Summary: We have upheld Ms X’s complaint about poor communications by the Council in relation to works carried out under a disabled facilities grant. The Council has agreed to take appropriate action to remedy the uncertainty caused and to address Ms X’s outstanding concerns about the quality of the work done.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of works funded by a disabled facilities grant and about the quality of the work done. Ms X says she has been left with a kitchen that does not function.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), 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 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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. I discussed the complaint with Ms X and Council officers.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

6. The Council agreed to carry out works to Ms X’s kitchen and conservatory to provide space to meet the needs of her disabled son, Y. These were to be funded by a disabled facilities grant (DFG). There were discussions in May, June and July 2024 about Y’s needs and what works were needed to meet them. This included meetings with a contractor to scope the work, following which initial plans were sent to Ms X. In August a change was made to the conservatory roof, which Ms X objected to, and the Council agreed to provide a pitched roof, as originally discussed.
7. In September, the Council sent a proposed schedule of works, which included the partial removal of a wall between the kitchen and the conservatory. This was intended to provide a barrier between Y’s space and the kitchen, whilst allowing Ms X to have oversight of Y’s activities from the kitchen. Ms X asked the Council if the full wall could be removed “not a partial removal”. The Council replied that a full removal could not be done under the DFG. It said that, if she wanted that done, it would be a private matter between her and the contractor.
8. The Council obtained two quotes and offered the contract to the contractor that had completing the scoping work. It sent the final schedule of works to Ms X in October 2024. This set out the work that was and was not included in the DFG. The work included the partial removal of a kitchen wall at worktop level, with worktop and kitchen units below to remain.
9. Before work could start, the Council needed to obtain planning permission. Once this was obtained, Ms X was keen to get the work started so it could be finished before Christmas. The work began in November 2024. In its complaint response, the Council accepted that, due to the urgency to start work, it had not had a pre-start meeting. It told us it would have clarified relevant issues, such as practical matters in relation to the works and what was and was not covered by the DFG in the pre-start meeting, if one had been arranged. The Council also told us that the plan was for Ms X and her son to move out whilst works were ongoing, but it did not discover this was not going to happen until after the work started. It would have been able to discuss the implications of that decision with Ms X if a meeting had been held.
10. The contractor removed the entire wall. It’s report to the Council in December 2024 stated this was because Ms X wanted the opening to be as wide as possible. In its complaint response, the Council said various changes had been negotiated between Ms X and the contractor. Its position is that those changes were a private matter between Ms X and the contractor and not within the scope of the DFG. Ms X told me she had not asked for the change and said the structural engineer said the full wall would need to be removed. The Council confirmed the structural engineer had not asked for the change and their drawings do not indicate the full removal was needed. The Council told us it was not aware of the change until after it was implemented.
11. In addition, during the works, the contractor identified the original base units in the kitchen were in a poor state of repair and could not be reused. This was not included in the schedule of works because the intention had been those units would remain as only a partial wall was being removed. The contractor also identified dry rot in the kitchen floor boards, which they replaced with MDF. Neither the kitchen floor, nor the flooring finish, were included in the DFG, but I understand the Council funded the replacement floor.
12. Although a number of site visits were undertaken whilst the works were being done, the Council is not able to retrieve the records for these due to a software change implemented in April 2025. However, it accepts there was no meeting to discuss the impact of the change, which affected the kitchen layout and the number of units that could be installed, until a week before Christmas when it discussed the need for an island unit to provide a barrier between the kitchen and conservatory. The Council agreed to fund the island unit and its installation under the DFG. The Council accepts it did not issue a revised plan or schedule of works.
13. The works were completed just before Christmas. The contractor sent a report to the Council on 17 December, which set out various changes that had been made to the works and listed additional work it had carried out at its own expense.
14. In February 2025, Ms X made a formal complaint, including that:
• she was left without a cooker, dish-washer or washing machine due to damage by the contractors;
• an over-full skip and debris were left outside between mid-December and early January, which meant rubbish was blowing around and Ms X had complaints from neighbours;
• her sofa had been left outside by the contractor and was ruined;
• she was left without water downstairs and without heating for several weeks in the winter;
• some works were incomplete or not completed to a reasonable standard.
15. In complaints responses, the Council said:
• the works should not have affected the appliances; it had arranged for a plumber to inspect, but Ms X had not given access;
• the contractor finished work just before Christmas and it was not possible for the skip to be emptied until early January;
• the contractor said Ms X had agreed the sofa should be moved outside;
• there was no running water in the kitchen during the works, but the rest of the house was not affected;
• some of the changes agreed between Ms X and the contractor, had caused disruption to areas that would not otherwise have been affected by the works. Repairs in those areas remained Ms X’s responsibility;
• it had advised Ms X to move out of the property whilst works were done and that it would have been prudent for her to remove items from what was essentially a building site, to prevent damage; and
• agreed the contractor would look at a list of outstanding items.
16. The Council told us additional electrical tasks were completed by the contractor and an appointment arranged for carpet cleaning, which Ms X cancelled. It said the contractor told it Ms X would arrange for a plumber to inspect the cooker. Additional electrical and plumbing work needed were not part of the DFG and therefore it understood all outstanding work had been done.
17. Ms X raised further concerns in June, and a site visit was arranged with a Council officer and the contractor attending in early July. Following the visit, a fresh list of outstanding items was prepared for the contractor to consider. The contractor arranged a specific time to visit in early August with three workmen to complete whatever work was needed in one visit. After 25 minutes, Ms X’s advocate arrived and refused access. Ms X said access was refused due to threatening behaviour by the workmen, which led to her calling the police. The Council told us it understood Ms X would not agree to further visits until our investigation was complete, so there was nothing more it could do to address the issues until then.
18. Ms X told us she remained unhappy with the standard of work and that various aspects were incomplete. She said the repairs to the floor were inadequate and water is coming up from underneath it. She also raised various concerns about the behaviour of contractors when on site. She said she wanted an independent contractor to inspect and determine what remedial works were needed.
19. The Council said the removal of the entire wall to make the opening as wide as possible led to a number of other changes having to be made, which were not part of the original DFG. It told us the contractor had done additional work that was not part of the DFG at its own expense. The Council had also funded additional work that was not part of the original schedule of works.

My assessment

20. The Council agreed the DFG works, arranged for tenders and appointed the contractor. It retained a role to oversee the works and ensure the purposes of the DFG were fulfilled. In such circumstances, we can investigate complaints about the contractor and will usually hold the Council responsible for the contractor’s acts or omissions. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(1)(A), and 25 (7) as amended)
21. There are a number of complaints where Ms X’s account differs from that of the contractor or the Council. For example, whether Ms X agreed to the sofa being placed outside and whether she agreed to the removal of the entire kitchen wall. Further investigation would not resolve those conflicts, because it is one person’s word against another’s and there is no other evidence that would mean we could reach a conclusion, even on balance, about what happened. Further investigation is unlikely, therefore, to lead to a different outcome.
22. It was always envisaged that Ms X would be without water in the kitchen during the works and that there would be a level of upheaval, both inside and outside the property. The works should not have affected the heating, nor resulted in damage to appliances. Whether that upheaval was greater due to contractor behaviour is not something that further investigation would establish. A Council officer made regular visits to the property whilst works were ongoing and did not identify any concerns at the time. It is open to Ms X to pursue a claim against the contractor for any financial loss that she considers results from poor workmanship, including damage to appliances.
23. We will also not consider further the complaint about the skip (and a toilet) being left outside the property over the Christmas period. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify doing so.
24. The purpose of the DFG was to provide a separate space for Ms X’s son, to meet his disability needs. The Council’s view is that the works done have achieved that purpose. It was not within the scope of the DFG to replace Ms X’s kitchen or floor.
25. Given the conflict of evidence, I cannot say, even on balance, who made the decision to remove the entire wall or why that decision was made. It is unlikely further investigation will establish this, since I have spoken to both Ms X and the Council and reviewed relevant records, including the report made by the contractor at the time. Since I cannot establish the change was due to Council fault, I cannot hold it responsible for the consequences that flowed from it.
26. If we investigated further, it is likely we would find fault with the Council because it failed to:
• arrange a pre-start meeting to clarify what was and was not included in the schedule of works, discuss the practicalities and generally manage Ms X’s expectations about the work;
• arrange a meeting to discuss the impact of changes to the works, particularly in relation to the removal of the entire kitchen wall, which was a major change and had significant implications. This meant it missed the chance to explain what resulting work would and would not be covered by the DFG (and the items Ms X would have to fund herself); and
• issue a revised schedule of works or plan for the kitchen, which would have clarified the implications of the change.
27. I cannot say whether Ms X would have made different choices if the Council had arranged those meetings and/or issued revised documents. However, Ms X is left with some uncertainty about whether the outcome would have been different, but for these failings, which is an injustice to her.
28. We therefore asked the Council to take steps to remedy the injustice caused. In considering what steps are appropriate, I have taken account of the fact that both the contractor and the Council have contributed towards the cost of the additional work needed due to the removal of the entire wall.
29. The Council has agreed to take the following action within one month of the date of this decision:
• apologise to Ms X in line with our guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice;
• arrange for a Council officer to visit with the contractor to address the items listed following the joint visit on 2 July 2025. It should report to us within one month on what works are needed with a plan to complete any outstanding works that relate to the DFG, and those works should be completed within two months of the date of this decision. For the avoidance of doubt, we will not hold the Council responsible for matters that were not part of the DFG;
• a Council officer will attend for all visits by the contractor, and the time of those visits will be agreed in advance with Ms X. If Ms X does not allow access on the basis set out above, we will not ask the Council to take any further steps to resolve the matter.
30. I am satisfied the above actions are appropriate to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Final decision

31. We have upheld Ms X’s complaint about poor communication in relation to works under a disabled facilities grant. The Council has agreed to take appropriate action to remedy the uncertainty caused and address Ms X’s outstanding concerns about the quality of the work.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman