Summary: We found the Council at fault for failings in its DFG procedure. These faults resulted in avoidable frustration and uncertainty for Mrs X, as well as the need for further work to meet identified needs. The Council has already taken steps to provide a remedy and improve its services. The Council has accepted our recommendations.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council:
1. Failed to follow its procedures or maintain oversight of works completed using a disabled facilities grant.
2. Failed to communicate effectively about the works or Mrs X’s concerns.
2. Mrs X says the work completed is of poor quality, placing the family at risk and resulting in adaptations that do not meet her child's identified needs. Mrs X also says the Council's actions have caused avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty.

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. 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

What I have and have not investigated

5. Mrs X’s comments on our draft decision included concerns about the Council’s more recent consideration of further works to the bathroom. I have considered those comments insofar as they affect my findings and recommended remedy in this decision. However, I have not investigated the Council’s later decision-making about what further works are now necessary, appropriate, reasonable and practicable. This is because those matters post-date the complaint responses considered in this investigation. This decision does not prevent Mrs X from making a further complaint to the Council if she remains dissatisfied with its later decision about any further works or proposed alternative solution.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on our draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

Relevant legislation, guidance and policy

Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs)

8. Disabled Facilities Grants 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.

The Council’s Disabled Facilities Grants Policy 2023-2025

9. The Council’s published this policy online at the time. This policy said:

“Applicants should be aware that the legal and contractual relationship is between the applicant and contractor and NOT with the council. If there is a dispute between the applicant and the contractor, the council will not be able to get involved unless by some act or default the council has caused the issue which has led to the dispute.”

10. Appendix 4 of the policy also said:
• In the case of larger or more complex adaptations, the Council would engage an agent to act as project manager. This would be to provide technical support, obtain relevant permissions, and to obtain the correct number of tenders in line with the Council’s policy.
• There would be several visits with the agent, a grant officer and an in-house OT to agree the scheme. The agent would then project manage and be the client’s main contact.
11. The policy says in all circumstances, the Council has a duty to inspect the works as they progress and on completion to ensure the works are completed in accordance with the purpose and costs agreed.
12. The policy says clients should raise any issues with the authorised officer dealing with the DFG application. If this does not resolve the concern, the client can make a complaint to the Council.

Back to top

What I found

Key events

13. In July 2023, Mrs X applied for a DFG to carry out adaptations in her home.
14. In May 2024, the Council wrote to Mrs X with an offer of the grant to fund the works. Mrs X signed and returned the offer. The works were significant in scope and cost.
15. In July 2024, works began. Mrs X and her family needed to move out of their home during the works, given the impact the disruption would have on the family, particularly their disabled child.
16. In December 2024, works were completed. Between December 2024 and January 2025, following the family’s return to the home, Mrs X raised several concerns about the quality and effectiveness of the works completed, outstanding work, and issues with the conduct of the architect acting as their agent, project manager and main point of contact.
17. In February 2025, Mrs X complained to the Council:
1. Mrs X said they were in dispute about the final instalment of the DFG grant being paid to the company that carried out the work.
2. Mrs X said they had told all involved parties – the Council, the builder, the architect and the Occupational Therapist – that the bathroom flooded on use. This was due to the drain size and flooring. Mrs X said they had raised concerns about the size of the drain with the architect at the time of design, as had the builder, but these concerns had not been acted upon.
3. Mrs X said she had been told the work to rectify this issue would be significant and could not be completed as part of this project, necessitating a further DFG application.
4. Mrs X said the Council and the architect had taken the lead on the work. Mrs X said there was no meeting before the work started and final work inspections were completed without Mrs X in attendance. Mrs X said communication about the work had been poor throughout. She said the Council had not followed correct procedures by restricting Mrs X’s involvement, and by failing to investigate or accept faults in the works.
5. Mrs X said the family needed to leave the home for 12 weeks to facilitate completion of the work, which the architect and Council had not identified before the work started.
6. Mrs X said the works remained incomplete.
18. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint later that month:
1. The Council said on larger-scale DFG projects, it appointed an agent - an independent architect or surveyor - to work in partnership with the Council. The agent provided professional services, including technical plans, a schedule of works, and obtaining relevant permissions. The Council said the expectation was the architect would communicate with Mrs X on the Council’s behalf. The Council said it had informed the architect of Mrs X’s concerns around poor communication.
2. The Council said the OT confirmed the plans and any changes were discussed and agreed with Mrs X.
3. The Council said site visits would be conducted only when the site was safe, but it understood Mrs X, the architect and the contractors were able to communicate directly. The Council said Mrs X could have contacted the Council with concerns at any time.
4. The Council said officers visited twice towards the end of the project. It said it did not routinely visit ongoing DFG projects, where an architect had been appointed to manage the works. The Council accepted it should have asked Mrs X to attend the final inspection with the architect and contractors. The Council apologised for this.
5. On the adaptations meeting Mrs X’s child’s needs, the Council said its officers, along with officers from the county authority and the architect, had recently visited the property. The Council said the architect was proposing further work to adjust the floor gradient and drain size. The Council said the details of this proposed work needed to be finalised, but any work would be agreed with Mrs X before it started. The Council said it would provide weekly updates to Mrs X until this issue had been addressed.
6. The Council said Mrs X had been afforded a month to identify any concerns with the building work following completion. The Council said it understood that, apart from the flooring, any other issue identified was being resolved.
7. The Council partially upheld Mrs X’s complaint. It apologised for not inviting Mrs X to the final sign-off meeting. It said it was satisfied all other points were satisfactorily addressed.
19. Mrs X asked the Council to escalate her complaint:
1. Mrs X said only draft design plans had been shared with the family. She said these plans were not detailed. She said the plans referred to engineer’s drawings, which the family were also never provided.
2. Mrs X said the family were told by the architect and contractors not to ask questions until the work was completed, preventing them from raising foreseeable issues.
3. Mrs X said there had been no meetings before the works started to agree the final plans. She said the issues in the property were caused by a design error and the architect misunderstanding the disabled person’s needs.
4. Mrs X set out several specific concerns that she said had gone unaddressed, despite raising them with the architect and the Council.
20. The Council arranged for officers to meet with Mrs X in March 2025 to understand Mrs X’s concerns and view the works completed.
21. In April 2025, the Council responded to Mrs X’s escalated complaint:
1. The Council said it understood Mrs X had the opportunity to comment on proposed works at the draft plan stage. The Council said it could see from Mrs X’s file that final tender plans and a schedule of work were prepared, but it could not find confirmation these plans were shared with Mrs X. The Council apologised for this. It said it was reviewing its processes to ensure this did not happen again.
2. Mrs X said anytime she raised a question or concern with the contractors and architects, she was made to feel like a nuisance. The Council apologised for this and said this was not the behaviour expected by surveyors used for DFGs. The Council said it would now require all communications to keep Mrs X updated only, and any concerns should be discussed with the Council directly.
3. The Council apologised there was no meeting ahead of the works. The Council said this should have happened, with a meeting to outline the works and timescales taking place including Mrs X, the architect and the contractors. It said from this point it would require surveyors to ensure these meetings took place.
4. The Council said it could see some works had been included in the tender documents, but not completed. The Council said it accepted this would not have been an issue if the plans had been shared with Mrs X at the tender stage.
5. The Council said it accepted there was an issue with the drainage to the bathroom and a new DFG had been awarded to address this. The Council said officers had attended with a new surveyor, who had taken information down to plan works to fix the problem. The Council said any subsequent work would need to meet the DFG criteria.
6. The Council said the client should be present at the final sign-off, as they needed to confirm they were happy with the works. It was also important that snagging issues were identified and addressed before the works were signed off and payment issued.
7. Mrs X said she asked the Council if it was normal not to be included in the final inspection, to which the Council had said it was, with the builder handing over to the Council and architect for final sign off. The Council said it was normal for snagging to be identified and remedied before final sign off. They said if a client wanted to be present during snagging, they would need to request this. The Council said a final sign-off meeting should be arranged with the client after this.
8. Mrs X said not being involved in the final sign-off had led to problems that could have been avoided if she had been invited. The Council apologised for issues with the quality of works.
9. The Council partially upheld Mrs X’s complaint. It said the service Mrs X received fell short of expectations. The Council said it would learn from some of the issues raised and would review its procedures to ensure things were right the first time. It also said it would no longer use the architect for DFG work in the future. It apologised for the stress caused to Mrs X and the family.
22. I have seen evidence Mrs X signed off the works in May 2025, on the basis further work would be undertaken later.
23. After our draft decision, Mrs X provided further evidence about the Council’s later consideration of further works. This included an Occupational Therapy recommendation dated March 2025 which said additional drainage was necessary and appropriate to drain water splashed over the side of the bath. Mrs X also said the Council had more recently moved away from proposed drainage works and was considering a bath water restriction device instead.

Analysis

Did the Council act with fault?

24. Broadly, Mrs X’s concerns were about:
• the design of the work and whether the proposed works were fit for the identified needs the DFG was intended to address; and
• the quality and conduct of the work carried out in accordance with the original design.
25. This is a nuanced but important distinction, with implications for the responsibilities of each party.
26. On the quality of the work, Mrs X’s complaint highlighted concerns about damaged and falling panels, lost keys, missing carbon monoxide detectors, and other defects requiring attention. Any damage to Mrs X’s property, personal injury, material loss or costs arising from the quality of the works would be a contractual dispute, in line with the contract signed between Mrs X and the contractors. The appropriate mechanism to seek a remedy would be through the courts or insurers. The Council’s policy makes clear its role in these matters is limited.
27. Responsibilities are less clearly defined when considering the actions of the appointed agent, in this case the architect. The agent seems to occupy a dual role, working on behalf of Mrs X and her family, while also fulfilling some responsibilities the Council would otherwise undertake.
28. When asked to clearly define the contractual roles and responsibilities of each party, the Council told me:
• The contract for the works was between the contractor and client, in this case Mrs X, and not with the Council.
• Any surveyor nominated by the client to act as agent (in this case the architect) should sign their own contract with the client. There should also be contracts signed between the agent, client and contractor.
• The Council said in its role as grant administrator, it was not party to any contractual arrangements between parties. It said it had no influence or liability. It said it could not enforce contract terms and any disputes would be a civil matter. The Council said it would not be aware of communication issues between the agent and the client, unless it was directly told.
29. I do not dispute concerns around the quality of work would be a contractual matter between Mrs X and the contractor. However, Mrs X’s complaint was also about the architect’s actions as project manager; specifically, the initial designs resulting in an adaptation not fit for the purposes of the DFG. This is a distinct concern from the quality of work undertaken. Mrs X also complained about the conduct of the agent and procedural failures, such as failing to share final plans, failing to hold a meeting before the work started, failures in communication and failure to address concerns about the work, leading to more issues later.
30. The role of the architect is nuanced: I understand the architect would complete designs, obtain the relevant permissions and liaise with contractors on Mrs X’s behalf. However, the Council’s policy, and its complaint responses, state:
• The Council appoints the agent when the project is significant, to act as project manager. In this capacity, the agent plays a designated role in the DFG procedure, with the policy stating the agent carries out an initial visit in conjunction with the Council to define and agree the scope of the work.
• The Council expects the agent to act as the point of communication on its behalf.
• Clients should raise concerns about the works with their designated point of contact. In smaller projects, this is likely to be a named officer, but the Council’s policy makes clear in larger builds, this should be the agent.
31. The Council also told me it relied on the agent to complete some inspections pursuant to its duty to maintain oversight of the works, as per paragraph 10.
32. The evidence therefore shows the Council delegating some of its responsibilities around planning, communication and monitoring to the architect. Therefore, in these matters, the architect is acting on the Council’s behalf, as the Council’s policy, and its own complaint correspondence, infers.
33. In these matters, the Council accepted:
• There was no evidence Mrs X received a copy of the final plans.
• There was no meeting held ahead of the works commencing, as set out in the policy, to fully explain the scope of the work.
• Work items agreed in the plans were missing from finished works.
• Communication with Mrs X was poor, leading to issues going unresolved sooner.
• Design issues led to a need for further work, to be completed through an additional DFG, as the work completed does not currently meet the identified needs.
34. While the Council is not directly responsible for any flaws in the design, as grant administrator it is responsible for oversight of the project to ensure the works completed met the needs identified. That there is a need for more work under a further DFG suggests this is not the case.
35. Given the Council maintains overall responsibility for these parts of the process, we found the Council at fault for these reasons.

Did the Council’s faults cause an injustice?

36. These faults caused avoidable frustration and uncertainty for Mrs X and her family. The work completed also did not fully meet the needs identified. In its final complaint response, the Council accepted that some issues could have been avoided had plans been shared with Mrs X earlier and communication had been improved. The issues affecting Mrs X could also affect others in future, if not addressed.
37. I note the Council has taken some steps in response to Mrs X’s complaint. The Council said it would review its procedures and would no longer use the architect for DFG work. At the time of the Council’s complaint responses, it had also accepted there was an issue with the drainage and had indicated further work would be considered through a further DFG application.
38. Mrs X’s comments on our draft decision suggest the Council’s position on the nature of any further works may since have changed. I have not investigated that later decision-making in this complaint. However, I have not relied on further works as a completed or settled remedy when considering the injustice caused by the faults identified in this decision.
39. I also note the Council has updated its DFG policy. These are positive steps, reflecting some recommendations the Ombudsman may otherwise have made.

Back to top

Action

40. Within four weeks of the final decision being issued, the Council will:
1. Provide a written apology to Mrs X for the injustice identified in this statement. The Council should have regard to the Ombudsman’s guidance on “Making an effective apology", set out in our published Guidance on Remedies.
2. Pay Mrs X a symbolic financial remedy of £250 to recognise the avoidable uncertainty and frustration experienced.
41. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

42. We have completed our investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice. The Council accepted our recommendations.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman