Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council completed repairs when the complainant reported damage after it provided disabled aids and adaptations at the complainant’s property. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Miss B complains the Council installed disabled aids and adaptations at her property and caused damage. Miss B says the Council agreed to rectify the damage but has not yet done so despite offering her assurances and agreeing to pay her £150 to resolve the complaint. Miss B wants the Council to rectify all the damage caused.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. People may complain to us about injustice caused by:
• ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ by a public organisation we could investigate; or
• the actions of an organisation in connection with privately arranged adult social care.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1) or section 34C(1)(a)).

3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), or section 34B(8)).
4. We will not normally investigate complaint handling if we are not investigating the rest of the complaint. This is because there is not usually enough injustice to justify us doing so. We collect information about particularly poor complaint handling practice and report this back to organisations. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), or section 34B(8)).

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. The Council completed work to Miss B’s home from December 2024 which included installing disabled adaptations. She complained to the Council in June 2025 about the works completed as she was dissatisfied with the standard of work. She said the work in accordance with the plans. For example, grab rails were positioned incorrectly and the shower system was too low.
8. The Council replied to the complaint at stage one of its procedures in August. After consulting with its relevant officers, it confirmed to Miss B the shower was positioned correctly to be used with a shower board. It also confirmed why pipes were left exposed as well as responding to other issues. The Council partially upheld the complaint acknowledging Miss B and her household did not receive the service they could have reasonable expected.
9. Miss B remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response so escalated the complaint to stage two of the complaint procedures. The Council responded in December and said it had addressed most of the issues in its first response. It checked the status of repairs at the time and said the remedial work in line with a request from an occupational therapist had been completed. It said one repair remained outstanding and if this was not resolved imminently Miss B could contact the officer responding to the complaint. The officer said they would then contact the repairs team in this event.
10. The Council apologised to Miss B upholding her complaint in part. It said it recognised the overall time taken was unacceptable acknowledging the avoidable distress, inconvenience and time Miss B had experienced. It offered her a payment of £150 as a symbolic payment.
11. We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
12. The law means we can choose only to investigate a complaint where the person has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by the body complained about. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
13. I recognise the circumstances of Miss B’s complaint has affected her, but this is not significant enough to warrant us investigating. The Council acted to resolve the repairs following the adaptations it completed. It accepted it took longer than it should have to resolve the issue and therefore apologised to Miss B and offered a payment. It is unlikely we could achieve more.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman