Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council dealt with a major adaptation and disabled facilities grant. She said it bullied her into having an extension she did not want, and she could not use the shower or heating for three years. She says this caused her great heartache and pain and spoiled her husband’s plans to die in the room they had built. We find the Council caused Mrs X inconvenience and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Mrs X £500, and take action to put right the outstanding issues including consulting with an independent heating engineer and an independent occupational therapist. It will also take action to prevent similar problems in future.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, complained that, when the late Mr X had a terminal health condition, the Council:
• Pushed Mr X and Mrs X into having an extension they did not want.
• Installed a bathroom which floods.
• Changed the plans for the heating and installed an unsuitable system.
• Changed the plans for the roof because of a miscalculation and charged Mr and Mrs X for the extra costs incurred.
• Moved the electrical consumer unit but then did not certificate the whole house.
• Failed to communicate adequately with her and sent her standard print letters and documents when she needs large print due to her sight loss.
2. Mrs X says they had already built the extension they wanted Mr X to use during his illness. They only agreed to the second extension because the occupational therapist (OT) told them the existing extension was not suitable. She says they understood he would need to go into a care home if they did not have somewhere suitable for him. It cost them around £50,000 for something they did not need or want. Mr X only used it for about three months before he died.
3. Almost three years since the works were completed, Mrs X says she still cannot use the extension because of problems with the heating and bathroom. She has also more recently found the windows in the original first floor bedroom were leaking. Family alerted her to this which she had not noticed because she cannot use the first floor.
4. Mrs X says this has caused her much heartache and pain. She is “sick to death” of crying about this and speaking to people who are not interested and do not understand. This spoiled Mr X’s plans to die in the room they built, and she has not had the chance to grieve properly with all this going on. She has been unable to use the extension and would like:
• the bathroom floor fixed so the water runs down the plughole and so she doesn’t need screens to stop it flooding.
• the electrics fixed and the whole house certified.
• charges for the roof and the other excessive charges removed.
• recompense for the impact of all this on her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended). In this case, I have exercised discretion to consider these issues which were more than 12 months ago. This is because Mrs X’s husband was very unwell at the time and Mrs X has been pursuing the complaint since he died.
6. 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)
7. If we are satisfied with a council’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

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information from the Complainant and from the Council.
9. I sent both parties a copy of my three draft decisions for comment and took account of the comments I received in response.

Back to top

What I found

Background

Disabled Facilities Grants

10. Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG) are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Councils have a statutory duty to provide grant aid to disabled people for certain adaptations. Examples of the work a DFG can fund include:
• installing ramps
• installing a stair lift
• adapting the kitchen or bathroom
11. The maximum amount of a grant payable by a council is £30,000. A council can award other discretionary help if it thinks it is necessary. The amount a council of grant will pay is subject to a means test.
12. An application consists of:
• A written request for the adaptation detailing the premises to be adapted.
• Estimates of the costs from at least two contractors unless the housing authority decides differently.
• Details of any claim for the grant to cover preliminary or ancillary services.
13. Before approving a grant a council must be satisfied the work is necessary and suitable to meet the disabled person’s needs and also reasonable and practicable. Councils should consult social services authorities to decide whether proposed works are “necessary and appropriate”.

Wet room vs level access shower

14. A wet room is a watertight room where walls and floors are treated to prevent water getting to other parts of the house. There is no shower tray and no shower screens or curtains. The drain is set into the floor.
15. A level access shower is a designated area within a room which is not fully watertight. A shower tray (former) with a set gradient and gully sits below the flooring in the shower area and a screen or curtain is used to prevent water from leaving the area.

Reasonable adjustments

16. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any body that carries out a public function. Its aim is that, as far as reasonably possible, people who have disabilities should have the same standard of service as non-disabled people.
17. Service providers must consider removing or preventing obstacles to people with disabilities accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them.
18. The duty is ‘anticipatory’. This means service providers cannot wait until a disabled person wants to use their services but must think in advance about what disabled people with a range of impairments might reasonably need.

The Contract

19. The Contract between the Council and the Contractor states:
20. “The Contractor shall make good, at his own expense, any defects, excessive shrinkage or other faults arising from materials or workmanship not in accordance with this Agreement which may appear within twelve months from the date of the practical completion of the Works (the “Rectification Period”).”.
21. Also, “Nothing in clause 16 above shall limit the Employer’s rights at common law to recover damages for the Contractor’s breach of contract or negligence, including the right to recover the cost of remedying defective workmanship. For the avoidance of doubt, the Employer’s rights shall survive the expiry of the Rectification Period, subject to the time limits in the Limitation Act 1980.”.

What happened

22. Mrs X had significant sight loss and health conditions that caused her difficulties with mobility. Mr X also had health conditions which caused him difficulties with mobility; he had a life limiting illness. They both had difficulty in getting to their bedroom on the first floor of the property they owned.
23. Mr and Mrs X had previously built an extension which used all their savings. This had many large windows so Mr X could look out over the garden from his bed and still enjoy his fishpond. They had planned for the extension to have lift access to the first floor, but this was not possible due to planning restrictions. The extension also had a shower, toilet and washbasin. The shower tray had a “small lip” over which Mrs X would push Mr X in his wheelchair to the shower chair. However, Mrs X says the OT decided the room was not suitable for Mr X to use as a bedroom and pushed them into agreeing to another extension.
24. The Council disagrees that it pushed Mr and Mrs X into the extension. It agreed a DFG (see paragraph 10) for Mr X and another for Mrs X as they each had eligible needs. Usually, couples would be granted a joint grant of up to £30,000 but Mr and Mrs X received a £30,000 grant each. £10,000 of each grant was secured against the property which the Council will recover if the property is sold, transferred or assigned within 10 years of the work being completed. The charge for Mr X’s £10,000 was transferred to Mrs X on his death so the Council can still recover it should Mrs X sell, transfer or assign the property. This is usual practice. The Council also agreed an interest free loan for Mrs X of just over £27,500 to cover the full cost the works. This was secured against the property and the Council will receive the money from the proceeds of the property when it is sold, transferred or assigned. Mrs X therefore has charges for £47,500 held against the property. Mrs X instructed a legal representative to act on her behalf regarding the loan and charges against the property. The cost of the works was determined by a competitive tender.
25. The Council and Mrs X signed off the works at the end of November 2018. Mrs X raised various snagging issues and complained October 2019. The Council apologised and agreed to put right some of the issues, but Mrs X was unhappy with this and brought her complaint to us. Mrs X says the documents which she signed were not in large print and she had just trusted the Council. Not all the Council’s communication with Mrs X was in large print and some of the documents she signed were enlarged after she signed them as her signature is also enlarged. It apologised for this. The Council did not respond to all Mrs X’s points of complaint in its first response. It also apologised for this and addressed these issues in a further response.
26. Mrs X says Mr X was in the new room for three months. It was “like a box” and they were moving him back to the original extension when sadly, he died. Mrs X is upset the new extension spoilt Mr X’s plans and he could not enjoy the room he designed; she cannot go in there now. Mrs X also feels aggrieved with small issues that she did not bother about at the time. She has no confidence the Council has properly charged her for the work. Until recently, Mrs X still slept on the sofa because the bedroom in the new extension was freezing. The windows upstairs have been leaking. She couldn’t see it but one of her family pointed it out to her.

The Occupational Therapy assessment

27. In May 2015, Mrs X contacted the Council. She said she could not get upstairs, and Mr X had been diagnosed with a terminal illness. He was to have an operation which might leave him unable to use the stairs. She was sleeping on the sofa downstairs and relying on Mr X to bring her clothes down to her, and the heating control was upstairs. She said there was not enough space for them to both live downstairs only.
28. At the end of June, an OT visited Mrs X to complete an assessment. The record of this assessment shows that Mrs X said the main issue was with accessing her bedroom on the first floor. She was also concerned about Mr X as he was unwell, and she could not help him while he was upstairs. By this time, Mr X’s health had worsened, and he was using the existing extension as a bedroom as the stairs were difficult for him. The OT noted it might be possible to adapt the existing extension for use as a bedroom. The OT said she needed a surveyor to consider what might be possible to achieve safe access to the first floor and a possible disabled facilities grant. Mrs X agreed for the OT to visit again with a surveyor. The OT submitted a recommendation for a major adaptation to get the process underway as quickly as possible.
29. In January 2016, the OT visited with a surveyor to explore how best to ensure Mrs X had access to essential facilities. The records note Mr X was no longer able to walk and had a hospital bed in the existing extension. He could access the shower, but this was difficult because of the step over the lip, and he needed help from Mrs X. The surveyor considered installing a through floor lift suitable for a wheelchair but could find no feasible solution.
30. The OT and the surveyor considered adapting the existing property as this is expected before using public money to finance extensions. Adapting the existing extension was the only possibility; it could get very hot in the summer and very cold in the winter and was not private. The proposal involved removing several windows and creating a false ceiling to make the temperature more stable. However, Mrs X says the room has French windows each end and a top of the range fan to keep it cool. Also, heavy thermal curtains and two state of the art radiators to keep it warm. They were not willing for it to be adapted because they had spent all their savings on it and the windows were important to them. Mr X could look out at the garden from this room and see his fish. The light was also important to Mrs X because of her sight loss. They decided on another, purpose built, extension, to include a bedroom with room for two separate beds and level access shower. The extension was to have enough room for Mr X to use his wheelchair. Mrs X says the room does not have enough room for two beds. The OT revised her recommendation for a major adaptation and submitted this at the beginning of July. The surveyor arranged for the keyworker to visit and begin the disabled facilities grant process.
31. Mrs X says the OT told her the existing extension was “not fit for human habitation” and if they did not make changes, she would place Mr X in a care home. The OT strongly denies this.
32. In January 2017, one year after the OT and surveyor’s joint visit, Mr and Mrs X signed to agree to the Council acting as their agent for the works. Mrs X says they signed to avoid Mr X being placed in a care home and did not fully understand the implications. They just wanted it done. Now Mrs X owes £27,000 for the loan and £20,000 for the grants. At first, in May 2017, the Council said it agreed to adapt the existing extension but not to build a further extension. However, Mr and Mrs X refused this, and the Council then agreed to the further extension with extra costs paid by Mrs X through an interest free loan.
33. In October 2017, a friend of Mr and Mrs X commented on the planning application for the change to the roof. They said the new extension would provide Mr X “much needed privacy” and allow him to move around his home “much more independently”. It said the extension was “of necessity rather than design.”.
34. Mrs X did not raise any concerns about being pressured into the works until almost one year after the contractor completed the works. She signed to agree to the works and the grant and loan applications and signed to say she was satisfied with the work along the way. The Clerk of Works’ visit summaries note Mr and Mrs X were happy with the works and that Mr X was keen for it to be completed so he could move in. Mrs X says Mr X felt fed up with all the noise and dirt. He wanted it to finish so he could sleep.

The bathroom

35. Mrs X complained the water ran to the far end of the bathroom in the new extension and pooled in places. She could not feel the shower tray with her feet and the plug was jammed in the hole. She also had to put the heating on the day before because it took so long to warm up (this is covered in the next section headed ‘Heating’). The Council offered her screens to stop the water running so far, but she does not want these because of her sight loss. The Council says it was always intended to be used with screens, but Mrs X disagrees.
36. The original specification submitted with the planning application stated “Supply and install a shower former to provide level access showering…with full height weighted curtain.”. This is because Mrs X had already said she would not accept any screens although this risked water running outside the shower area. Later, when Mrs X complained about the problem with the drainage, the OT and surveyor discussed alternatives with her. Mrs X agreed with a black, full height screen. However, the screen was delayed and before it arrived, Mrs X changed her mind and said she did not want any screens. She says she changed her mind within 48 hours of agreeing to the screen. The OT confirmed the level access shower (with screen) could meet Mrs X’s needs. Mrs X recalls discussing the problem with the drainage with the OT. The OT suggested she keep a mop and bucket in the room if she would not have a screen, so she could stop the water causing a problem outside of the shower area. Mrs X says the water would have to run uphill to go down the plughole properly and says a mop and bucket is not acceptable. The Council has since offered to install a shower screen however Mrs X did not want a screen and says a wet room should not need screens. The Council says it did not install a wet room as the plan was agreed for a level access shower. Mrs X says she has been unable to use the bathroom safely since it was built.
37. The drain cover in the shower was stuck and Mrs X could not remove it. In August 2021, the Council arranged for a contractor to replace the drain cover under warranty. The contractor said the cover had been “twisted past it’s 2-tooth locking point and snapped one of its teeth in situ”. It removed the broken tooth but the cover no longer locks into place. Mrs X advised me recently that the contractor had to cut the cover out and now she has a hole in the floor.
38. Mrs X also feels the bathroom door should open outwards for safety reasons but it opens into the bathroom. She has concerns that if she fell, no one would be able to get in to help her.
39. Mrs X commissioned a surveyor to provide a defect report of her new extension. The report says:
40. In relation to the door:
• “Whilst there is sufficient manoeuvring space inside the wet-room for a wheelchair/ambulant disabled user” the door could not be opened from the outside should the user collapse close to the door. Also, “we are of the view that this is likely not a defect, given the extension has been checked and signed off by Building Control.”.
41. In relation to the shower draining:
• “After eight minutes there is extensive water ponding to the wet-room running from the shower area up the base of the WC pan and wash hand basin.”.
• “Whilst there are falls towards the outlet, it is clear that the falls are insufficient to prevent pooling of water which ultimately breaches out of the drainage area. In addition, once water leaves the drainage area, the floor in the wet-room falls away from the shower drainage area towards the WC pan and wash hand basin.”.
• “Once water breaches the high point, rather than falling back towards the outlet, it follows the fall of the floor and runs towards the WC pan and wash hand basin.”.
• “The standing water poses a slip hazard to [Mrs X] who is visually impaired and elderly and anytime the shower is used, [Mrs X] has to mop up the not insignificant amount of water.”.
• “Whilst some splashing of water outside of the shower drainage area is acceptable, large pools of water such as that shown above is not acceptable and is therefore considered a defect.”.
• “Whilst there are various small fixes that could be undertaken to mitigate the issue, such as provision of a floor mounted upstand …or provision of doors …these issues introduce physical barriers into a wet-room that is designed for use by wheelchair users and ambulant disabled persons. Therefore, these solutions are considered less than ideal.”.

The heating

42. The plan was to extend the existing wet heating system into the extension. However, it became clear after the contractor had laid the floor, that this would not be possible without significant work including taking up the newly set floor. This would delay the works by about three weeks. The Council offered Mr and Mrs X this option, but records show they did not want the delay, so agreed to a new electrical system which needed separate controls.
43. The Council has accepted that it did not advise the OT of the change at the time and so they could not advise on suitability for Mrs X’s sight loss. Mrs X could not see to use the control and had to switch the heating right off and back on again when she needed it; she could not control the temperature. Records show that, at a site meeting, Mrs X agreed to keep the controls, but she complained about it almost a year after the work was completed. Mrs X says she complained about the controls while they were being installed and did not agree to keep them. She had to switch the heating off at the mains and get someone to come round and reset it when she wanted it on again. She had no other control over the temperature. She says they told her they had to finish the installation to avoid leaving wires exposed.
44. The Council has since installed a voice activated system to control the heating. Mrs X accepted this as a solution but said she had previously been unable to satisfactorily control the heating since it was installed. Mrs X refused to pay the £500 the Council wanted to charge her for the voice control set up as it should have been something she could use in the first place. The Council funded this through its equipment budget and Mrs X did not have to pay for this. Once the voice activation system was installed and Mrs X could use the heating properly, the system stopped working, revealing a fault in the installation. The Council funded repairs through a home safety grant. Mrs X will not have to pay for this. The repairs have resolved the heating problem in the bedroom however, Mrs X says the bathroom heating still does not reach a high enough temperature. A contractor arranged by the Council to check this out also found the heating in the bathroom did not reach an acceptable temperature. The Council has suggested that Mrs X may not use the system properly and leave it on a background setting all the time as is necessary. It also says this is not the heating type it would usually agree to; it was Mr and Mrs X’s choice. The Council has also suggested that it could add a wall mounted electric bar type heater and this would be enough to heat the bathroom adequately.

The roof

45. The initial plans, which Mr and Mrs X agreed, show a mono pitch roof from the bottom of the first floor window stretching out along the length of the extension. The pitch of the roof was designed at 200 but building control said this should be 260. The surveyor says the 200 pitch was an error given the materials they had planned to use, but they identified a different slate which would allow the shallower pitch of 200. Building control agreed this, as did Mrs X. If the build had gone ahead with the original roof design, this change in materials may have resulted in some extra costs. The original specification submitted with the planning application included: “Allow to cut roof around existing first floor window (exposing window and brickwork surround.”.
46. However, as work progressed with the build, Mrs X realised how the extension would impact on the view from the first floor bedroom. She said it would look like a tunnel and the light to the bedroom would be unacceptably compromised. At this point, Mrs X said she did not want the design as planned and, instead, wanted a dual pitch roof. She said if they did not agree to change it, they could take down what they had done so far and leave it. At this point, although the contractor had already built the walls, the Council changed the plans to a full pitch roof. This meant they had to remove the existing bedroom window and place smaller windows either side of the roof apex. It was this change to the plan which resulted in extra costs. The change to the roof design also meant the Council had to submit a new planning application. This caused some delay though no extra cost.
47. Mrs X, and initially Mr X, were fully involved in discussion about the works and had experience with a previous extension. Mrs X disagrees that Mr X was involved. Records show Mrs X initially considered not using the interest free loan agreed by the Council to pay for the new windows. However, the costs were included in the overall cost of works funded by the DFG grants and interest free loan.
48. The Council investigated the leaking windows and advised Mrs X that it may be the small leak was caused by the solar panels she has installed. Mrs X does not agree that the leak is caused by the solar panels as they are not above the windows with the leak. The Council says the source of moisture ingress is not always obvious. Basic research reveals that leaks are possible from solar panels and water can travel a long way over time taking the course of least resistance.

The electrical consumer unit

49. The works included moving the electrical consumer unit. Due to the length of the cables, it was moved across the wall into its new position with the wires still connected. The unit was just repositioned and not adjusted, changed or updated in any way. This means a new certificate covering the whole house was not necessary. Mrs X has since said that she meant the electrical meter rather than consumer unit, but the photos she highlighted seem to show the consumer unit.

Was there fault which caused injustice?

50. I am satisfied the Council did not always communicate with Mrs X in large print and asked her to sign some documents which were not in large print. Mrs X has a disability and needs large print documents to access the Council’s services. This is undoubtedly a reasonable adjustment, and the Council should have provided all documents in large print especially those it expected Mrs X to sign. There are only a few technical documents for which this may not be reasonably possible. This was fault and the Council apologised for this error when it was alerted to this. However, I am satisfied that Mr and Mrs X understood the original plans and agreed to them. They also had legal representation when they signed. I am also satisfied that Mrs X was routinely and actively involved in discussions and decisions about the build. She could voice her opinions and objections where needed and did so. I consider, on the balance of probability, that Mrs X knew what she was signing, even if it was not in large print. This still caused Mrs X injustice because of the uncertainty this has caused retrospectively, that she understood what she signed. She feels the Council has misled her and has no confidence that it charged her correctly however there was no evidence to support her concern. The cost of the work was the quote price plus a 15% contingency which covered the extra and unforeseen costs such as the change to the roof design. This was all agreed by Mr and Mrs X.

The occupational therapy assessment

51. I found no sign the OT pushed Mr and Mrs X into having the extension. Mrs X initiated the contact, and the OT took advice from a surveyor and presented Mr and Mrs X with the options. The Council initially refused the application for the new extension and only agreed the adaptation to the existing extension. I have not ruled out the possibility of a misunderstanding as it was a distressing time for Mr and Mrs X. But, even if this was so, the Council could not know if Mr and Mrs X did not say anything. Not only did they not complain, but gave the impression they were happy with the works and records show Mr X was keen to move in. This is also supported by the comments on the later planning application. It may be that Mr X was not happy with the room after it was completed but this does not have any bearing on whether he was pushed into having the extension. Mrs X remains of the view that Mr X only moved into the new extension because he was threatened with a care home if he did not.
52. Throughout the detailed and thorough records, I gained the impression that Council officers were keen to support Mr and Mrs X and worked to achieve the best outcome for them. Although Mrs X has been, understandably, upset by the process, I found the Council dealt with the works efficiently and properly for the most part albeit with some delays before getting the works underway. This delay, however, did allow plenty of time for Mr and Mrs X to reconsider and change their minds about the extension if they had any doubts.
53. The OT had no power to remove Mr X from his home although I accept Mrs X’s point that she did not know this. I cannot think of a reason the OT would suggest that she did. I also considered it unlikely the OT would suggest using scarce resources on people who did not want support. This cost £40,000 which will never be recovered and £20,000 which will only be returned if the property is sold, transferred or assigned within 10 years. Also, £27,500 which will be returned eventually, possibly in many years’ time. Altogether, this removed £87,500 of funding over the long term.
54. I found no fault here.

The bathroom

55. The plans were always for a level access shower; this is not the same as a wet room. The original design had a heavy curtain following discussion with Mrs X who did not want doors or screens. I am satisfied on the balance of probability, that she was made aware that water would escape from the shower area. It is not my role to decide what is suitable to meet Mrs X’s needs. The OT is the professional responsible for deciding this and agreed the level access shower with screen would meet Mrs X’s needs. However, the build went ahead in the knowledge that Mrs X would not have screens. I accept the independent surveyor’s findings that the water escaping from the shower area presents a slip hazard to Mrs X. This cannot therefore meet her needs safely and the Council was at fault here. As the Council knew the shower would not have a screen, it should have ensured Mrs X’s safety by installing a shower which does not cause flooding of the bathroom.
56. The repair to the shower drain has been partly resolved. The contractor removed the broken and stuck “tooth” however, the cover was broken. The Council took the right action when it arranged for the contractor to repair the problem under warranty, but this has had an unsatisfactory result. It is unclear when and how the drain cover became broken. The Council should now ensure Mrs X has a safe and working drain in her shower. Once this is done and showed to be working properly, the responsibility for any future damage to the cover locking teeth will rest with Mrs X.
57. The door to the bathroom opens inwards as shown on the original plan. The bathroom is reasonably roomy with enough room for a wheelchair to manoeuvre. There is no need for bathroom doors to open outwards. Although there is potential for someone to fall and block the door from opening, it would be disproportionate to expect the Council to change this now. Had Mrs X raised this before the door and frame were installed, it is likely the Council would have allowed this change. I found no fault here.

The heating

58. The Council offered Mr and Mrs X the choice of going ahead with the original plan to extend the existing heating with a three week delay or have an electric system. Mr and Mrs X chose the electric system to avoid the delay. The Council was at fault in not consulting correctly to ensure the controls were accessible to Mrs X. In the end the Council did not charge her for the cost of the voice activation system. This was a suitable remedy although Mrs X would have preferred a simple manual control. However, this still caused her much inconvenience as she could not manage her heating properly for almost three years and Mrs X says the heating is still not working properly.
59. I found the Council was also at fault in not ensuring Mrs X had a suitably heated bathroom and in its delay in correcting the fault which also affected the bedroom. The Council does not know what lies beneath the bathroom floor, so it does not know why the system does not work as expected. It says it is also unclear whether Mrs X is using the system effectively, however, the bedroom heats adequately which suggests she is. Another heater might improve the heat in the bathroom but if a simple bar heater was enough why did it agree to an underfloor system? Mrs X does not want added heaters. Although the Council paid for the cost of the adaptations, Mrs X will also contribute a significant sum. It is not right that she should be left with a heating system that does not work. The Council cannot be clear the bathroom is meeting Mrs X’s needs while she says she cannot use it because the heating is inadequate.

The roof

60. I have concluded the change of roof design was responsible for the extra cost. The original design was not quite accurate but the problem this created was resolved with a change of materials. This would have caused some extra costs, but this did not happen because Mr and Mrs X decided to completely change the design of the roof. Mrs X does not agree with this. It is clear from the records completed at the time that Mrs X understood her change to the design would mean two new windows which she would have to pay for. Although the reason for this is understandable, I am satisfied it was not something the Council could have foreseen and not the Council’s fault.
61. Mrs X does not agree that the source of the leak to the windows is the solar panels. The Council did not offer the solar panel suggestion itself, but this was the view of a contractor it brought in with Mrs X’s agreement. There is no evidence to suggest I should question this conclusion and I am satisfied the Council investigated the leaking windows satisfactorily.

The electrical consumer unit

62. The Council was not at fault in the way it dealt with the move of the electrical consumer unit. On the balance of probability, it did not do any work to the unit other than reposition it. Though it appears to be a long way from its original site, the cables were lengthy and did not need to be disconnected. It did not need a whole house certificate and I found no fault here.

Back to top

Agreed action

63. To remedy the injustice identified above, I recommended the Council:
• apologise to Mrs X for the faults identified above.
• pay Mrs X £500 in recognition of the inconvenience and uncertainty caused.
• arrange for an independent heating specialist, flooring specialist, and occupational therapist, to jointly assess the bathroom and work needed to meet Mrs X’s needs, and complete the work identified.
• ensure specialist advice is sought for adaptations for people with disabilities such as sight loss in future.
• ensure it communicates with people in an accessible format. When, exceptionally, it is unable to do this, it should speak to the person about how best to do this and make a record of the conversation.
• Complete the first three recommendations within one month, and the rest within three months of my final decision and send evidence to me. Suitable evidence would include:
1. a copy of the apology letter;
2. confirmation of the payment;
3. a copy of the recommendations from the joint assessment or evidence of the work commissioned and/or completed; and
4. an action plan showing progress on the remaining actions.
64. The Council has agreed to complete these actions.

Back to top

Final decision

65. I have completed my investigation and uphold Mrs X’s complaints that the Council:
• Installed a bathroom which floods.
• Changed the plans for the heating and installed an unsuitable system.
• Failed to communicate adequately with her and sent her standard print letters and documents when she needs large print due to her sight loss.
66. I do not uphold her complaints that the Council:
• Pushed the late Mr X and Mrs X into having an extension they did not want.
• Changed the plans for the roof because of a miscalculation and charged Mr and Mrs X for the additional costs incurred.
• Moved the electrical consumer unit but then did not certificate the whole house.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman