Summary: Ms X complained about the quality of works carried out by Council approved contractors under a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). There was no fault in how the Council carried out the works. The Council was at fault for a delay in responding to Ms X’s complaint about the works. It agreed to apologise for the distress and uncertainty the delay caused. However, when it did respond and investigate Ms X’s concerns it did so without fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the quality of the works carried out by Council approved contractors funded under a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). She said the Council failed to consult her during the planning stage, resulting in adaptations that left her home in disrepair and difficult for her to navigate as a wheelchair user.
2. Ms X explained that both the completed works and the Council’s handling of her subsequent complaints caused her avoidable distress, and negatively affected her health. She wants the Council to make further structural changes to the house to resolve the situation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Ms X 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

Relevant law and guidance

Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG)

8. Disabled Facilities Grants are paid to help towards the cost of adaptations to the home of a disabled person. 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.
9. Where the Council arranges and commissions a contractor to carry out DFG works, the Council remains responsible for the quality of the work carried out.

Complaint handling

10. The Council has a two stage complaints procedure. At stage one, it acknowledges complaints within two working days and provides a response within 15 working days. If dissatisfied with the response, people may ask for a review of the complaint. The stage two review response should be sent within 20 working days.

What happened

11. Ms X lives in a two-storey property. She is registered as disabled and is unable to access or use the upper floor of her home.
12. Following a hospital admission in 2022, the Council recommended remodelling the ground-floor living arrangements to support Ms X’s independence. The Council carried out several site visits to plan the adaptations and agreed to fund the works through a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). An Occupational Therapist (OT) assessed Ms X’s needs and fed into the plans. Recommendations included:
• ground floor bedroom and level access shower utilising internal space where possible;
• provision of a wheelchair accessible level access shower with standard height toilet and wash hand basin;
• all doors to be widened for wheelchair access; and
• ramp access from the kitchen through the garage, wheelchair accessible level thresholds.
13. At an on-site meeting in June 2023, the proposed plans were agreed and signed. A relative of Ms X agreed the floor plans on Ms X’s behalf.
14. A Council contractor began works to adapt Ms X’s property in late 2023 and completed them in early 2024. The Council’s contractor said Building Control signed off the completed works and relevant completion certificates were sent to Ms X.
15. Ms X said she was dissatisfied with the quality of the works and the adaptations did not meet her disability-related needs. In March 2024, she complained to the Council, stating it had failed to properly involve her in planning the adaptations and raising concerns about the quality of the works, specifically:
• exposed boiler pipes in kitchen;
• lack of ventilation or light in bedroom and new bathroom;
• water pooling on roof and leaks into house;
• water pools in garden and is no longer accessible; and
• water pools in front of house at end of wheelchair ramp.
16. In October 2024, the Council arranged a site visit to Ms X’s property. Ms X, her advocate at the time, the Council and an Occupational Therapist (OT) attended the meeting, during which a schedule of remedial works was agreed. The Council agreed for a contractor to:
• investigate the pooling of water in the garden, on the roof and on the front drive;
• box off the exposed boiler pipes; and
• replace a current door leading from kitchen to porch with a wheelchair accessible door.
17. Ms X remained unhappy with the proposed works and requested structural changes. This included the removal of a wall to her new bathroom and installation of a window in the bedroom as additional ventilation. She said the adaptations restricted her movement within the property and made it difficult for visitors to access the home to assist her.
18. The Council told Ms X it could not carry out the additional adaptations she requested but confirmed it was willing to complete the remedial works agreed following the October 2024 site visit.
19. The Council said Ms X refused to give permission for the remedial works to proceed and denied contractors access to her property when they needed to assess and plan the works.
20. In February 2025, Ms X made a further complaint to the Council again highlighting the impact the adaptations had on her health, mobility, and enjoyment of her home.
21. The Council responded and said it was satisfied the adaptations had been completed in line with the approved plans. It said the new bedroom and bathroom complied with Building Control regulations, and that adequate lighting and ventilation had been provided.
22. It further said it had agreed to add drains to the front drive to prevent water pooling. However, it stated it could not detect any pooling on the roof or any water ingress into the house from that area. It also said it required evidence that the water pooling in the garden was caused by the contractor installing a ramp from the house into the garden, rather than being a pre-existing problem.
23. Ms X said she never received the plans for the proposed adaptations and was not involved in the planning stage. She said the adaptations had created an unacceptable living situation and raised concerns about her safety remaining in the property.
24. The Council explained the plans had been signed by Ms X’s relative, who it said was involved in the planning process and had confirmed the plans were shared with Ms X. The Council also said it could not remove the wall in the new bathroom, as this would compromise future wheelchair accessibility, which it considered Ms X was likely to need. Instead, it proposed replacing the bathroom door with a half-glazed door to help address Ms X’s feelings of claustrophobia.
25. Further complaints from Ms X and her advocate described the situation as unacceptable. They requested an urgent and independent inspection of the property, the installation of appropriate windows and ventilation, and temporary accommodation while the works were completed.
26. The Council said it remained committed to completing the originally agreed remedial works and was also exploring the cost of installing a new bedroom window. However, it said Ms X would need to provide medical evidence from her respiratory consultant to support the need for additional ventilation. We have not seen evidence Ms X provided this document.
27. Ms X remained dissatisfied and complained to us in August 2025 about the quality of the works carried out by the Council’s contractors.
28. In response to our enquiries, the Council stated it had carried out a site inspection in July 2024. However, it was unable to provide any meeting notes, reports, or other documents to support this claim. It said the works were planned and discussed with Ms X and her family member. It remained committed to resolving outstanding remedial works provided Ms X granted access to her property for contractors to complete them.
29. Top of Form
30. Bottom of Form

My findings

31. Ms X raised dissatisfaction in March 2024 about the works carried out under the DFG. The Council said it first visited in July 2024 however there is no evidence this visit took place and in any case no action was taken until the visit in October 2024 when it identified various remedial works. The delay in responding to Ms X’s concerns was fault which caused her distress and uncertainty.
32. Following its October 2024 visit the Council found some remedial issues which required resolving. However, there is no evidence the main works were not carried out in line with the original plans. Ms X has not given permission for contractors to fix the outstanding issues, so although they remain outstanding this is not due to Council fault. It is open for Ms X to contact the Council to arrange for the remedial works to take place.
33. Ms X stated she was not aware of the adaptation plans and was not involved in the planning stage. However, a relative acting on her behalf was involved in the planning process and signed off the proposed plans. On balance, we consider Ms X was involved in the planning, as it is reasonable to expect she would have taken an interest in the proposals and sought further information from her relative. The Council was therefore not at fault.

Back to top

Action

34. Within one month of the final decision the Council agreed to take the following action:
1. Apologise to Ms X in recognition of the distress and uncertainty caused by the seven-months delay in carrying out a site visit in response to her complaint. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.
35. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

36. I have found fault and the Council agreed to remedy the injustice caused by the fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman