Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s supervision of improvement grant for work at Mr X’s home. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s involvement with grant-aided works at his home. He says there are repair matters remaining which he feels should have been covered by the works which started in 2024.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. 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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says following work carried out under decent homes grant in 2024, his kitchen is left with repairs to cracks and paintwork and gaps in the doors which he believes should have been covered by the works.
6. The Council says the grant was for a maximum of £10,000 and the work carried out came to over £1,500 more than this amount. Mr X has not been charged for the additional work to his home and any outstanding items were not included in the grant schedule which he was aware of before the works were completed.
7. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
8. The grant documents show that this was an agreement between Mr X and the contractors and the Council was responsible for ensuring that the work carried out met the grant requirements. In this case the work exceeded the grant amount but the Council did not pass the additional costs on to the homeowner.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s supervision of improvement grant for work at Mr X’s home. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman