Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the quality of works funded by a disabled facilities grant. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise our discretion and investigate.

The complaint

1. Mrs X has complained about the standard of an extension built in 2013 for her relative, Mr Y, funded by the Council’s disabled facilities grant. Mrs X says the extension had uneven flooring and the Council should have demolished and rebuilt it instead of trying to repair it. Mrs X says the poor quality of the work put Mr Y at risk and caused Mrs X to suffer stress, upheaval and expense.

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 effect 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 the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by Mrs X.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council awarded a disabled facilities grant in 2013 to build a new extension for Mr Y. Problems with uneven flooring meant more work was carried out in 2015 and 2016. Mrs X says that a builder doing these later works advised the Council to instead demolish and rebuild the extension. Mrs X says the flooring remained a problem after the works and she had to pay for a ventilation system because of dampness.
7. Mrs X says that in 2023 another builder told her the floor could be levelled more. She complained to the Council in 2024 asking for the Council to put right the uneven floor and pay for the ventilation system. Mrs X complained to us in March 2025.
8. I consider that Mrs X knew about the problems with the uneven flooring from 2016 after the repair works. From then onwards, she knew the flooring was uneven and she was paying for a ventilation system. Mrs X’s complaint to the Council in 2024 related to the flooring issue that she had known about since 2016; it was not a new matter.
9. Mrs X became aware of the reported flooring problems more than 12 months before complaining to us. I see no good reason why Mrs X did not bring a complaint to us within 12 months of becoming aware of the problems in 2016. Therefore, we will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint.
10. In any event, while the Council provided disabled facilities grant funding for the extension, the original works contract would likely have been between Mrs X and the appointed contractor. Any complaint about the quality of the work would have been for Mrs X to take up with the contractor. We could not hold the Council directly responsible for any consequences of poor quality work.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

11. We will not investigate this complaint because it is late without good reason for us to investigate it now. There are no reasons to exercise our discretion and investigate it now.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman