Summary: Mr B complained on behalf of his mother Mrs C, that the Council failed to identify that the soffits and fascia on the roof of her property needed repairing or replacing before carrying out grant-funded work to install external wall insulation. We consider the Council has made a reasonable proposal to resolve the situation.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained on behalf of his mother Mrs C, that the Council in respect of grant-funded insulation work to Mrs C’s property:
• failed to properly advise them what would be included in the grant works;
• gave misleading advice on different occasions as to whether the soffits and fascia would be replaced;
• failed to carry out an adequate survey prior to the works starting;
• damaged the roof while carrying out the work and failed to repair the damage;
• carried out insulation work covering up the poor quality soffits and fascia, preventing them from being able to replace the soffits and fascia themselves; and
• refused to put right the errors by replacing the soffits and fascia and making good the insulation.
2. This has caused Mr B and Mrs C significant distress, worry and frustration at how they are going to repair Mrs C’s property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have not investigated the allegation of damage to the roof of the property. That is a matter for a court to decide and I consider it is reasonable for Mr B to pursue that course of action.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. Mrs C applied to the Council for a grant to install external wall insulation (EWI). The Council inspected the condition of the property at the end of September 2022 and assessed the external elevation of the property as fair. The report contains a number of photographs with some focussing on the soffits and fascia. This was a visual inspection from the ground.
9. The Council accepted the funding application in October 2022. It said the property was only eligible for one measure and EWI was the most suitable. Mrs C signed a contract in November 2022 and did not query what was included. The scope of works was described as the installation of a specific type of EWI by an approved installer.
10. The Council’s contractor (the Contractor) completed a pre-installation building inspection checklist in November 2022. It did not highlight any issues with the soffits or fascia and said it was suitable for the EWI. Again, the report contained photographs including some of the soffits and fascia.
11. In December 2022 asked whether the soffits and fascia would be replaced. He said he was told prior to the work starting that they would be replaced. The Council replied saying the pre-installation survey had not identified that these needed replacing.
12. The work was done in January 2023. Mr B complained about several aspects including damage to the roof and fact that the soffits and fascia had not been replaced.
13. The Contractor said prior to the work commencing they had told Mr B that the soffits and fascia would not be replaced but they could not be sure of this until the scaffolding was up.
14. On 21 February 2023 the Council and the Contractor inspected the work. They agreed remedial action for various issues, but not the soffits and fascia.
15. Mr B continued to complain that he was misled about the soffits and fascia and had been trying to get the work done privately but no company would do it as they did not want to damage the EWI. The Council said it was unfortunate that Mr B had not raised the soffits and fascia prior to the work being done and in future it would highlight this issue to applicants for them to consider before agreeing to the work. It said the Contractor was satisfied at the pre-installation inspection that the soffits and fascia were in good order apart from requiring sanding and painting.
16. Mr B disagreed and said he had been told many contradictory things about the soffits and fascia but as it stood, he could not get them replaced or repaired since the EWI had been installed. He asked for his correspondence to be treated as a formal complaint.
17. He also complained to us, but we referred the complaint back to the Council for it to investigate and respond.
18. On 25 April 2023 the Council and the Contractor carried out a second visit to review the completed snagging work and to inspect the disputed soffits and fascia. They found the fascia was in in a poor state in some areas, but the soffits were in an average state of repair.
19. In May 2023 a different contractor said that Mr B had asked them several times around January/February 2023 for a quotation to replace the soffits and fascia. This contractor considered the soffits and fascia were not in the best condition because they had not been maintained but the timber was adequate.

Stage one complaint response

20. The Council replied to Mr B’s complaint on 25 August 2023. It said it had taken some time to gather all the necessary information. The Council detailed all the communications and reports about the soffits and fascia and said it was clear that the repair or replacement of these was never part of the grant-funded work and were not highlighted as necessary before the EWI was installed.
21. It acknowledged there was an issue with the first row of rear roof tiles dropping and this was due to the pre-existing condition of the fascia board, lack of maintenance and prolonged water ingress. It said it had no obligation to replace the soffits and fascia or the dropping tiles, but it offered as a ‘one-off gesture’ for the Contractor to:
• Replace the fascia only where necessary (primarily where the roof tiles were dropping).
• Overclad the rest of the fascia.
• Overclad the soffit without interfering with the EWI to maintain its warranty.
22. It said it had made this offer orally to Mr B on 27 July 2023 but he had declined it, because he wanted the fascia replacing and the EWI re-doing. The Council said the offer would remain open until 25 August 2023. Mr B remained dissatisfied with the response and escalated it to stage two. Mr B has since clarified that he would cover the cost of the soffit and fascia removal if the Council could provide access (maintaining the EWI guarantee) and replacing any damaged render.
23. In September 2023 the Contractor offered to return to ensure the vented roof tile was properly sealed. They confirmed it was the correct tile, had been fitted correctly and appeared to be watertight but could use roof sealant to make sure. Mr B declined the offer saying that the Contractor had damaged the roof timbers and tiles and needed to replace these. The Council denied the allegation of damage.

Stage two complaint response

24. The Council responded to the complaint on 20 November 2023. It apologised for the length of time it had taken and said this was due to a significant increase in the number of stage two review requests and waiting for a roofing report.
25. The Council offered again to carry out the work to the roof vent tile to prevent any water ingress and asked for a response to this by the end of November 2023.
26. The Council referred to the roofing report it had obtained. This concluded that the roof was in poor condition and was causing water ingress. The rear fascia was completely rotten and had been taking on water for some time, causing the roof tiles at the rear to drop. (Mr B disputes this and says the dip was the result of workmen standing on the roof). The soffit was fairly solid apart from a couple of areas of water damage. The Council reconfirmed that roof repair or replacement was not part of the grant-funded work.
27. The Council apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint and said further complaint handling training was being arranged for relevant staff. Mr B then complained to us.
28. The Council has said in response to my enquiries that the cap for funding of this type of work was £10,000. The reports did not highlight that the soffits and fascia needed replacing. If they had this would have significantly exceeded the cap and the Council may have refused the grant or recommended a different measure.
29. In January 2024 the Contractor again offered to make good the soffits and fascia. It said it would remove the existing soffits and fascia and replace them without damaging the integrity of the EWI or invalidating the warranty. It would take about a week to complete and would require scaffolding.
30. It has since clarified to me in March 2024 that it will only make good the parts which are rotten and it will not remove them but will overclad. It says this is a recognised method of renewal which involves removal of the guttering and then refixing. It will maintain the integrity of the EWI.

Analysis

31. The Council did not have a duty to replace or repair the soffits and fascia as part of the grant-aided work. The information was clear that the grant was for the installation of EWI only. Neither Mr B or Mrs C raised the issue of the soffits and fascia before agreeing to the installation of the EWI.
32. Both pre-installation surveys considered the soffits and fascia were in an adequate condition to carry out the EWI work. But it is apparent these inspections were from ground level only and some uncertainty is likely to have remained as to the true condition. The report from October 2023 suggests that parts of the structures were not in an adequate condition. I agree it would have been helpful for the Council to have specifically asked Mr B and Mrs C about the soffits and fascia, before starting the work. However, if they had done this and then Mr B had discovered some of the structures were rotten, he would have had to repair them, not the Council. This may have delayed or cancelled the installation of the EWI.
33. Mr B has not been able to find another company to repair the soffits and fascia due to concerns about maintaining the integrity of the EWI. The Council has recognised the difficulty Mr B now has, in resolving the problem himself and proposed a solution on several occasions: for the Contractor to repair/replace the soffits and fascia where necessary by overcladding. This was most recently offered in January 2024. I realise Mr B is not happy with this proposal, but I consider it is a reasonable way of resolving the issue and will largely put him back in the position he would have been had he had the opportunity to carry out the repairs himself before the EWI was installed.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I have completed my investigation as I consider the Council’s offer is a reasonable and proportionate way of resolving the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman