Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to properly handle matters relating to poor workmanship under the disabled facilities grant scheme. Nor will we investigate the Council’s decision to take planning enforcement action. There is not enough evidence of fault for either complaint to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of the disabled facilities grant (DFG) process and subsequent enforcement action.
2. She says this caused her distress and upset. She wants the Council to inspect the work and take responsibility for the defects.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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. (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 the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council approved a DFG for adaptations to Mrs X’s property. Mrs X wanted additional and more expensive work completing as well and so decided to have the work done under the preferred scheme option.
7. Under the preferred scheme option, the homeowner can carry out their own building works as long as they include the Occupational Therapist’s (OT’s) recommended adaptations. The Council contributes the amount of money that the adaptations would have cost under the most cost-effective scheme. The homeowner must pay the rest. The homeowner takes responsibility for selecting the contractors, overseeing the works and resolving any defects. The Council’s role is limited to paying the contractor once it’s satisfied the works comply with building regulations and the OT’s adaptations have been made.
8. Mrs X’s contractor drew up the plans for the work which Mrs X submitted to the Planning Department. These were approved. Mrs X later changed part of the plans relating to one of the door openings.
9. The Council inspected the works as they neared completion and found they met building regulations and the adaptations required by the OT. It paid the contractor its part of the costs.
10. The matter of the door opening came to the attention of the Council’s Planning Enforcement Team which told Mrs X she must either change the opening to match the approved plans or put in a planning application to regularise the change. Mrs X chose the latter option.
11. Mrs X then complained to the Council about the quality of some of the work and the report by a third party to Planning Enforcement. She was unhappy with the Council’s responses and complained to us.
12. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council was not responsible for the works because Mrs X chose the preferred scheme option; it was for Mrs X to raise problems with the contractor at the time if she was unhappy.
13. But in any case, the Council decided to intervene after Mrs X complained to request the contractor carry out some remedial work. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant an investigation.
14. The Council was entitled to decide what enforcement action to take once it received a report of a breach of planning conditions. There is no evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaints because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman