Summary: Mr Y complains the Council has failed to deal properly with disabled adaptations to Mr X’s home, leaving him without access to adequate bathroom facilities for too long and putting him at risk of harm. The Council has delayed in providing equipment for Mr X’s bathroom, causing avoidable distress. It needs to apologise, pay financial redress and take action to provide the equipment.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr Y, complains the Council has failed to deal properly with disabled adaptations to Mr X’s home, leaving him without access to adequate bathroom facilities for too long and putting him at risk of harm.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated the complaint as summarised above. I explain at the end of this statement why I have not investigated other issues Mr Y has raised.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)

• 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, sections 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr Y;
• discussed the complaint with Mr Y;
• considered the comments and documents the Council has provided in response to my enquiries;
• considered the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies; and
• invited comments on a draft of this statement from Mr Y and the Council, for me to consider before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

5. Mr Y is Mr X’s landlord. Mr X has a learning disability and impaired mobility.
6. Mr X previously complained about the Council’s handling of his Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) in 2019. In September 2020 (19 007 481) we found fault with the Council over its handling of the DFG, including a delay in agreeing remedial work after its contractor failed to complete the work to a satisfactory standard. The Council agreed to:
• send proposals for completing the remedial work, including timescales;
• apologise;
• pay Mr X £950 and Mr Y £500; and
• improve its services.
7. The Council agreed a schedule of works for the remedial work with Mr Y on 22 October 2022. Following a competitive tender, it awarded a contract for the work on 12 November.
8. Work started on 22 February 2021. The Council agreed with the contractor that it was not feasible to lower the bathroom floor because of underlying pipes and other structures. Mr Y asked the contractor to leave as he was not satisfied with this decision. The contractor recommenced work on 1 March.
9. The contractor told the Council it would complete the work on 31 March. The Council visited the site on 30 March and identified issues for the contractor to correct before it would sign off the work.
10. On 8 April the contractor told the Council Mr Y had accused them of not sealing the walls before tiling. The contractor said: “I have been assured they have been”. The contractor accepted it had not boarded the ceiling with moisture resistant board but said he would do that the next day.
11. On 21 April Mr X’s GP confirmed he needed to use the bathroom urgently at times and supported his request to have it modified so it did not include a step to enter.
12. The Council confirmed completion of the work after receiving photographs from the contractor on 29 April.
13. Mr Y complained to the Ombudsman in July. We advised him to take it up with the Council, as it had not yet had an opportunity to respond to the complaint.
14. In August, the Council paid Mr Y £420 to repay him for repairs to the electrical system which were a consequence of the DFG funded works.
15. The Council visited the property on 16 September to discuss his concerns.
16. When the Council replied to Mr Y’s complaint in September, it said:
• in October 2020 it had agreed to remove the raised floor in the bathroom if it was “reasonable and practicable” (as defined in the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996);
• when work started it found it could not remove the raised floor because this would require changes to the bathroom drainage which were not “reasonable or practicable”:
• the Occupational Therapy Service had not recommended removing the step to the bathroom, nor made any recommendation about accessing the stairs to Mr X’s first floor flat;
• the bathroom walls were provided with moisture resistant plasterboard which was then skimmed with plaster;
• the British Gypsum website confirmed it was possible to tile directly on to moisture resistant plasterboard without any pre-treatment; and
• it was satisfied with the quality of bathroom decoration.
17. Having inspected the bathroom, a heating and plumbing company has told Mr Y the wet room floor could be lowered to match the entrance level.
18. The Council referred Mr X to the Occupational Therapy Service for a further assessment, which happened on 19 October. Mr X had a physiotherapy assessment on 28 October. The Occupational Therapy Service wrote to Mr X on 25 November with the outcomes. It said:
• Mr X could walk without aids and could use stairs safely;
• he navigated the step access to the bathroom safely and independently;
• he completed a four-step square test (used to assess the ability to step over low objects) and simulated urgently mobilising to the toilet without identifying any risks. He also showed good risk awareness;
• it recommended installing a grab rail;
• Mr X’s use of the toilet did not support a need to tile the whole bathroom or provide a urinal; and
• he needed a toilet seat which stayed upright, so he did not have to hold it up with one hand.
19. As a result of the visit, the Council agreed to:
• install a grab rail;
• refer Mr X to a continence nurse to explore continence aids;
• provide a full body dryer under a DFG;
• replace the toilet seat with one which stayed upright; and
• provide a weighted shower curtain which reached the floor.
20. The grab rail was installed in November.
21. On 19 January 2022 Mr X’s GP confirmed he had told him he twice fell over the step into the bathroom, once hitting his head and the other time stubbing his toe.
22. Mr Y has provided a statement from a wall and floor tiler which says it is not advisable to tile the wall in brick bond because “the tiles and bowed, water will not drain away properly which will cause fungi and proper moisture board was not used. They were then skimmed with plaster and no tile sealer was applied to new plaster. The manufacturer recommends tiles not used in brick bond with these particular tiles”.
23. The Council does not agree with this statement. It says specialist tile suppliers support the use of brick bond in bathrooms and has provided links to their websites to evidence this claim. It says the tiles were fixed to the wall with waterproof adhesive and then grouted in line with recognised practice.
24. The Council accepts it has taken longer than expected to install the full body dryer. It puts this down to the impact of COVID-19. It says it will contact its contractor about this. It also says the DFG will remain open until the dryer is installed. It is planning to install the weighted shower curtain and replacement toilet seat at the same time as the dryer, to minimise the impact on Mr X.

Is there evidence of fault by the Council which caused injustice?

25. The Council was not at fault over the decision not to lower the bathroom floor. Neither the original assessment nor the more recent assessment has identified the need for the step to the bathroom to be removed. Although it agreed to lower the floor if it was “reasonable and practicable” to do so, it decided that was not the case when it was possible to inspect the construction properly.
26. The Council has satisfied itself that the tiles are both suitable for the bathroom and have been properly fitted. It has taken account of the information provided by Mr Y but does not accept it. That was a decision the Council was entitled to take and not one I can criticise.
27. The Council accepts it has taken longer to install the full body dryer than expected. It puts this down to COVID-19 without any clear justification for this. It appears the Council has not yet chased the supplier. It has therefore been unable to provide a date for delivering the full body dryer. This suggests the Council has allowed the matter to drift. That is fault by the Council. Mr X has also had to wait longer than expected for the replacement weighted shower curtain and new toilet seat. Given the delay in providing the full body dryer, the Council should have reviewed the decision to provide the other items at the same time. The failure to do so was also fault by the Council. This has caused avoidable distress to Mr X.

Back to top

Agreed action

28. I recommended the Council within the next four weeks:
• provides the weighted shower curtain and the toilet seat;
• either provides the full body dryer or confirms the expected delivery date; and
• apologises to Mr X and pays him £150 for the distress caused by the delays.

The Council has agreed to do this.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I have completed my investigation on the basis there has been fault by the Council causing injustice which requires a remedy.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint I did not investigate

30. I have not investigated Mr Y’s allegation of fraud, as this is a matter for the Police, or issues he has referred to the Information Commissioner, who is best placed to deal with them.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman