Summary: Mr X complains that the Council has not complied with the Ombudsman’s previous recommendation for an independent survey. There is no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. I refer to the complainant as Mr X. He complains that the Council has not complied with the recommendation made in the Ombudsman’s final decision on his previous complaint for a completely independent survey of the works carried out to his bathroom. Mr X also considers the surveyor is not qualified to undertake the survey as he does not have sufficient knowledge of building regulations. Mr X considers that the Council’s actions have caused more distress to him and delayed the resolution of his complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have:

• Considered the complaint and discussed the issues with Mr X;
• Made enquiries of the Council and considered the information provided;
• Invited Mr X and the Council to comment on the draft decision. I considered the comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. The following is a summary of the key facts relevant to my consideration of the complaint. It does not include everything that happened.

Background

6. Mr X made a complaint to the Ombudsman about the Council’s role in works to his bathroom carried out under a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). We found the Council to be at fault which caused injustice to Mr X. We made recommendations to remedy the injustice to Mr X which the Council agreed. The agreed actions included that the Council would commission a completely independent survey of works done to Mr X’s bathroom and either arrange for any works identified as not being completed satisfactorily to be completed or pay an appropriate sum to Mr X for him to arrange the works himself. This investigation only considers the action taken by the Council to satisfy the recommendation.

What happened

7. The Council contacted another council to ask if it could carry out a survey of the works to Mr X’s bathroom. The council declined. The Council then contacted another surveyor, Mr Y, who agreed to carry out the survey. The Council agreed a date for the survey with Mr X and Mr Y.
8. Mr X has said Mr Y called him in advance of the survey and told him he had dealt with the Council for years. Mr X decided not to proceed with the survey. Mr X declined the survey as he considered Mr Y was not completely independent of the Council as he has worked with the Council. Mr X also considered Mr Y was not qualified to undertake the survey as he was not familiar with building regulations.
9. In response to my enquiries the Council has said:

• Mr Y previously worked for a contractor which it used to undertake adaptations. Officers would liaise with Mr Y on a professional basis regarding adaptation projects.
• Mr Y left the contractors a few years ago and has not had any communication with officers or undertaken any work with the Council since that time.
• Mr Y was responsible for managing adaptions projects for various councils, including site visits and signing off completed projects. It considers Mr Y ran projects to a high standard and only signed off works which were completed to the required standard.
• It was confident Mr Y could have carried out an impartial survey. It considers he has many years of experience in the field of adaptations and has not had any association with the Council for some time.
• The works undertaken at Mr X’s property were not subject to building control.

Analysis

10. I am mindful that Mr Y’s previous contact with the Council could give rise to a perception that he is not independent. But Mr Y has never been directly employed by the Council and he has not worked with the Council for some years. Mr Y was not involved in the works to Mr X’s bathroom. I am therefore satisfied that Mr Y is completely independent of the Council.
11. The Council has explained why it considers Mr Y to be qualified to undertake the survey. The Council has provided adequate reasons for why it considers Mr Y to be suitably qualified. So, I do not consider there is evidence of fault in how it reached its decision that Mr Y was suitably qualified.
12. I am therefore satisfied there is no evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to appoint Mr Y to undertake the independent survey.
13. The Council has taken sufficient action to comply with our recommendation. But, as a way forward and to achieve a resolution, the Council should offer a further independent survey to Mr X. This can be carried out by Mr Y.

Back to top

Agreed action

14. That within one month of my final decision, the Council will offer a further independent survey to Mr X. If Mr X accepts the offer, the Council will ensure the survey is carried out within one month of the date of Mr X’s acceptance. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

There is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman