Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to accept liability for defective work carried out by a contractor under grant-aided works in 2016. Further investigation of this complaint would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to accept liability for defective work in his home which was carried out in 2016 by private contractors under a Disabled Facilities Grant provided by the Council. He says he was concerned about poor workmanship at the time and raised it with the Council.
2. Recently he said he discovered a leaking pipe when he had other work carried out in home. He wants the Council to accept responsibility for the costs of repairing the leak and dampness in his home.

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:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

4. 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)

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. Mr X says work carried out to his home under a Disabled Facilities Grant in 2016 was defective and has caused dampness and damage to his home. He recently discovered a leaking pipe from the wet room he had installed has leaked into his kitchen below. He says he had concerned about the quality of the damp proofing work carried out at the time and raised this with the Council. The Council was only concerned with the completed of the works according to the grant schedule and did not intervene.
8. We will not investigate this complaint about matters which took place 9 years ago. Mr X was aware of some concerns about work quality at the time and could have raised this with the contractors or made a complaint about defective work in the12-month defects period after completion. He could have complained to us within 12 months if he believed the Council was not meeting any of its duties at the time.
9. The time for receiving complaints is from when someone became aware of the matter they wished to complain about, not when they complained to the Council or it issued its final response. We would expect someone to complain to us within a year, even if they were dissatisfied with the time the complaints procedure was taking.
10. With regard to the defects he has only recently discovered, his claim would be against the contractors for negligence because the Council was not involved with the works, only the grant supervision. It is unlikely he could make a claim successfully now because the statute of limitations for claims is 6 years and this involves work undertaken 9 years ago.
11. Given the length of time which has passed since completion of the work it is unlikely that any investigation we carried out would have a worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to accept liability for defective work carried out by a contractor under grant-aided works in 2016. Further investigation of this complaint would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman