Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about delay with adaption works completed under a disabled facilities grant. He says this was caused by delayed payments. He also complains about the Council’s decision to partially refund him for the services of a surveyor which he considered unnecessary. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains there has been delay with adaptation works funded under a disabled facilities grant. He says this was due to delayed payments. He also complains about the Council’s decision to partially refund him for the services of a surveyor which he considered unnecessary.

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. 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (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.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X applied on behalf of his mother for a disabled facilities grant for adaptation works to meet his mother’s needs. The Council approved the application in October 2022. Works were completed in August 2023.
7. The Council’s policy was for payment to be made when the works are fully completed. However, the Council agreed to exercise discretion in this case and agreed to a payment schedule with Mr X. The Council confirmed three payment stages were agreed with Mr X for the works to be delivered by Mr X’s chosen contractor.
8. The Council also told Mr X that a RICS qualified surveyor would visit the property at the three key stages of the construction to inspect and value the works. The Council confirmed that if the surveyor considers the works to be unsatisfactory at any for the key stages, the Council would not release payment until the works have been satisfactorily rectified.
9. Mr X’s complaints are late. Works took place between October 2022 and August 2023. The evidence provided by the Council shows Mr X was engaged with the Council during the whole period while works were ongoing. Therefore, it is likely Mr X would have been aware of the matters he now complains about at the time.
10. It was reasonable for Mr X to have made a complaint to us earlier if he was unhappy about the delays in the works, delayed payments, or about the appointment of the RICS qualified surveyor. I cannot see there are any good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint.
11. Mr X’s complaint about the partial refund is in time. This is because the Council only actioned the refund in February 2024, and so the matter complained about happened within the last 12 months.
12. However, an investigation is not justified because we are not likely to find fault. This is because the Council told Mr X why it was necessary to appoint the surveyor to complete the inspection and valuation, and why its own surveyors could not complete this work. The Council made Mr X aware of this requirement in 2022, so Mr X knew why it was necessary to appoint the surveyor.
13. The Council has also explained why it appointed the surveyor without obtaining other quotes from more local RICS qualified surveyors. We are not likely to find fault with the Council’s decision making process here. Nevertheless, the Council has addressed Mr X’s concerns about the cost of the surveyor by obtaining two alternative quotations.
14. As one of the quotes was cheaper than the surveyor that was appointed, the Council agreed to refund Mr X the difference between the best value quote obtained and the amount paid to the surveyors that were appointed. This amounted to just over £1000.
15. I am satisfied it is not appropriate for the Council to provide a full refund as the Council has explained why the work completed by the surveyor was necessary and we are not likely to find fault with its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint. For the complaint matter that is in time, we will not investigate as there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman