmed that the work had not required the Council to cut all the existing pipework back to source, but to fit new pipework to the existing pipework. It did not dig up the floor or interfere with the pipes under the floor.
15. However, because Ms B did not have any house insurance it agreed as a goodwill gesture to rerun the hot and cold feed pipework above ground and remove and sanitise all the mould. It said this work would not include replacement of the laminate flooring or decoration in the hallway.

Rectification work

16. The Council began the work on 23 January 2023. It reran the hot and cold feed pipework above ground, sprayed the mould and provided a dehumidifier. It said the flooring in the bathroom was not lifting so did not need replacing. It removed the tiling to the boxing-in but did not need to remove all the tiling as it was not damaged. It arranged for the contractor to return to replace the boxing. But Ms B did not allow the contractor back to do this. She was unhappy that all the tiles and flooring in the bathroom and hallway were not being removed and replaced. She also said the incoming cold water mains pipe was now wet indicating another leak. The Council said this was likely to be condensation on the pipe.

Leak detection report (2)

17. Ms B obtained a second leak detection report dated 24 March 2023. This identified that the cold water mains pipe was now leaking. It said the cold water mains pipe had not been rerouted above ground as recommended in the first report. The pipe was wet to the touch below the soldered joint and dry above it which indicated it was not condensation. The report recommended all pipework in the bathroom be exposed and rerouted with no boxing and all materials on the floors and walls be removed to dry out the property properly before reinstallation and redecoration.

Council response

18. The Council responded on 6 April 2023.It said the repairs were done as a goodwill gesture. The incoming cold water main feed was not leaking at that point and in any event, it would not have agreed to reroute that pipework as it is the responsibility of the homeowner and not covered by DFG works.
19. Ms B paid for a private contractor to repair the pipework and make good the damage. They also provided an industrial dehumidifier. The total cost of all the work, including the two reports and redecoration was almost £7,000.

First complaint

20. In September 2023 Ms B complained to the Council about its failure to carry out the repair work properly. The Council responded on 25 September 2023 saying it had done repairs as a goodwill gesture because Ms B had not got house insurance. The second leak was not apparent at the time of repairs and it was not the Council’s responsibility to resolve. The Council made clear that hall flooring and decoration would not be included and private work which had not been agreed beforehand could not be reimbursed retrospectively.

Second complaint

21. On 2 December 2023 Ms B escalated the complaint, saying the Council had not done the repair work as recommended in the leak detection reports.
22. The Council’s repairs and adaptations team replied on 20 December 2023. It said it was not responsible for the first leak and the leak had not arisen as part of the DFG works. It had agreed as a gesture of goodwill to carry out the repairs because Ms B had no home insurance. It rerouted the hot and cold water feed pipes as recommended and neither the bathroom flooring nor the tiles were damaged and so did not require removal. The Council was not responsible for the second leak and it was Ms B’s choice to employ private contractors.
23. Ms B complained to us in May 2024. We initially sent the complaint back to the Council as it had not been through its corporate complaints procedure. The Council responded in August 2024 repeating its view that it was not responsible for either leaks or the damage.
24. In January 2025 Ms B confirmed she wished to resubmit her complaint to us.

Analysis

25. I understand this has been a very stressful experience for Ms B, but it is not my role to decide how the leaks arose or who is responsible for the damage to the property. That is a matter for a court to decide. While that option is open to Ms B I recognise, given her disability, that it would be a very difficult route for her to pursue and so I have exercised discretion to investigate. However, this does not mean I can reach the same decision as a court would. It is my role to consider the way in which the Council has investigated the matter and responded to Ms B.
26. I have not identified fault in the way the Council dealt with the matter. Ms B complained about the leak to the Council almost 18 months after the DFG works were completed, so it is not clear that the leak was a direct result of that work. The first leak detection report identified the leak had arisen on the hot water feed pipes under the floor. The Council had not disturbed these pipes during the DFG works. However given Ms B’s situation and the fact she did not have any home insurance, the Council agreed as a gesture of goodwill to rerun the hot and cold water feed pipes above the ground.
27. The first report did not identify a problem with the incoming cold water mains pipe and it was not included in the drawing illustrating how the pipes should be rerun. So, I have not found fault with the Council’s decision not to rerun that pipe. I also note that the water mains pipes are the responsibility of the homeowner, and this pipe was not touched during the DFG works.
28. The Council replaced the damaged bathroom tiles but did not consider the floor was damaged so did not agree to replace that. The Council was clear from the start that it was not going to replace the hall flooring or decoration. That was a decision for the Council to make taking into account all the information available, including the lack of evidence to say it was responsible for the leak, along with Ms B’s lack of home insurance. I consider it was a proportionate response in the circumstances.
29. Before the Council could finish the work it had agreed to do, Ms B obtained a second leak detection report which identified a second leak from the cold water mains pipe. This report said the pipe had not been rerun as recommended in the first report. I do not agree this was specified in the first report as no leak was identified on this pipe and the drawing only shows the two hot and cold water feed pipes being rerouted. The first report also made clear there was no problem with this pipe at that time. I have not found fault with the Council’s decision not to carry out work on this leak: there is no evidence it was responsible for this leak and mains pipes are the responsibility of the homeowner.

Back to top

Decision

30. I find no fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman