Summary: Miss X complained about access works and a wet room installed under a disabled facilities grant. We have ended our investigation as it is unlikely we would find fault with the works to the access and further investigation is unlikely to lead to a worthwhile outcome. Flooding has led to the replacement of the wet room by Miss X’s insurers and any claim for damages is best resolved through the insurers or court.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained works carried out under a disabled facilities grant did not meet her needs and were inadequate. In particular, she complained:

1. Access works were not fully completed leaving an uneven path down the side of her property
2. The wet room was ill designed and not properly accessible due to position of sink and the wide door width, particularly if at a later date she needed a wheelchair
3. The work to the wet room was of a poor quality leading to a flood which caused significant damage and meant Miss X had to be relocated and caused her significant distress.
1. Miss X would like compensation for the impact of this and for the Council to remove the land charge it placed on her property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 or continue an investigation if we decide:
• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. I gave Miss X and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The relevant law and guidance

7. Disabled facilities grants (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.
8. The Act sets out a number of purposes for which a grant must be approved. These include:
• Facilitating access to the home and garden. Ther is a need to remove any obstacles which are preventing the disabled person from moving freely in and out of the property.
• Access to a toilet/bath or shower/wash hand basin.
9. The Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996: Disabled Facilities Grant General Consent 2008 (General Consent), says that where the DFG exceeds £5,000 the council may impose conditions which allow it to demand repayment or part repayment of the grant if the property is sold or disposed of within 10 years of the work being carried out. This is secured by way of a local land charge against the property. The law says councils may only demand repayment of part of the DFG that exceeds £5,000 but may not demand an amount in excess of £10,000.

Property access

What happened

10. Miss X lives in a maisonette which she owns. She is the leaseholder and the Council owns the freehold for the property.
11. In July 2022 Miss X received approval for a disabled facilities grant to install improved front and rear access to her property. In Spring 2023 Miss X signed a contract with Contractor 1 to adapt the front and rear access. She also signed an agreement for the Council to register a local land charge on her property. The works were completed in June 2023. In October 2023 the Council carried out a final inspection.
12. The plans showed a new path being installed at the front of the property and connecting to the existing path at the side, and a new paved area at the rear.
13. Miss X complained to the Council in November 2023. She was happy with the works but said the slabs at the side of the property, outside her upstairs neighbour’s access to the property, were left and were unsafe and uneven. It responded in December 2023. It said it had met her need to have access to her home via the front steps and access to the rear garden via the rear steps and flagging.
14. Miss X remained unhappy and complained to us.

Analysis

15. I do not intend to investigate this issue as it is unlikely I would find the Council at fault. The plans were for access in and out of the property which is what the contractor provided. This is in line with what must be provided under a DFG. The plans do not show that the path to the side would be replaced so it is unlikely I would find the Council at fault. It may be that Miss X did not understand what exactly was to be installed but given the works were completed in line with the plans and Miss X was happy with the standard of the actual works completed, I will not investigate this further.

Wet room

What happened

16. The following is a summary of key events relevant to the complaint.
17. In June 2022 Miss X applied for a DFG to install a wet room. Miss X signed a contract between her and Contractor 2 for the works. The contract named the Council as the ‘administrator’. The contract set out the administrator’s role was to issue instructions, ensure necessary permissions were obtained and approve all payments.
18. The contract required Contractor 2 to prepare a programme of works to be agreed and approved by the administrator and by Miss X, and to complete the works in strict accordance with the works documents and to the reasonable satisfaction of the administrator. It also required Contractor 2 to make good any defects and to have suitable insurance in place. Miss X also signed an agreement for the Council to register a local land charge on her property.
19. In early November 2023 Miss X raised concerns with the Council including the position of the sink, loose taps, the size of the doorway and its impact and mould and damp in the bathroom and outside on walls adjoining the bathroom.
20. A Council officer visited Miss X and then wrote to her in November 2023. They said the Technical Officer visited on several occasions and where they were not happy with the finishes, they contacted the contractor and remedied these under snagging works before signing the job off as complete. They said there was evidence of damp and mould before the works were completed which was being looked at by the Council’s leasehold team. They said the sink was fitted properly but could be changed at Miss X’s expense if she did not like it. They said the sink gurgled when they visited but said they could find no issue with it draining during their visit. They noted a sliding door was originally proposed but was varied on site to a wider door. They proposed asking the contractor if a sliding door could now be installed.
21. Miss X submitted a formal complaint to the Council. She said there was damp and mould outside and in walls in the bathroom and on walls adjoining it. She said the widened door took up too much room, the sink was too near the door, and she was unhappy with its shape and the sink taps kept coming loose.
22. In mid December 2023 Miss X’s home was flooded. The Council arranged an emergency plumber who attended the following morning. They identified the cause of the leak as a pipe behind the false wall installed in the bathroom. They accessed the pipe by making a hole in Miss X’s kitchen wall and replaced the faulty pipework.
23. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint. It noted a plumber had visited and it provided Miss X with details of Contractor 2’s insurers. It said Contractor 2 must be given the opportunity to visit and rectify the issues. It noted the works it had already agreed to regarding replacing the door, tightening taps and replacing the sink.
24. In February 2024 Miss X complained again. She set out her concerns about the accessibility of the wet room. She said when the wet room was near to finishing she felt something was not right. She referred to damp patches on the plastered/painted walls. She said an officer visited and Contractor 2 had also visited and stated it was either a leak from the flat above or rising damp. Miss X said she got an emergency repairs service to visit but they found no evidence of a leak. Miss X said the damp spread and in mid December 2023 she came home from an appointment to find a flood throughout her home. She said the plumber who visited and stopped the leak said it had been happening for an extended period of time.
25. She said a Council officer and representative from Contractor 2 visited a week later and said she had to let the contractor repair the damage. Miss X said Contractor 2 attended in early January 2024. Miss X said the repair work was shoddy and under standard and it carried out limited repairs. Miss X said she had contacted her own insurers who said the plaster and floors needed removing and the bathroom and kitchen replaced. Miss X requested compensation for the inconvenience, stress and upset caused. Miss X also wanted the land charge to be waived as she no longer wanted to live there. Miss X’s insurer relocated her to another property whilst remedial works were carried out. Miss X is currently still living there.
26. The Council responded at stage 2 of its complaints procedure in March 2024. It said that it could not now replace the door/change the sink as previously agreed due to the works being undertaken by the insurers. It said:
• it did not intend to waive the legal charge on the property but her circumstances would be reviewed, in line with the housing assistance policy at such a time that the land charge would become payable.
• should Miss X wish to relocate it would support her in line with its published housing assistance policy.
• compensation should be sought from her insurers regarding the negligent work of Contractor 2 in respect of the leak. The Council said it could not take responsibility for the contractor’s omissions.
27. Miss X remained unhappy and complained to us.

Analysis

28. Miss X raised concerns about the layout of the wet room, in particular the position of the sink and size of the door. We normally expect complainants to come to us within 12 months of being aware they had cause for complaint. The wet room was completed in September 2022. That was over 12 months before she complained to us and there were no good reasons why she did not come to us sooner. In addition, the wet room is being replaced following the flood so there is nothing I could achieve by investigating this issue further.
29. Miss X has been caused a significant injustice by a flood to her property. However, it is unlikely I could conclude, even on balance, that the Council was at fault. Although the Council was acting as administrator of the DFG, it was not expected to be on site every day or to inspect all aspects of the contractor’s work. The responsibility for the quality of the works lies with the contractor.
30. Even if I were to investigate further it is unlikely I would find, even on balance, that the Council should have identified the defective pipework before it was concealed. Once the work was completed, Miss X raised concerns about damp but the cause was not obvious until the flood. The Council, contractor and a private emergency repairs service employed by Miss X were all unable to identify the cause of the damp before the flooding event occurred.
31. Miss X’s insurers are rectifying the damage to her property and are liaising with Contractor 2’s insurers. If Miss X believes the Council has some liability she can approach its insurers. If Miss X is not satisfied with the outcome, it is open to her to take legal action. Miss X is seeking damages for the significant impact the damp and flooding has had on her. We cannot award compensation in a way a court might. Only a court can decide if there was a breach of contract and make decisions about liability. We have no powers to award or enforce the payment of damages. It would be for a court to decide liability and if damages should be awarded.
32. Miss X no longer wants to live in her flat. She wants the Council to remove the land charge from the property so she does not have to make the payment should she sell her property. This is not something I can achieve and the injustice is speculative. If Miss X sells the property the Council has already agreed in its stage 2 complaint response of March 2024 to consider her circumstances in line with its Housing Assistance Policy at the point the land charge becomes payable. This is appropriate.

Back to top

Decision

33. I have ended my investigation as there is no worthwhile outcome we can achieve and a court is best placed to make any decision around liability and damages.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman