Summary: Mrs X complains about delay by the Council in installing a replacement stairlift. Once the Council became aware of the issues it contacted the contractor to rectify the works. However, there was some delay by the Council caused by poor communication and failing to meet Mrs X’s needs. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X and make service improvements to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about delay by the Council in installing a replacement stairlift. She also complains that:
1. the first stairlift company damaged her wooden staircase and decorations when they installed the first stairlift in October 2020;
2. her queries about a faulty smoke detector were not resolved promptly which added to the delay in installing the replacement stairlift; and
3. she was not always given prior notice of appointments and her request for communication by email or text as a service adjustment was not passed on to the stairlift contractors.
2. Because of this, Mrs X had to manage without a stairlift for 12 months. She found it extremely difficult to get up and down the stairs. She sometimes stayed at her son’s home because she could not cope at home alone.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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

How I considered this complaint

6. We have spoken to Mrs X and discussed the complaint with her. We made enquiries of the Council and I have considered its response.
7. Mrs X and the Council were invited to comment on my draft decision. I considered all comments before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. 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 adaptations. Before approving a grant, the Council must be satisfied the work is necessary and appropriate to meet the disabled person’s needs and is reasonable and practicable.

What happened

9. There has been a great deal of correspondence and discussion between Mrs X, the Council and the stairlift companies about these issues. It is not necessary for me to detail everything that happened here. I have set out the key events.
10. Mrs X lives alone. Mrs X has osteoarthritis and osteoporosis which causes her pain, weakness and restricted range of movement.
11. In July 2020 the Council agreed to install a stairlift. It was agreed that Company A would install this.
12. The Council sent Mrs X a service level agreement by email in August 2020. This explained the roles and responsibilities of the Council and Company A. Mrs X responded on 1 September 2020 agreeing to the terms and conditions.
13. On 23 October 2020 Company A installed the stairlift at Mrs X’s property and provided a test and examination certificate which confirmed the stairlift was operating safely. Company A also installed battery operated smoke detectors at the property.
14. A week later Mrs X raised several concerns about the stairlift. An Occupational Therapist (OT) visited Mrs X and said the stairlift did not adequately meet Mrs X’s assessed needs. The OT shared her findings with Company A, who responded with suggestions to solve the issues.
15. Mrs X told the OT that she was not using the stairlift and asked the Council to explore a new stairlift and installation by an alternative company. The OT visited Mrs X with Company B. Company B said the staircase required repair before a new stairlift could be fitted.
16. On 16 November 2020 the Council approved a request for a new stairlift from Company B.
17. On 19 November 2020 Mrs X told the Council she had asked Company A to remove the stairlift and repair the damage to her stairs caused during installation. Mrs X said Company A had not agreed a date for the work and she was frustrated with its response. Mrs X said she was upset and asked the Council to help resolve the issues.
18. The Council arranged for a senior surveyor to visit Mrs X’s property and take photos of the damaged staircase. Mrs X disputes this.
19. On 2 December 2020 Company A removed the stairlift. The Council’s records show that Mrs X requested a replacement of all the stairs and landing in existing oak timber. The Council requested a quote for the works which would be passed to Company A.
20. On 9 December 2021 Company A sent copies of quotes it had received to the Council. It said the quotes were for repairs to the stair treads. Company A said it was prepared to fix the stair treads, but it was not obliged to replace everything as this would put Mrs X into “betterment”. A few days later Company A contacted Mrs X to arrange fitting of the replacement treads.
21. On 6 January 2021 the Council spoke to Mrs X and sent her an email the next day. The Council acknowledged Mrs X’s request for the whole staircase to be replaced and said it would inform Company A. The Council explained the installation contract was between Mrs X and Company A. The Council said its role was limited and it did not want to raise Mrs X’s expectations about a replacement staircase.
22. There was communication between Company A and Mrs X from 11 January 2021 to 25 January 2021 about arranging a visit to match wood samples for the stair treads. Mrs X declined the request for a visit and refused to look at the samples. On 25 January 2021 Company A agreed to complete a full replacement staircase.
23. In February 2021 it was agreed the Council would be used as the main point of contact between Mrs X and Company A, as Mrs X did not want Company A to contact her directly.
24. On 17 February 2021 Mrs X raised issues about decorating following removal of the starlit by Company A. Mrs X said the decorating on the staircase was full of holes and this needed rectifying before the new stairlift was fitted.
25. On 19 February 2021 Company B confirmed that the existing electrics at Mrs X’s property were fit for purpose.
26. On 7 March 2021 Company A fixed the staircase and completed new flooring at Mrs X’s property. They also filled in the holes in the wall.
27. On 15 March 2021 the Council asked Mrs X to confirm she was happy with the stairlift recommended via Company B. The Council said it would wait for Mrs X to respond before placing an order.
28. On 3 May 2021 Mrs X contacted the Council and asked for installation of the new lift to be put on hold. Mrs X said she still needed the stairlift but could not afford the decorating needed to rectify the damage left by Company A.
29. The Council confirmed it would wait to hear from Mrs X before proceeding. It said Company A had agreed to pay Mrs X £150 towards the decorating costs but had not received a response. Mrs X responded and said the payment offered was not enough.
30. On 6 June 2021 Mrs X contacted the Council about a smoke detector fitted by Company A. She said the detector was faulty. The Council acknowledged Mrs X’s email and said it would contact Company A. The Council asked Company A to arrange an operative to go to Mrs X’s property and repair the detector.
31. A few days later Mrs X asked the Council to arrange installation of the new stairlift.
32. On 3 July 2021 Mrs X acknowledged she had received a letter confirming order of the new stairlift but had not heard back about the smoke detector. Mrs X queried whether a detector was required prior to fitting a stairlift as she did not have one in her bedroom.
33. On 5 August 2021 Company A told the Council that it had attempted to contact Mrs X about the faulty smoke detector but had been unsuccessful in arranging a visit to Mrs X’s property.
34. On 12 August 2021 the Council contacted Mrs X to arrange installation of the stairlift by Company B. Mrs X said she was still waiting for a response to her complaint and concerns about who to contact if the smoke detector failed. Mrs X also told the Council that she would prefer communication by text or email. In further communication Mrs X told the Council the warranty on the smoke detectors would expire before the new lift was installed.
35. On 1 September 2021 the Council agreed to renew all smoke detectors through Company B for Mrs X peace of mind, although they were not a safety requirement for the installation of the stairlift.
36. On 14 October 2021 Company B reported they had not visited Mrs X’s property because Mrs X was in hospital. Mrs X agreed to contact Company B when she returned home. About a month later Company B reported “we have tried calling again multiple times and left multiple voicemails for Mrs [X], but we haven’t heard anything back. We are unable to put the lift into manufacture until we are able to go back to the property and complete a final measure”.
37. On 5 November 2021 Company B spoke to Mrs X. Company B told the Council that Mrs X would not allow them access to her property until she had received an email confirmation regarding the smoke alarms. The Council said it was not aware Mrs X was waiting for written confirmation and sent this on the same day.
38. On 18 November 2021 Company B visited Mrs X’s property to take their final measurements and complete their drawings.
39. On 21 December 2021 Company B installed the new stairlift.

Mrs X’s complaint

40. In October 2021 Mrs X complained to the Council about the smoke detectors and said she had been misinformed. Mrs X said the Council failed to inform her that it had asked Company B to renew all smoke detectors at her property. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint and said it was advisable to have the smoke detectors fitted prior to installing a stairlift but not necessary.
41. Mrs X asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the Council’s complaints procedure. The Council said the longest delay was due to issues raised by Mrs X about the smoke detectors and the Council’s response.
42. Mrs X remained unsatisfied and complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

43. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider how a Council manages the grant procedure and any works funded by the grant. It is not for us to decide if those works should be approved or to comment on the details of what is needed.

Stairlift and damaged staircase

44. Mrs X says Company A damaged her wooden staircase and decorations when they installed the stairlift in October 2020
45. Mrs X requested to use the Council’s contractor. At the start of the process the Council clearly told Mrs X the contract of works was between her and Company A. The Council was responsible for managing and administering the adaptations and approval and supervision of the scheme of works. The actions of the Company A are not within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. Therefore, any claim for damages against Company A is for Mrs X to take forward.
46. Once the Council became aware of Mrs X’s concerns about the suitability and safety of the stairlift it acted promptly by arranging a visit with an OT. Once the Council identified the stairlift did not meet Mrs X’s needs it contacted Company A to resolve the issues. Mrs X refused the solutions offered by Company A and requested another company. I find the Council acted quickly to engage Company B as requested by Mrs X.
47. The Councils’ records show it agreed to communicate with Company A on Mrs X’s behalf, recognising the stress the situation was causing her. This was good practice on their part.
48. Mrs X complained to the Council about poor workmanship by Company A causing damage to her staircase. Mrs X also said the walls required some repair. The Council arranged for a surveyor to visit the property and take photographs. It then liaised with Company A about the poor workmanship. As explained previously, the Council is not responsible for the standard of works or poor workmanship by Company A. I find the Council acted quicky and appropriately to Mrs X’s concerns by sharing them with Company A.
49. Company A agreed to replace the damaged stair treads however the records show that Mrs X refused visits to look at samples. Mrs X and Company A continued to communicate about this issue for several weeks. The Council cannot be held responsible for any delay caused during this period. Company A then agreed to replace the staircase.
50. In May 2021 Mrs X asked the Council to put the installation of the new staircase on hold. Mrs X did not contact the Council again until June 2021. The Council cannot be held responsible for any delay caused during this period.
51. Mrs X said the Council’s offer to pay £150 towards the cost of redecorations was not enough. This offer was made by Company A not the Council. The actions of the Company A are not within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and any claim against Company A is for Mrs X to take forward.

Smoke alarms

52. Mrs X says her queries about a faulty smoke detector were not resolved promptly which added to the delay in installing the replacement stairlift.
53. Mrs X reported a defect with a smoke detector to the Council in June 2021 and around the same time requested installation of the new stairlift by Company B. Mrs X was under the impression that smoke defectors were required prior to installation of the new stairlift. This is understandable, as Company A fitted three new smoke detectors when it installed the first stairlift.
54. The records show the Council asked Company A to visit Mrs X’s property to assess and repair the smoke detector. Company A contacted Mrs X but received no response. As explained in paragraph 44 above, the actions of the Company A are not within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
55. In September 2021 the Council agreed to renew all smoke defectors through Company B as peace of mind for Mrs X. The Council did not inform Mrs X of its decision until November 2021. This is fault. If the Council had informed Mrs X sooner, then there is no doubt Mrs X would have allowed Company B access to her property to take measurements. But I cannot say whether the stairlift would have been fitted any sooner as the records show Company B reported difficulties contacting Mrs X. Mrs X was also in hospital during October 2021.
56. I acknowledge the Council’s comments that smoke detectors were not a safety requirement for the installation of the stairlift. However, it is my view the fault caused Mrs X avoidable distress in terms of uncertainty about how her query was being dealt with at the time.

Care and support

57. There is no evidence the Council considered whether Mrs X had a need for care and support when she was without a stairlift for twelve months. Mrs X found it extremely difficult to get up and down the stairs and sometimes stayed at her son’s home because she could not cope at home alone. The failure to consider what support Mrs X might need in absence of her stairlift was fault.
58. I cannot say what support the Council may have provided if any, however again this caused distress in terms of uncertainty about what support Mrs X may have been entitled to but for the fault.

Communication

59. Mrs X says she was not always given prior notice of appointments, and her request for communication by email or text as a reasonable adjustment was not passed on to the stairlift contractors.
60. This adjustment was requested by Mrs X on 12 August 2021 as she was clearly feeling distressed. The records show that Company B contacted Mrs X by telephone at least six times between September 2021 and November 2021 to arrange a home visit. There is no evidence to show the Council told Company B to contact Mrs X by email or text only. This is fault and added to Mrs X’s distress and uncertainty. I have not seen any evidence to support Mrs X’s comments about not receiving advance notification of appointments.

Back to top

Agreed action

61. Where we find an injustice, we try in our remedy proposals to place people in the place they would have been but for the faults. Where that is not possible, we use our Guidance on Remedies which recommends a symbolic payment on a scale of between £100 and £300 in recognition of the injustice caused.
62. To remedy the fault and injustice identified in paragraphs 55, 57 and 60 above, within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council will:
1. apologise to Mrs X;
2. pay Mrs X £300 in recognition of the distress and uncertainty caused by the faults identified; and
3. remind staff they must assess any adult with the appearance of care and support needs.

Back to top

Final decision

63. I have completed my investigation finding fault by the Council causing injustice to Mrs X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman