Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed to properly deal with Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) and Safe Warm and Dry Grant (SWD) applications and there was a delay in carrying out the works. We found there was fault in how the Council dealt with issues causing delay to the DFG works. There was also some delay in resolving Mr X’s complaint which warranted a remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X’s complaint concerns work carried out on his property under a Safe, Warm and Dry grant and a Disabled Facilities Grant. He complains:
2. There was unreasonable delay; the process as a whole started in 2015 and work was not complete until 2021.
3. Although the work was completed in 2021, issues came to light with the workmanship soon after. He complains there are still works outstanding concerning draughts/noise from doors, an issue with guttering and garden work/turf that was laid.
4. That it was unreasonable for the Council to suggest he was responsible for dealing with the contractor direct. He says the Council chose the contractor and he was never provided with the quotes. He also was not provided with a copy of the schedule of works, so he could not hold the contractor to it. Mr X also complained that communication and oversight by the Council was poor.
5. Mr X has a health condition. He says the aim of the works was to enable him to shower safely. This was identified as a need in 2015, but the length of time it has taken and issues with the whole process has caused stress and anxiety.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. The Ombudsman generally expects complaints to be brought to us within 12 months of someone being aware of the issues being complained about. However, we have discretion to consider older events. Mr X brought his complaint to us in late 2022. We exercised discretion to consider the complaint back to 2018. I am not investigating events older than 2018 as they took place too long ago for us to consider now and we would have expected a complaint about these events to have been brought to us sooner. The focus of our investigation is how the overall process was managed by the Council and the issues that remain outstanding.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

7. 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)
8. 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)
9. 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

10. I spoke to Mr X and considered his complaint and information he provided. I asked the Council for information and I considered its response to the complaint.
11. Mr X 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

Relevant law and guidance

12. Disabled Facilities Grants are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Councils have a statutory duty to give grants to disabled people for certain adaptations. Before approving a grant, a council must be satisfied the work is necessary, meets the disabled person’s needs, and is reasonable and practicable.

Disabled Facilities Grant Delivery: Guidance for Local Authorities

13. Before March 2022, guidance on the provision of DFGs was provided by the Housing Adaptations Consortium; a group of national organisations such as charities and professional associations. The Consortium produced guidance commissioned by Government called ‘Delivering Housing Adaptations for Disabled People: a detailed guide to related legislation, guidance and good practice’. It recommended local authorities introduce target timescales for each stage when carrying out adaptations, identifying three stages of the process:

• Stage One being from the enquiry at first point of contact to referral to an Occupational Therapist (OT). Councils use these specialist officers to assess if adaptations are ‘necessary’ and to recommend the type of adaptations needed.
• Stage Two being from the OT recommendation to approval of a scheme. This will often involve surveying work, technical specifications and so on that will set out the scope, cost and time involved in carrying out the adaptations.
• Stage Three is from the approval of the scheme to the completion of the works.

14. The guidance recommended varying timescales dependent on whether the work needed was ‘urgent’ or ‘non-urgent’. But for non-urgent cases the guidance said the whole process should ideally complete within 150 working days; comprised of up to 20 working days for Stage One, 50 working days for Stage Two and 80 working days for Stage Three.
15. In March 2022 the government replaced this guidance with its own non-statutory guidance ‘Disabled facilities Grant (DFG) Delivery: Guidance for local authorities in England’. This identifies five key stages to delivering home adaptations:

• Stage One: First contact with the service. Councils should ensure the public has access to information and advice about the DFG process.
• Stage Two: First contact to assessment and identification of the relevant works through an OT assessment.
• Stage Three: Identification of the relevant works to submission of the formal grant application.
• Stage Four: Grant application to grant decision.
• Stage Five: Approval of grant to completion of works. The works are arranged and carried out and the necessary quality checks made.

16. The guidance says a council should decide a grant application as soon as reasonably practicable. In addition, the timescales for moving through the stages will depend on the urgency and complexity of the works required. But the guidance gives the following timescales:

• Urgent and simple works – 55 working days
• Non-urgent and simple works – 130 working days
• Urgent and complex works – 130 days
• Non-urgent and complex works – 180 working days

Council delivery of DFGs and relevant policy

17. Bolton at Home is an organisation which comprises several limited companies including two registered social housing providers. On its website the organisation says it provides help and guidance with DFGs. It liaises with the Independent Living Service (ILS) which is part of the Council’s adult social care service. OTs working for the ILS assess someone’s need for adaptations and recommend what priority to give these.
18. Delivery of DFGs is the responsibility of another organisation known as Bolton Care and Repair. This is a home improvement agency which is a partnership of the Council and Bolton at Home. Care and Repair employs case officers to support applicants through the DFG process. It also employs surveyors who draw up specifications of works and can approach approved contractors for quotes.
19. I have referred to decisions and communications in this case as coming from ‘the Council’. This term encompasses communications from Bolton Care and Repair and Bolton at Home.

Background

20. Mr X says in September 2015 he originally received a letter from the Council confirming that a DFG and a SWD Grant had been secured and, subject to planning permission, works to his property could go ahead. For a variety of reasons, the project did not begin until 2018.
21. The Council provided a copy of a quotation from a contractor to carry out the DFG works from April 2018. This was sent directly to the Council.
22. In August 2018 the Council formally approved the two grants for work to Mr X’s property. When the Council approved the grants, it sent Mr X a letter setting out the amount of the quotes/grants and stating which contractor(s) had been chosen to carry out the work. I have not seen evidence that the quote/schedule of works itself was shared with Mr X.
23. The DFG was for an extension to be built onto Mr X’s house to provide an additional bedroom and bathroom suitable for the use of a disabled person. I understand the SWD involved various works to electrics, gas appliances and replacement doors/windows.
24. The Council told us that the need to divert a water main caused delay in the start of the DFG works. Because it was unclear at that time how this would be resolved, the Council agreed that the usual 12-month timescale for completing the DFG work would be waived.
25. The Council provided a chronology of the actions Bolton Care and Repair and other bodies took from August 2018 when the DFG grant was approved.
26. In October 2018, the contractor discovered a water main. The water company would not allow it to be built-over, so an application for divert it was needed. The contractor obtained an indicative cost for the water main diversion and provided them to the Council on 27 November 2018. The Council needed to consider how this would be funded as Mr X was unable to increase his contribution.
27. In the meantime, the SWD work started (in October 2018) and was completed in December 2018.
28. The Council acknowledged that there was a delay in its response to the contractor between November 2018 and 7 June 2019. It then agreed that a full quote should be obtained from the water company. This was obtained in August 2019 and contact between the Council, contractor and water company continued to arrange the works. Access over a neighbouring property was required, and the water company served notice for this on 6 December 2019.
29. The Council made two attempts to reach the tenant of the neighbouring property in February 2020 and chased the water company for an update on 4 March. The Council chased the neighbour’s response on 6 March and the water company hand delivered new paperwork and agreed to collect it.
30. From 23 March 2020 the COVID-19 lockdown came into force. This placed the matter on hold until July. Following several attempts to contact the neighbour, in September the Council asked the landlord (Bolton At Home) to assist in gaining urgent access.
31. Following this, access was agreed and the water company attended site. The utilities work was completed in January 2021. The DFG works began on 18 January 2021.
32. The Council monitored progress via inspections in March and April 2021. It provided evidence of the inspections. At the inspections, no problems were apparent. The DFG works were completed on 7 May 2021.
33. The Council provided evidence that Mr X had signed off the works as complete and satisfactory before it made the final payment to the contractor.

Mr X’s complaint

34. In April 2022 Mr X raised concerns about poorly fitted windows and doors.
35. Mr X raised a complaint with the Council in June 2022. He complained about the overall delays in completing the works and he stated that since completion in 2021, some aspects of the work had begun to deteriorate, and problems had appeared. He stated he had tried to engage with the contractor about the issues without success. He stated he contacted the Council and no-one had been in touch to help put the issues right.
36. The Council’s response to the complaint noted there were delays due to the water main issue. However, the Council stated it was Mr X who selected the contractor. The Council stated officers were not aware of a snagging list. The Council stated Mr X had signed forms for the SWD works and DFG works in March 2021 and May 2021 respectively. They confirmed the required works had been completed.
37. A council officer made contact with the contractor but found they were away on holiday. The Council stated that any guarantees and issues with workmanship would be a matter between Mr X and the contractor to resolve. However, an officer would contact the contractor on Mr X’s behalf when he returned from holiday.
38. In mid-2022, the contractor returned to site and carried out two-days of work resealing all the windows and doors. However, Mr X remained unhappy that draughts were still occurring.
39. He stated that he chose three contractors to quote for the work from the council’s list, but never received any quotes. Rather the quotes were sent to the Council and it was the Council who selected the contractor to do the work. He considered it was unreasonable for the Council to state that the issues with workmanship were between him and the contractor as a result. He raised other concerns and asked the Council to consider the complaint further.
40. The Council stated that as Mr X’s queries covered the period between 2015 and 2021 and there had been no communication about the issues until April 2022, it was not now able to investigate this and comment further. The Council noted the contractor had returned and carried out remedial work which was completed on 15 June 2022.The Council acknowledged there was a delay in responding from April 2022 to June 2022 when Mr X raised his complaint. It offered £50 in compensation to recognise this.
41. In October Mr X contacted the contractor and explained that issues remained outstanding. He stated water cascaded onto their velux window from the gutter and there were draughts and noise from the windows/doors. He also commented about work done to the garden to deal with spoil and lay a new lawn. He stated it looked good when done, but the area had since sunk and the lawn was unstable. He stated it was also contaminated with Himalayan Balsam.
42. In response to our enquiries the Council provided a copy of the quotation setting out the works that were proposed. The quotation/schedule of works did not include any work to the garden.

Was there fault by the Council

43. We are considering the events of the complaint from 2018. There was no significant delay in carrying out the SWD works. These started in October 2018 and were completed in a reasonable time period.
44. The Council provided a chronology of events which set out its involvement in the DFG process from 2018 to 2021. The first issue was that a water main was discovered on site that could not be built over. There was contact between the Council, contractor and water company between August 2018 and November 2019 when the water company provided an indicative cost for moving it. There was no significant delay in getting to this point.
45. The Council accepted there was around 6 months of delay between November 2018 and June 2019 when the Council agreed a full cost should be obtained for the work to proceed. This was fault by the Council.
46. There was no significant delay between June and November 2019 when the Council paid for the water main diversion work.
47. The access to a neighbouring property caused a further delay. This had been requested in late 2019, but the issue became apparent in early 2020. It was compounded by the start of the COVID-19 lockdown. However, having reviewed the actions of the council and its contractor, I do not consider there was a failure to act by the Council. The Council chased the tenant on a number of occasions before the COVID lockdown and again after work was possible again in July 2020. Agreement to access the property was obtained in September 2020 and there was no significant delay before work began in January 2021. Once the DFG works started in January 2021 there was no undue delay in completing it.
48. I recognise the length of time that the DFG work took had an impact on Mr X. Mr X told us he has anxiety and panic attacks that were caused by the stress of the situation and the length of time and uncertainty of the long period that the DFG application took. He was also without the adapted bathroom it would provide for longer than he should have been.
49. Some of the delays with the DFG project were not as a result of fault by the Council. However, there was avoidable delay by the Council for around six months. This warrants a remedy.
50. The Council provided copies of the correspondence with Mr X setting out the quote that had been selected. It is not clear if Mr X or the Council proposed the chosen contractor, and it is not clear that Mr X was supplied with the full quote showing the schedule of works so that he could satisfy himself all the required work was being completed. However, I found this is not likely to have caused significant injustice. I say this because the Council carried out several inspections and ensured there were no issues before making payments to the contractor. This was appropriate. Mr X did not raise issues with the work at the time.
51. It is unfortunate that since the completion of works Mr X became dissatisfied. Having signed off the work, the action that can be taken by the Council is more limited. However, I note the contractors revisited and resealed all the windows and doors. While I understand that Mr X is unhappy with garden works, this was not part of the DFG scheduled works. Any works agreed between Mr X and the contractor outside of the DFG would need to be pursued directly with the contractor.
52. I note the Council offered Mr X £50 to recognise there was some delay in responding to his complaint.

Back to top

Agreed Action

53. Within four weeks of my final decision:
54. The Council should apologise to Mr X in writing for the period of delay which put back the start of the DFG works.
55. The Council should pay Mr X £100 to recognise the delays in dealing with his complaint.
56. To acknowledge and recognise the impact to Mr X of the delay in the start of the DFG works, the Council should pay Mr X £950.

Back to top

Final decision

57. There was some delay in responding to Mr X’s complaint, and fault in the Councils actions which caused delay to the DFG works. I have now completed my investigation and closed my file on the basis the Council carries out the agreed actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman