Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a leak from the bathroom funded by a Disabled Facilities Grant. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained that a bathroom, installed by a Council contractor and funded by a Disabled Facilities Grant, was now leaking into her kitchen. She said the Council told her it would not take any action because the bathroom can still be used. Ms X said she is worried the kitchen ceiling will collapse and about the cost of repairs, and that this had caused considerable stress at what was already a difficult time.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. A contractor installed a wet room in Ms X’s property, funded by a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) in 2020. Ms X reported some snagging issues, which were addressed. The Council said there was no further contact from Ms X between June 2020 and February 2024 when she reported the leak.
6. The Council agreed, as a goodwill gesture, to arrange for a surveyor to inspect. The surveyor suggested a fault had developed in the pipework, which the Council said a plumber could address at Ms X’s expense.
7. In its complaint response, the Council said:
• the contact for the work was between Ms X and the contractor, not the Council;
• it would carry out rectification work for issues raised within six months of the completion of the works and it had addressed some initial snagging issues;
• it could not accept a complaint now about the standard of work completed four years ago; and
• it was reasonable for the home owner to cover the costs of ongoing repair and maintenance.
8. Given the lapse of time since the bathroom installation was completed, it is unlikely the Council would be able to establish the current leak was caused by any faulty workmanship when completing the works. Even if that were the case, the responsibility for that would remain with the contractor who carried out the work because the contract was between Ms X and the contractor, not the Council. In these circumstances, it was not fault for the Council to say Ms X needed to employ a plumber to address the issue at her own expense.
9. We will not consider this complaint further because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman