Summary: Miss Y complains about problems during the build of a Disabled Facilities Grant to adapt her house to meet the needs of her children. The Council has already acknowledged and accepted that some aspects of the workmanship was poor, and that Miss Y and her family experienced an unusual amount of disruption. We agree with the Council’s findings but have recommended additional remedy which the Council has agreed to implement.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complains about the actions of the Council during the build of a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). The DFG was awarded by the Council to support the needs of her two children. In particular, she says:
1. the chosen contractor was responsible for poor workmanship;
2. the adaptations took too long to complete;
3. her house was left in an unsecure and unsuitable state;
4. contractors demanded money from her;
5. the Council’s communication and responses to the concerns raised were poor; and
6. the remedial action offered by the Council is not sufficient.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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 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)
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

What I have and have not investigated

5. I have investigated the actions undertaken by or on behalf of the Council since its contractors started the building work in June 2023. I have not investigated complaint b) because this is about events which happened in 2021 and 2022.
6. Miss Y confirms the Council’s panel approved the amended application (for a loft conversion, rather than a bedroom reconfiguration) on 11 March 2022. If Miss Y had concerns about the time taken to reach the stage of approval, she should have complained to the Ombudsman within 12 months of her original DFG application and by August 2022.
7. If Miss Y had concerns about the time taken between the panel’s approval in March 2022 and the commencement of works, she should have complained to the Ombudsman within 12 months of the panel’s decision and by March 2023.
8. Whilst I am aware that Miss Y previously approached the Ombudsman in late 2022, I note her complaint was about the Council’s initial refusal to approve a loft conversion. Miss Y’s complaint was not about the time taken, or any delay in the process.
9. As more than 12 months has passed since the events covered by complaint b), I must consider whether there are grounds to exercise the Ombudsman’s discretion. In my view, there is no good reason to exercise discretion to consider matters dating back to 2021. Furthermore, having considered the contents of Miss Y’s complaint to the Council made on 25 August 2023, I cannot see that she specifically raised concerns about the timeliness of the approval process.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered the information provided by Miss Y and tried to contact her by telephone. I gave her the opportunity to discuss the complaint with me.
11. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response.
12. I consulted the relevant law and guidance which I have referenced in this statement.
13. Miss Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
14. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

What I found

What should happen

15. Under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, councils can award Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG) to people whose disability means their home needs adaptation. If the person applying meets the qualifying criteria the council must award the grant.
16. Councils only approve grants for work they decide is necessary. An occupational therapist (OT) usually assesses need.
17. The maximum amount of mandatory grant is £30,000. Grants for children are not means-tested. Councils can decide to give more help if they think it is necessary. If an adaptation is required to meet an assessed need and the cost of the works will exceed the maximum grant available, the remainder should be met either by the council using its discretionary powers or by social services departments at the county council under the other legislation set out below.
18. Councils must decide if the proposed works are necessary and appropriate to meet the needs of the disabled person. It must also be satisfied it is reasonable and practicable to carry out the works given the condition of the property to be adapted. In cases where major adaptations are required and it is difficult to provide a cost-effective solution, councils may consider the possibility of supporting a person to move to a more suitable home.

What happened

Complaint a)

19. The Council approved a DFG application for an adaptation of Miss Y’s house to meet the needs of her two young children.
20. The Council is obliged to provide the funding for adaptation works, not to complete the works. Councils can require an applicant to arrange their own contractor or appoint contractors to complete the works. In this case, the Council arranged and appointed the first contractors, which I will call Contractor A.
21. Towards the end of June 2023 Miss Y raised several significant concerns about the workmanship of Contractor A. On 4 July 2023 a surveyor noted the following.
• The ridge beam is too long and has penetrated the chimney breast and flue wall, which should be restored.
• Steel beams should be sited to allow a gap of approximately 25mm to the structure below it. It appears that the floor beams have been installed with no gap and bear onto the ceiling timber structure.
• The contractor has damaged the ceiling in two locations in the first-floor rear bedroom belonging to Miss Y’s oldest son. This should be repaired.
22. The records show the Council appointed another company (Contractor B) ten days after the surveyor noted their concerns. The DFG was re-approved with additional funding allocated to remedy the errors made by Contractor A.
23. In the complaint response dated 22 September 2023, the Council apologised for the poor workmanship which it said “… was found to be below the standard we would expect from our contractors”. The Council accepted the problems experienced by Miss Y were beyond the usual levels of disruption normally encountered during major building work.
24. The Council also apologised for the disruption caused to Miss Y’s son who was unable to access his bedroom until the new ceiling was installed and the bedroom redecorated.
25. Miss Y raised another complaint. She asked the Council to fund the redecoration of her hallway and replace the carpet as a gesture of goodwill. In September 2023 the Council agreed to replace the carpet, at a cost of £729, and arrange redecoration of the hallway as requested. I understand these works were completed by Contractor B in October 2023. Miss Y accepted the gestures but told the Ombudsman the carpet was damaged during the building works and should have been replaced in any event, and not as goodwill.
26. The Council appointed Contractor A to complete the adaptation works on Miss Y’s behalf. Therefore, we are satisfied the Council commissioned the contractors and it has overall responsibility for the contractors’ work, including whether the works are of an acceptable standard.
27. Because of the poor workmanship, Miss Y and her family experienced avoidable disruption and distress. While the Council has already paid for some additional work over and above the scheme originally agreed, it is has also agreed to increase the personal remedy with the actions listed at the end of this statement. This is to appropriately reflect the distress caused by Contractor A.

Complaint c)

28. Miss Y said her house was left in an unsecure state by Contractor A because they unnecessarily removed all roof tiles which posed a security risk due to the presence of scaffolding and ladder.
29. In response, the Council referred to the surveyor’s findings which said the roof covering was correctly removed as part of the loft conversation and temporarily replaced with corrugated sheets and tarpaulin. The surveyor said this is standard practice in certain circumstances, for example when there is damage to roof rafters. The surveyor did not find evidence of damage caused following the temporary removal of the roof covering, such as water ingress.
30. The Council did however accept that Contractor A had failed to remove the ladders at the end of the working day. The Council also acknowledged the removal of the roof caused concern and the procedure should have been explained to Miss Y beforehand.
31. The surveyor has provided an explanation for the steps taken by Contractor A when removing the roof covering. This is a matter of professional judgement which, in the absence of procedural fault, I am unable to challenge. However, I agree the process should have been explained to Miss Y to help resolve her anxieties. Contractor A also failed to ensure the house remained safe and secure by removing the ladders. This caused avoidable worry which the Council has agreed to acknowledge with the remedy at the end of this statement.

Complaint d)

32. Early one morning in September Miss Y received aggressive demands from a scaffolding company for settlement of an unpaid invoice. The Council said it was “appalled” at the actions of the company. The records show the Council’s surveyor contacted the scaffolding company immediately, arranged payment of the invoice and sought assurances the scaffolding would remain in place for Contractor B. The Council apologised for the upset caused by this incident.
33. In my view, the apology already provided by the Council does not go far enough to remedy the significant distress caused by this avoidable incident. The Council will therefore implement the additional actions recommended at the end of this statement.

Complaint e)

34. As part of her complaint, Miss Y raised concerns about the lack of communication regarding important elements of the DFG process. In response to Miss Y’s complaint the Council apologised and acknowledged there had been issues with communication and said it would raise those concerns with the relevant staff members. The Council also apologised for the delay in responding to Miss Y’s complaint.
35. The Council has agreed to implement the actions listed at the end of this statement to fully remedy the avoidable time and trouble caused by the Council’s poor and sometimes delayed communication with Miss Y.

Complaint f)

36. Miss Y has made requests for damage to be rectified and compensation to be paid in recognition of the disruption and distress. As explained in paragraph 24, the Council agreed to fund redecoration of the hallway and replacement of some downstairs carpet after Miss Y complained that Contractor A dragged dirty and wet rubbish through her house. The Council said the surveyor concluded the carpet could be cleaned and did not need to be replaced. Despite this, the Council agreed to pay for new carpet.
37. Miss Y does not consider this is compensation but rather a rectification of avoidable damage caused by Contractor A.
38. In my view, and for the reasons explained throughout this statement, I consider Miss Y and her family have experienced significant and avoidable distress from fault. While we acknowledge the Council has already provided some remedial work, it has also agreed to complete the actions listed at the end of this statement to fully remedy the injustice caused by fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

39. In response to our enquiries the Council confirmed that it has already:
• removed Contractor A as an approved contractor for future DFG works; and
• raised a learning point to highlight Miss Y’s case to senior management to consider how the service can ensure greater scrutiny over contractors.
40. In addition to the above, and within four weeks of our final decision, the Council will provide evidence to show it has:
• paid £350 to Miss Y’s son. This is a symbolic payment in recognition of the significant and avoidable distress he experienced when he had to move out of the family home due to damage caused by Contractor A. The remedy takes into account that he was in the middle of an exam period and the impact of the disruption was therefore significant; and
• paid £1000 to Miss Y. This is a symbolic payment in recognition of the significant and avoidable distress caused by the actions of Contractor A and for the time and trouble caused by the Council’s poor and sometimes delayed communication.
41. Within eight weeks of our final decision, the Council has also agreed to:
• provide evidence showing the processes it now has in place to ensure greater scrutiny of contractors appointed to complete DFG work.

Back to top

Final decision

42. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice for the reasons explained in this statement. The actions listed above will provide an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman