Summary: There was no fault in how the Council handled adaptations to Mr X’s bathroom funded through a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG).

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council handled adaptations to his bathroom funded through a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). He said the Council:
• failed to follow the occupational therapist’s advice regarding the placement of a radiator;
• did not explain whether wall and floor tiles were covered by the grant;
• left parts of the work incomplete and unsafe; and
• refused to pay for repairs to his patio door.
2. Mr X said the Council’s failings caused him avoidable distress, financial hardship and resulted in him spending unnecessary time and effort pursuing the Council to resolve the issues.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Disabled Facilities Grants/ Adaptations

7. Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs) are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Councils have a statutory duty to give grants to disabled people for certain adaptations. Before approving a grant, a council must be satisfied the work is necessary, meets the disabled person’s needs, and is reasonable and practicable.

What happened

Background

8. Ms Y, who was disabled and cared for by Mr X in his home, required adaptations to the property after her condition deteriorated. In April 2024, an occupational therapist (OT) recommended works to be funded through a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG), including the installation of a sliding pocket door to improve wheelchair access between Ms Y’s bedroom and bathroom. In July, the OT amended the referral to include a ceiling track hoist in the bedroom. Through the referral they also raised concerns about the position of the radiator beside the toilet, noting this could make it difficult to place equipment over the toilet. Throughout the process, Mr X acted on Ms Y’s behalf and served as the main point of contact with the Council and contractors during both the application and completion of the works.
9. In July and August 2024, the Council requested estimates from two contractors for the proposed adaptations. In both requests, the Council stated that the DFG would not cover flooring, tiling or decorating works and that Ms X would need to self-fund these separately. Mr X recommended contractor B because he had worked with them previously. Mr X later complained that the Council referred in its correspondence with contractor A to an earlier visit to the property and the collection of a tile sample, but did not include the same wording in its email to contractor B. When Mr X later complained to the Council, he said the inconsistency between these emails was misleading.

Matters subject to investigation

10. In September 2024, the Council received quotations from both contractors, which listed what was included in their estimates. Neither quote included a sum for costs of floor or wall tiles. Contractor A said they would include a plasterboard and skim both sides of new studwork while contractor B’s quote mentioned it would install a waterproof delta board “ready for customer to tile floor and walls”.
11. In October 2024 the Council told us it carried out a site visit with the OT, during which the location of the radiator was discussed. It was agreed the radiator could remain next to the toilet as originally proposed but had to at least be 1.1 metre above the floor to allow access for essential equipment.
12. The same day the Council confirmed the works with contractor B, clarified the exact location of the radiator and asked to be kept updated once the contractor had scheduled the works with Mr X. The Council informed the OT it had awarded the project to contractor B.
13. Contractor B carried out the works in January 2025.
14. In March and April, Mr X complained to the Council and it provided a stage one response.
• the track on his patio door had been damaged due to contractors frequently going in and out of the door and asked the Council reimburse him repair costs. The Council replied that DFGs cannot be used for repairs and that Mr X would have to either ask the contractor to fund this or resolve the matter himself;
• other councils were more flexible with DFGs and agreed to cover the costs of redecoration as part of DFG works. The Council said it could not comment on other councils, but it could only fund capital works in line with relevant law;
• he had expected the DFG to cover the cost of tiling the wall where the new door was situated and that contractor A had taken a tile, which he said made him believe the tiling was part of the DFG work. The Council said DFGs can only provide essential facilities and therefore it had to ensure the correct use of the funding. It concluded tiling walls that did not need to be tiled would not be the correct use of the funding;
• floor tiles had to be lifted to reposition the radiator and not replacing them had created a safety hazard. Following a site visit, the Council noted the contractor had installed the radiator not in the position of the final floor plan but in the shower area which it said contractor B confirmed was Mr X’s personal preference and as a result the Council did not agree to cover the costs. The Council acknowledged in the same email that contractor B confirmed that the pocket door mechanism may have been affected by the radiator pipework had it been positioned in the intended location. The Council concluded this was never fully explored.
15. Mr X asked the Council to escalate his complaint to stage two. He said the position of the radiator had to be changed to within the shower area because the pocket door mechanism did not allow enough space for the radiator pipework and for the radiator to be safely fixed to the wall, even at the agreed raised height. Mr X said contractor B told him the existing radiator would quickly rust in the new location and advised him to purchase a stainless-steel radiator.
16. In September 2025, after a site visit, the Council offered to settle the matter by reimbursing Mr X for patch tiling work needed to replace the missing floor tiles. It said it satisfied itself that it would have agreed for this work to be carried out within the scope of the DFG and as a result agreed to reimburse Mr X the costs for labour and tiles.
17. The Council declined to reimburse Mr X for the cost of tiling the bathroom wall, stating that it did not believe this work had been necessary and therefore could not justify covering the expense. The Council also said it was unable to determine when the damage to the patio door had occurred or who had caused it. As a result, it advised Mr X to contact the person or company likely responsible for the damage.
18. Mr X told us that if he had known that flooring, tiling and decorating works were not included in the DFG, he would not have given his permission for the works to be carried out but instead insisted on the Council doing an extension to the house.

My findings

Radiator location

19. Emails following the site visit in October 2024 – attended also by the OT - showed the radiator position was discussed and all parties agreed it should remain beside the toilet, provided it was installed at least 1.1 metres above floor level. The Council confirmed this arrangement with both the OT and the contractors in writing. There is no fault in how the Council considered and followed OT advice regarding the radiator position.
20. Contractor B later advised that the radiator location needed to be changed because the pipework could not be installed on the same wall as the pocket door mechanism. Following this advice, Mr X purchased a stainless-steel radiator which the Council initially refused to reimburse.
21. In email messages with Mr X, the Council stated that it had not reimbursed the costs because the relocation happened due to Mr X’s preference. However, it was contractor B who identified that the radiator could not remain on the same wall as the pocket door and would therefore need to be repositioned to within the shower area. The Council acknowledged contractor B mentioned this to them but conclude this was not fully explored. The Council should have fully explored the reasons for the radiator relocation before deciding not to reimburse Mr X the costs of replacing it. However, as the Council later reimbursed the costs and did not leave Mr X out of pocket, I do not consider this significant enough to be fault.

Flooring, wall tiles and decorative works not included in DFG grant

22. We expect councils to make clear what is and is not included within a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). The Council said it would have discussed the scope of the DFG, including excluded works, during a site visit in early 2024. However, it could not provide evidence that such a discussion took place.
23. The Council has however shown it clearly clarified to both contractors, that flooring, tiling and decorating were excluded from the DFG. The documentary evidence does not support Mr X’s claim that the Council intentionally misled him. The evidence shows the Council informed Mr X that these elements were outside the scope of the DFG and could be arranged separately at his own expense.
24. Therefore, we have found no fault in the way the Council communicated the scope of the DFG to Mr X.

DFG works left bathroom in unsafe condition

25. During the January 2025 bathroom works, contractor B removed three floor tiles to relocate the radiator and left the area untiled because flooring works were excluded from the project scope. Mr X said not including the repair of his bathroom floor in the scope of the project created a potential safety risk for Ms Y.
26. Mr X arranged for the bathroom floor to be retiled in April 2025, removing the potential safety risk to Ms Y. There is no evidence he raised this safety risk with the Council before arranging the repairs.
27. The Council’s final floor plan did not require the radiator to be relocated, which is why flooring works were excluded from the DFG scope. Although contractor B later relocated the radiator during the January 2025 works, resulting in three floor tiles being removed and left untiled, there is no evidence the Council was aware of the need to relocate the radiator before its September 2025 site inspection when it realised the radiator was not installed in line with the final floorplan. There was no fault in the Council originally excluding floor repairs from the DFG works. Once aware, the Council accepted that the patch tiling was a direct consequence of the radiator relocation, it reimbursed Mr X for the costs of the tiles and labour.

Damage to patio door

28. In March 2025, Mr X told the Council that his patio doors had been damaged during the DFG works and asked it to pay for the repairs. Mr X was unable to identify how the damage occurred or who was responsible for it. There is no evidence linking the damage to fault by the Council or its contractor and so there is no fault in the Council’s decision not to pay for the repairs or involve its insurers. We cannot resolve this dispute between Mr X and the Council by deciding the liability issues the complaint raises. These are legal matters only insurers and the courts can decide.

Back to top

Decision

29. I have found no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman