Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaints that the Council mismanaged the Disabled Facilities Grant process leading to delays in work being completed. There is not enough evidence of fault or injustice to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council mismanaged the Disabled Facilities Grant process. Specifically, he complains:
• the work took longer than the Council said it would;
• furniture and floors were damaged and the accumulated rubbish caused by the contractors attracted vermin; and
• there was no risk assessment carried out which meant the Council failed to uphold its legal duties and mitigate against potential risks to Mr X and his family.
2. Mr X says that as a result, his children could not access the garden all summer leading to them playing indoors and breaking furniture. He said the family’s health was put at risk and they experienced unnecessary distress.
3. He wants the Council to admit full accountability, apologise, carry out a review of what went wrong, pay him compensation, rectify any issues with the work and carry out service improvements.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council approved funds for Mr X’s Disabled Facilities Grant application in 2024.
8. It identified a possible contractor and surveyor which Mr X accepted.
9. Following completion of the work, Mr X complained to the Council. The key complaints are outlined in paragraph 1 of this decision statement.
10. The Council responded. It said Mr X had not asked the Council to manage or provide oversight of the works. Therefore, once Mr X had agreed the surveyor and contractor any future or contractual responsibility for the work lay between those two parties. Furthermore, Mr X had not raised any issues with the Council whilst the work was underway and so it could not have intervened, even if it had agreed to do so. Therefore, any complaints about broken furniture, rubbish, vermin, lack of risk assessments and delays in completing the work were, or had been, for Mr X to resolve himself with the contractor.
11. The Council admitted there had been some delays in processing the staged payments which amounted to 16 working days for the first two invoices and 10 working days for the third one. It apologised for this, explained why it had happened and outlined what it had done to prevent a recurrence.
12. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council was not responsible for the works; it was for Mr X to raise problems with the contractor or his surveyor at the time if he was unhappy. Therefore, there is no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant an investigation.
13. The Council has admitted there were delays in making the interim payments. However, any injustice to Mr X was not significant to justify an investigation. And in any case, the Council has taken appropriate action to remedy what happened. Therefore, further investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve anything more.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault or significant injustice to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman