Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of disabled adaptations. We are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken and further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council wrongly told him he had to use its contractor for disabled adaptations. He says, when problems arose with the Council contractor, the Council pressured him to allow its contractor to complete the work. As a result, Mr X says he was without a bathroom longer than he should have been, which had a lasting impact on his physical and mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. Mr X applied for a disabled facilities grant (DFG) for his bathroom to be adapted to a wet room. He signed an agreement to use the Council’s grant support service, which includes it obtaining quotes and contracts for contractors and liaising with the landlord for permission to carry out the works. The agreement states the applicant can nominate a contractor to be invited to bid, but the Council accepts it did not explain this clearly to Mr X at the outset.
6. Work started on the bathroom on 20 June 2025 with contractor A. Mr X contacted the contractor and the Council on 25 June with concerns. He said neither replied. On 27 June, Mr X said the contractor had told it not to communicate with Mr X. The Council says it advised both parties to communicate in writing.
7. The Council arranged a meeting at Mr X’s property, held on 1 July 2025. This was attended by Mr X, contractor A and two Council officers, including officer 1. The Council’s record of the meeting states that:
• the relationship between Mr X and contractor A had broken down;
• all parties agreed contractor A would not complete the work;
• contractor A waived any payment for the work already done. This meant the full DFG sum was available for a new contractor;
• Mr X wanted contractor B;
• Mr X agreed to a delay in completing the works, whilst the Council contacted contractor B, including carrying out relevant checks; and
• the Council confirmed that, if contractor B wanted to charge more than the grant agreed, Mr X would need to pay the excess and Mr X agreed to this.
8. Contractor B completed the bathroom works. Both Mr X and the Council confirmed the works were satisfactorily completed on 23 July 2025.
9. In its complaint responses, the Council confirmed there was no evidence of discrimination on the grounds of Mr X’s disability. It apologised for:
• not making it clear at the outset that Mr X could choose his own contractor;
• the process not going smoothly with contractor A; and
• an inappropriate comment made by officer 1 in an email in July 2025.
10. The Council took the following action following the complaint:
• spoke to all officers involved about the need to explain applicants can use their own contractor;
• reviewed its DFG policy and arranged for all staff to be trained on the new policy; and
• addressed officer 1’s conduct using its disciplinary process.

My assessment

11. The Council apologised for not making it clear at the outset that Mr X could choose his own contractor. Given that information was included in the agreement Mr X signed, I consider an apology was sufficient. I also note the Council has since reviewed its policy and arranged training for all relevant staff. Further investigation but us would not achieve anything further.
12. The works did not progress smoothly with contractor A. The Council apologised for this, although there is no evidence it was at fault. It may not have responded to Mr X the same day he contacted it, but it arranged a site meeting to discuss Mr X’s concerns within five working days of his contact.
13. It was not fault for the Council to initially look at resolving the matter with contractor A completing the works as this would usually be the quickest option for applicants. However, it did agree to a change in contractor and Mr X understood this would cause some delay in getting the works completed. In the event, the works were completed within three weeks of that meeting so, although the overall timeframe was longer than Mr X had originally expected, there was no undue delay by the Council. It took appropriate steps to resolve the situation and there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating further.
14. The Council agreed a comment by officer 1 in an email was not appropriate. It apologised to Mr X and addressed the issue with officer 1 using its disciplinary process. This was appropriate action for it to take and further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.
15. Overall, I am satisfied with the actions the Council has already taken. We will not consider the complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are satisfied by the actions the Council has already taken. Further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman