Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about works related to a disabled facilities grant and the handling of the complaint. Part of the complaint is late. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council on the remaining aspects which may be better addressed in court. And we will not investigate the complaint handling alone when we are not investigating the substantive complaint.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council recommended a contractor to carry out works to her father’s (Mr Y) home which she later found to be of poor quality. She seeks to hold the Council responsible for the damage suffered from 2022 to date. And she is unhappy with its complaint handling.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6))
3. 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)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. In 2022 the Council provided a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) for works to install a wet room needed at Mr Y's home.
8. We upheld Mrs X’s previous complaint (22005023) about the delays in completing the adapations. This investigation also found the Council had been clear with Mrs X and Mr Y that the Council did not contract directly with the contractor they had chosen. We noted at the time that ‘the Council cannot be held at fault for the contractor’s errors’. We also found the Council had ‘intervened’ to ensure the adaptations were completed satisfactorily.
9. Mrs X now complains that ensuing issues over the years to the bathroom have revealed faults with the original fittings and fixtures. She says her landlord has borne the cost of these remedial works which she finds unfair. She says the Council, through the Home Improvement Agency responsible for supporting DFG applicants - Bolton at Home - has a duty of care to take resposibility as the contractor was recommended by the Council.
10. With DFGs, councils are usually only responsible for offering the grant and confirming the works have taken place. Councils are not responsible for precisely how the works are done or the quality of works. Those are the responsibility of the contractor doing the works and of the householder.
11. We will not investigate. Part of the complaint relates to what happened in 2022 which is caught by the time bar in our jurisdiction and there are no good reasons for investigating. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council on the remaining aspects. And we will not investigate the Council’s complaint handling as it is not a good use of public resources when we are not investigating the main complaint.
12. The courts could consider the claimed damage to Mr Y’s property. So, the restriction in paragraph 4 applies to the damages claim. While there may be cost implications to court action, that does not automatically make it unreasonable to expect someone to take court action. The questions about whether negligence occurred and, if so, what damage it caused and how to put matters right are not straightforward legally, especially as the Council itself did not carry out the works. In the circumstances, this point is more properly for the courts than for the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. Part of her complaint is late and there are no good reasons to investigate. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the remaining aspects of the complaint which may be better addressed in court. And we will not investigate the complaint handling as it is not a good use of public resources when we are not considering the substantive complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman