Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant must pay for a new shower screen in his temporary accommodation. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council has charged him for a new shower screen when he was not responsible for the damage caused to the previous screen. He says the Council did not tell him the price and he could have provided a new screen for £500 less than the one the Council fitted. Mr X wants the Council to waive or reduce the charge.

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 must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

4. Mr X lives in temporary accommodation. The Council has leased the property from a third party. Under the terms of the lease the Council is required to do repairs on a like-for-like basis. Mr X’s tenancy agreement says he is responsible for any damage he causes to the property. Mr X is also responsible for managing fixtures and fittings.
5. On 31 July 2020 the shower screen broke. Mr X says he did not do anything but just heard a noise as the screen exploded. He has suggested hot weather may have been the cause.
6. Mr X informed the Council on 10 August. The email reached the responsible officer on 12 August. The Council spoke to Mr X’s daughter on the same day and said it would speak to the owner.
7. The Council emailed Mr X on 16 September to report back on the planned repair and to say that Mr X would be charged. The Council asked Mr X to get in touch. Mr X did not get in touch.
8. The new screen was fitted in late October. Mr X says the Council has charged him £550.
9. Mr X says he did not cause the screen to shatter. He also says the Council did not provide him with a quote or give him a chance to discuss the price. He says he could have obtained a new screen for £50.

Assessment

10. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council contacted Mr X as soon as it became aware of the incident and, in September, it invited Mr X to get in touch to discuss the repair. If Mr X had done this then he could have given his views about the cost and whether a cheaper screen could be obtained. In addition, the decision to charge Mr X is consistent with the tenancy agreement.
11. I appreciate Mr X says the screen shattered on its own and he did not cause the accident. The Council’s view is that the screens do not just break and they are designed to withstand heat and hot water. Given there is no evidence, and the screen shattered last July, it would not be possible for us to determine the cause of the accident or to decide that Mr X should not be held liable.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman