Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that suitable temporary toilet facilities were not provided during Disabled Facilities Grant works. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained that the Council failed to ensure she had access to a usable toilet during works funded by a Disabled Facilities Grant. She said this caused distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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. Miss X was receiving adaptations to her bathroom funded by a Disabled Facilities Grant. During the works, Miss X stated that the toilet was not usable and that she had to rely on a commode without fully considering her needs and circumstance.
7. The Council said it investigated the matter and considered evidence from the contractor, safeguarding officer and occupational therapist. It noted the occupational therapist discussed alternative toileting arrangements with Miss X and recorded that she had use of a commode. The contractor said the works lasted ten days, with the toilet unavailable for two days while the bathroom floor dried. During this time, Miss X had use of the commode available to her. The Council said no concerns about the toileting arrangements were raised before or during the works.
8. The Council’s records show it considered relevant legal guidance and its own policy when managing the temporary toileting arrangements during the Disabled Facilities Grant works. It took account of the occupational therapist’s advice, discussed alternative arrangements with Miss X, and noted that she had a commode which she actively used and was able to use during periods when the toilet was unavailable. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman