Summary: Miss X complained about the quality of work carried out under a disabled facilities grant which she says has left her without adequate shower facilities. There was no fault in the way the Council has responded to the concerns Miss X raised about the quality of the works. However, the Council commissioned contractor failed to update the construction phase health and safety plan to include that food should not be consumed on the premises. This was fault. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Ms X £200 to acknowledge the uncertainty this caused Miss X over whether an allergic reaction she had could have been avoided.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the quality of work carried out when she had a shower room fitted under a disabled facilities grant overseen by the Council’s home improvement agency. She says this has left her with a shower she is unable to use. In addition, Miss X complained the contractor carrying out the work on behalf of the Council, failed to comply with agreed health and safety procedures which resulted in her having a severe allergic reaction.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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

5. I considered the information provided by Miss X and discussed the complaint with her on the telephone. I considered the Council’s response to my enquiries.
6. I gave Miss X and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered any comments I received in reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Disabled facilities grants

7. Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs) are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Councils have a statutory duty to give grant aid 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. Councils will often consult an occupational therapist (OT) to determine what is necessary and appropriate.
8. The law sets out the purposes for which a grant may be given. This includes:
• facilitating access by the disabled person to a bathroom or shower room;
• providing a bathroom or shower room for the disabled person; or
• facilitating the use of the bathroom or shower room by the disabled person.
9. The grant application was managed and overseen by the Council’s Home Improvement Agency (HIA), which applicants may instruct to manage the whole DFG process on their behalf.

What happened

10. This section sets out the key events and is not a detailed chronology of all communication.
11. Miss X has health conditions including severe allergies, reduced muscle strength and pain. Miss X requested an assessment for suitable bathing facilities in her home.
12. An Occupational Therapist (OT) visited Miss X and assessed that she required a level access shower to help manage her personal care independently. The OT recommended the shower have a half height screen, shower curtain and a wall mounted shower seat. They also agreed to raise the height of Miss X’s toilet using a plinth.
13. The Council agreed Miss X should retain a bath which she used to ease pain. It carried out a feasibility study which assessed it would not be feasible to add a shower cubicle to Miss X’s existing upstairs bathroom. It therefore recommended that the downstairs toilet be adapted to include the level access shower.
14. Miss X did not agree with the plans proposed by the OT. Miss X requested a shower tray and full height screens due to her concerns about mould from a shower curtain. Miss X was also unhappy with the shower seat recommended by the OT and suggested a different seat. Miss X also requested a specific, more powerful, shower.
15. Technical officer 1 advised the risk of mould would be very low due to an extractor fan being fitted. They explained she would have to fund any difference in cost between her requests and the recommended items, which Miss X agreed to. The plans included replacing the door to the downstairs toilet with a sliding one.
16. The OT suggested Miss X plan ahead as she may need to be out of the property while the works were carried out due to her allergies. They advised her to consider respite at her parent’s home or to seek support from Adult Social Care.
17. The schedule of works prepared by the Council included that Miss X had a high risk of experiencing allergic reactions so there was a need for a high attention to detail on the health and safety plan.
18. Miss X signed off the schedule of works in late February 2023. In doing so she added the importance of using low volatile organic compound products due to her severe allergies to strong smelling chemicals.
19. The Council identified a contractor who planned to start work in July 2023. The construction phase health and safety plan, completed in May 2023 stated ‘the client has severe allergy problems to glue, formaldehyde, strong smells, dust , smoke – must not smoke anywhere near premises, do not wear aftershave, please wear facemasks’. It said dust must be contained and to hoover not sweep and use disposable or new dust sheets. It stated they had informed Miss X they could not guarantee there would be no dust.
20. In late June 2023 Miss X corresponded with the contractor regarding her allergies. The contractor emailed Miss X that she had said it was not possible to be away overnight until the works were completed but she was happy to be out of the premises and the contractor would call when workers were leaving so she could return. It advised it would do its upmost to minimise dust, would use new dust sheets and vacuum although it would be impossible to eliminate all dust due to the nature of the works. It said it would request workers did not wear aftershave or smoke or vape near the premises. It noted Miss X said her allergies were extensive and due to the nature of her illness they also changed. It advised the safest option would be for Miss X to stay elsewhere for the duration of the works. The contractor said if Miss X wished to proceed with alternative arrangements, such as being out of the house during the day and returning in evening, it was happy to proceed although it noted it could not guarantee there would be no dust or smell.
21. Miss X asked the contractor to ensure the window was fully open at all times and that internal doors were closed. She asked that shoe coverings be worn and asked that no food be consumed in the home due to her severe allergic reactions. The contractor advised the requests were all possible.
22. The work started in July 2023.
23. Technical officer 1 noted the toilet could not be raised on a plinth due to the size of its base. The OT agreed to change the toilet for a raised height toilet as long as Miss X was happy with the design. Miss X emailed technical officer 2 to confirm she was happy to go with the recommendation after discussing it with the OT. Technical officer 1 sent Miss X a picture of the toilet which she agreed to.
24. Technical officer 1 carried out a site visit. They noted Miss X had a severe allergic reaction the previous night which she believed was due to biscuits brought into the building by contractors. Miss X has a photo to show biscuits being stored in the work area. The officer noted Miss X said she did not trust the contractor and raised issues about the work. Technical officer 1 met the contractor to address the issues and asked the OT to speak with Miss X once she had recovered. Technical officer 1 then went on leave so technical officer 2 took over the case.
25. In late July 2023 Miss X contacted technical officer 2 with concerns about the works being carried out. These included:
• the shower fitted was an 8.5kw shower not the 9.5kw shower she had requested;
• the contractor was unable to fit the shower seat without her being present as it was not height adjustable. She asked if she could choose a freestanding replacement;
• she was unhappy with the sliding door and the quality of the workmanship; and
• a tile splash back and gold floor gripper had been thrown away.
26. Miss X also reported she had suffered a severe allergic reaction as a result of food or materials being brought into the house.
27. Technical officer 2 met with Miss X to inspect the works then responded by email. They advised:
• they had asked the contractor to fit the shower, although it was the wrong one, so it could be used in the meantime;
• they would seek guidance from the OT on a suitable shower seat;
• they agreed the work to the sliding door needed improving and could be brought up to an acceptable standard with additional work. However, Miss X did not like the type of track and pelmet fitted. If Miss X wanted a different track they would ask the contractor to provide a cost for the works;
• the gold floor gripper Miss X had was not suitable for re-use so the contractor had fitted a new one. The contactor had offered to replace the missing tiles and fit a new tile splashback.
28. Technical officer 2 emailed Miss X again the following day. They said the contractor would complete as far as possible that day. There were outstanding items needed once a decision was made and materials ordered including the replacement shower unit, shower seat, splashback and replacement sliding door gear.
29. The officer followed this up with a further email asking if Miss X was happy for them to ask the contractor to process the work. The officer advised the shower unit issue was a genuine mistake as the Council had not specified the size required on the paperwork sent to the contractor. They advised the Council was willing to fund a replacement. They suggested delaying a decision on the replacement until Miss X had decided about the door works.
30. Miss X responded that she did not want any further work carried out by the contractor due to its poor workmanship. She said the work was now finished but the issues she had raised had not been rectified. Technical officer 2 asked if they could visit to look at this.
31. Miss X emailed the Council to complain about the works. Her complaints included:
• concerns her wishes and feelings were not considered,
• the poor quality of the works to the sliding door,
• the shower was incorrect and the position of the shower was very low,
• she had no shower seat,
• when the toilet could not be raised she agreed to a replacement. However, she was unaware the toilet installed would have a special disabled seat,
• her splashback and gripper were discarded and
• she had an allergic reaction.
32. A manager responded and advised the complaint would be responded to in due course. They advised it was usual practice for a technical officer to visit to inspect a property and identify any snagging works. The contractor would be requested to return and complete these to a satisfactory standard and asked whether she would allow staff access to do this.
33. Miss X replied that she considered she needed a bathroom specialist and qualified carpenter to rectify the issues. She did not want technical officer 1 or 2 or the OT to visit as she considered they were not interested in her opinions. The manager asked if they could attend with a colleague, but Miss X advised she would prefer to wait until her complaint had been responded to.
34. The manager responded to Miss X’s complaint at stage one of the Council’s two stage complaints procedure in August 2023. The response set out that:
• records showed Miss X’s medical conditions were considered by the contractor and Council throughout the adaptation process.
• it was agreed between Miss X, the OT and technical officer 2 that a sliding door should be fitted. They said the door met Miss X’s accessibility needs so it was not considered necessary to change it. If Miss X wanted this changed for aesthetic reasons this would not be funded by a DFG. Technical officer 2 had agreed the timber finish on the door was not up to standard and the contractor would need to undertake additional work to fill and decorate as part of the snagging works.
• They apologised that the wrong shower was fitted and agreed to arrange for this to be replaced subject to Miss X’s approval. If Miss X allowed access, a technical officer would check the height and position of the shower to ensure it was suitable.
• the shower seat agreed with Miss X was not adjustable and so could not be fitted.
• The toilet had to be changed as a plinth would not fully support the unusual shape of the existing toilet base.
• They offered to replace the splashback tiles and explained the old gripper was not compatible with the new floor covering so a new gripper was installed.
• Records showed Miss X had rare medical conditions which were considered by the contractor, Technical officers and OT through the process.
35. They asked if Miss X would agree for an officer to visit the property with a view to instructing the contractor to remedy the outstanding issues identified.
36. Miss X asked to escalate her complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints’ process. She said she did not want anything done in the interim and did not want the contractor near her property again.
37. The Council sent Miss X its stage two response in September 2023. It advised it could not add to the stage one response and it was reasonable and proportionate for the Council or contractor to be allowed the opportunity to rectify the works. It said the manager was happy to visit to review the works and to seek to assist with any liaison necessary with the contractors.

Findings

38. 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.
39. The Council sought to provide Miss X with accessible shower facilities in line with the law and it has done so. Miss X is unhappy with how the shower room looks. However, the Council’s duty was to ensure the shower facilities met Miss X’s current and potentially future care needs and it has done that.
40. In relation to the specific issues raised:

The sliding door and shower screen

41. Miss X raised issues about the quality of the workmanship to the sliding door and fitting of the shower screen. Miss X has raised valid concerns about the quality of the work and when technical officer 2 visited before the works were completed, they agreed some remedial works were required to bring the works up to standard.
42. However, Miss X has not agreed to allow Council officers to visit now the work is completed. The Council has not had the opportunity to establish exactly what the snagging issues are and to consider how to resolve these. I acknowledge Miss X has lost faith in the original contractor. However, it is not fault for the Council to seek to get that contractor to remedy any outstanding issues. The contractor was paid for the works and so is responsible for completing these satisfactorily. It is open to Miss X to contact the Council to arrange a visit to assess the snagging works.
43. Aside from the snagging issues, Miss X is unhappy with the look of the sliding door and does not agree it was necessary to replace the original door. The records show Miss X agreed to the plans which included the installation of a sliding door. She is unhappy with how it looks but that is not fault. The Council has offered to obtain a quote to replace the tracking mechanism and it is not fault to require Miss X to pay for such works relating to the aesthetics rather than action of the door.

The type and height of the shower

44. The Council accepts the contractor fitted the wrong shower. It did not specify the size of shower to the contractor, so the contractor purchased an 8.5kw rather than 9.5kw shower. The Council asked the contractor to install the wrong one in the interim to enable Miss X to access shower facilities. The Council has already apologised in its stage one response and offered to replace this. The Council’s actions are appropriate.
45. Miss X has not agreed for the Council to access the property to assess whether the height and position of the shower is appropriate. It is open to Miss X to contact the Council so that this can be considered alongside the snagging works.

The shower seat

46. The original shower seat chosen by Miss X was not height adjustable. Miss X could not be present on site due to her medical conditions so the contractor was unable to fit this. The issue of a shower seat remains unresolved. Miss X has received adaptations as part of a disabled facilities grant and so the adaptations must be necessary and appropriate to meet the person’s needs. The Council is not at fault in requiring OT input to ensure the seating provided to Miss X is suitable to meet her needs. Miss X stated she did not want the OT to attend her property and so the Council has not been able to progress this. It is open to Miss X to contact the Council so that it can assess what seat or stool is suitable for the shower.

The toilet

47. The Council could not raise the height of Miss X’s existing toilet. It proposed installing a new one. Miss X was provided with a picture of the product and she agreed to its installation. The Council was not at fault.

The splashback and gripper

48. The Council has offered to replace the splashback which is appropriate. It has explained that the gripper originally in place was not suitable to use with the new floor surface. It has provided a replacement. This is appropriate. The Council is not at fault.

Miss X’s allergic reaction.

49. The Council and contractor properly considered Miss X’s allergies in the schedule of works. When Miss X signed off the specification, she highlighted her allergy to strong smelling chemicals. Miss X raised with the contractor just prior to the start of work that food should not be consumed on the premises due to her allergies. The construction phase health and safety plan was not updated to reflect this and this was fault.
50. Miss X had a severe allergic reaction whilst the works were ongoing but I could not say that was due to the contractor eating biscuits on the premises. Miss X has a number of allergies including to dust and a range of products. It would be impossible to say with certainty that it was the biscuits that triggered the reaction and not anything else associated with the works with which there was always an element of risk. However, this leaves Miss X with a sense of uncertainty over whether the reaction could have been prevented had the plan been updated appropriately.

Back to top

Agreed action

51. Within one month of the final decision the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and pay her £200 to acknowledge the uncertainty caused by the failure to update the construction phase health and safety plan.
52. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
53. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

54. I have completed my investigation. There was evidence of fault causing injustice which the Council has agreed to remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman