Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s handling of his application for a Crisis and Care Award for assistance to install a front door and frame at his property. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, says the Council indicated it would be able to help him with a Crisis and Care Award to allow him to install a front door and frame to his property to which he has recently built an extension, but it then refused his application. He says it sent a builder round to visit and assess the required work but that the builder made an uninformed decision the work could not be done.

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 cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (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. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely investigation will lead to a different outcome or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr B and the Council. I gave Mr B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr B lives in his own privately-owned property. He says he has been the victim of a rogue builder who had been building him an extension but who did not complete the work and has left him with no bathroom or kitchen facilities and no front door.
6. The type of construction chosen by Mr B for the extension is not of standard construction of bricks and timber-frame and instead an alternative material called woodcrete insulated concrete has been used.
7. Mr B has learning difficulties. At the beginning of the year he contacted the Council’s Social Services about his lack of a front door seeking funding to install one. Social Services carried out an assessment on him but found he had no eligible social care needs but to try and help him a referral was made to see if he could be eligible for a discretionary Council Crisis and Care Award.
8. Although not fitting the normal criteria for such an award, the Council looked to see if it could treat his case as an exception and it asked a building contractor used regularly by the Council for 10 years to visit and assess the work.
9. While the Council notified Mr B of this, it did not explain what would happen next and the builder visited unannounced. While he did not gain entry to Mr B’s property, he reported back to the Council that, in his opinion from what he could see, the works required to enable a front door to be fitted were extensive and that the existing structure was not suitable for the work without the structure being rebuilt.
10. The Council advised Mr B of this and told him that it could not help him with an award on this occasion. It reviewed its decision but confirmed that due to the nature of the construction of the extension, the builder had advised the type of door it could buy to meet the building regulations was not suitable.
11. The care team which provides support to Mr B was advised of the outcome of the application but it did not hear further from Mr B. On being advised of his complaint to the Ombudsman, the team has offered to reassess Mr B to see if his care needs have changed.

Assessment

12. I understand Mr B’s current housing situation must be very stressful and that he has run out of funds to complete the works started. In trying to help him secure his property and install a front door, the Council explored whether it could use a Crisis and Care Award to help him by treating his case as an exceptional one.
13. Unfortunately, the contractor used by the Council was of the view that extensive works are needed at the property and that the type of door required by the current building regulations cannot be fitted due to the state of it. Mr B says the contractor does not know what he is talking about and that the Council should have checked with Building Control about the type of materials he has used for the build. However, it is not unreasonable for the Council to rely on the professional judgement of the contractor, particularly given its history of working with him and while the materials used may be Building Regulation compliant this does not mean there are not problems with the work carried out by Mr B’s builder.
14. Mr B also says he should be given an award because he has heard the Council gave another homeowner help with repairs to her property. However, we do not know the circumstances of this case nor does assistance provided to someone else mean the Council should give Mr B an award.
15. Given the state of Mr B’s property as he has described it, it seems apparent that extensive further works are needed and that his situation cannot be resolved with a Crisis and Care Award. Mr B says the Council has not previously assessed him but whether this is the case or not, it is open to him to undergo an assessment as the Council has offered and this would appear to be the best way forward for him so his situation can be looked at.

Back to top

Final decision

16. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman