Summary: Mrs C complained about the way the Council handled her claim for compensation for defects and damage caused to her property by contractors who received a Home Improvement loan to renew her roof. We have upheld one part of her complaint and found fault by the Council in the way it responded to Mrs X’s concerns about the contractor’s standard of work and her compensation claim, causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice by; apologising and making a payment to reflect the distress caused; arranging for a surveyor to inspect the roof and meeting the cost of any work identified by the surveyor; and making a service improvement.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained there was fault in the way the Council handled her application for a Housing Assistance loan to fund roof replacement works. In particular:

1. she was not given sufficient information about the Client Support Scheme (CSS) at the outset;

2. the work done by the roofing contractor was sub-standard;

3. the grants officer closed her case and stopped helping her resolve outstanding issues with the contractors after initially assisting with this;

4. Building Control officers did not properly inspect the roof;

5. the Council refused to provide a copy of an independent contractor’s inspection findings.

2. Mrs X is not satisfied with the quality of work done by the roofing contractors and, although they returned to do snagging works, she says there is still water ingress into the roof space. She wants compensation to make good the resulting damage to decorations.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in 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

How I considered this complaint

5. I have spoken to Mrs X and considered the documents and photographs she provided.
6. I have considered the Council’s response to my enquiry letter and case records held by the Private Sector housing team.
7. Mrs X and the council had an opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered their comments before making this final decision.
    

Back to top

What I found

The relevant law and policy

8. The Regulatory Reform (Housing Assistance) (England and Wales) Order gives councils a discretionary power to provide financial and practical help to repair, improve and adapt homes in their area.
9. The Order requires councils to produce and publish a policy setting out what discretionary help it will give, who can get help (eligibility), how to apply, what information is available and how to complain. 
10. The Council’s Housing Assistance policy sets out the types of grants and loans available and the qualifying conditions. Any homeowner, who meets certain residence conditions, can apply for a means-tested Home Improvement Loan to remedy serious hazards and disrepair which may pose a risk to the health and safety of the occupiers. The loan is interest-free. A loan of up to £8,000 has a 10 year repayment term. A loan of £8,000 to £15,000 has a thirty year repayment term. The Council registers a charge on the property to secure the loan.
11. The Council has a Housing Assistance factsheet for members of the public. It gives examples of work which may be eligible for a Home Improvement Loan, including renewal of a dilapidated or leaking roof.
12. The Council’s Private Sector Housing team administers applications for loans for grants. It also provides a Client Support Scheme (CSS) for applicants who ask for support with the process. A grants officer visits the applicant to complete the forms and paperwork. The officer assesses the works required, designs the scheme, prepares a schedule of work and puts it out to tender to contractors on the Council’s list.
13. Use of the CSS is optional and applicants may choose their own contractors and manage the process if they wish. An information pack about CSS is sent to potential applicants. They must complete a form to say whether they wish to opt in or out of the scheme.

The Council’s legal agreement with contractors – the framework agreement

14. The Council has a legally binding agreement with the contractors on its list who carry out work funded by grants or loans. The contract for the works is between the Council and the contractor. Three clauses in the agreement are particularly relevant to this case:

The Contractor shall indemnify the [council] in full from and against all claims, proceedings, actions, damages, costs, expenses and any other liabilities which may arise out of, or in consequence of, the carrying out of the Works or the performance or non-performance by the Contractor of its obligations under this Framework Agreement or any Contract, including in respect of […] loss of or damage to property, financial loss arising from any advice given or omitted to be given by the Contractor, or any other loss which is caused directly or indirectly by any act or omission of the Contractor.

In the event that any defect arises relating to the Works, including products supplied by the Contractor as part of those Works, it shall be the responsibility of the Contractor (whether such products are covered by warranty or otherwise) to remedy any defective Works and / or replace any defective products without delay, and at no cost to the [council] or the Service User.

The [council] may, among other things, recover from the Contractor as a direct loss any costs arising from any act or omission by the Contractor relating to the performance of a Contract, whereby the property of the Service User is damaged or the Service User sustains a loss and the Contractor, having been requested to do so, has (in the reasonable opinion of the Council) failed to compensate the Service User for such loss or damage.

Back to top

What happened

15. This statement sets out the key facts. It is not intended to give a comprehensive account of everything that happened.
16. Mrs X is a home-owner. She is on a low income and is a full-time carer for her disabled child.
17. In September 2021 Mrs X enquired about financial assistance to replace the roof because it was leaking and the tiles and felt lining were in poor condition. This work was eligible for a Home Improvement loan.
18. The Council sent Mrs X an application form and a CSS information pack. It explained she could choose the contractors or opt into CSS if she wanted the Council to manage the process and select the contractors. The pack said:

“The contractors that are used by the Client Support Scheme have a track record with the Council of having carried out grant-funded works to a suitable standard previously and/or have been selected through a rigorous procurement process. Whilst contractors on this list are not “approved” or “recommended” and no warranty is offered or should be implied in respect of their performance, we do monitor client satisfaction and quality of work closely.”

What if I’m not happy?

“Despite everyone’s best efforts sometimes things go wrong or don’t turn out quite as you expected. In this unlikely event, please contact your Case Officer at the earliest opportunity. We will discuss your concerns with the contractor ensuring that the work is completed in a safe, efficient and competent manner to the satisfaction of all.”

19. Mrs X initially decided to opt out of the CSS. She obtained three quotations from contractors in April 2022 but they did not provide all the required information. She therefore asked the Council to contact contractors on its list. She confirmed she wished to opt into CSS in June 2022. She had previously signed the relevant “opt-in” form in October 2021.
20. The grants officer did the preparatory paperwork and Mrs X approved the schedule of works in late June 2022. After getting an asbestos survey, the grants officer prepared a tender for the works and invited contractors to provide quotations through a dedicated portal in late July.
21. By mid-September 2022 the Council had received quotations from two contractors. It went on to select the contractor who submitted the lowest quotation.
22. In October 2022 the Council confirmed the loan had been approved. It told Mrs X it had selected Company A to be the contractors. The loan was just below £10,000 so it was for a 30 year term.
23. The Council has confirmed Mrs X was not a party to the contract for the roofing works. The contract was between the Council and the contractor and governed by the framework agreement.

Quality of work

24. The contractor completed the roof replacement in one day in November 2022. Mrs X believes the contractors rushed to finish the job and did not do it to required standards.
25. Mrs X says the contractors assured her they would check the entire roof but they did not do this.
26. In late November 2022 Mrs X contacted the grants officer to report concerns about the work. She referred to the positioning of the ridge tiles and damage caused to her driveway when the scaffolding was dismantled. She sent photographs. Mrs X said the contractors had thrown metal clamps from the roof on to the driveway which caused indentations.
27. The grants officer contacted Company A to report what Mrs X had said and to express concern that this was an unsafe working method which posed a risk to the occupiers’ health and safety. The contractors agreed to speak to the scaffolding company and said this was not the agreed working method.
28. A few days later, Mrs X informed the grants officer that one of the ridge fixings was coming out.
29. The grants officer asked Company A to visit to investigate these concerns. She also suspended payment to the contractors while this was investigated.
30. In early December Mrs X reported birds were getting access to the loft space because no cap had been fitted at the gable end.
31. In early December 2022 the grants officer visited with a supervisor from Company A. He agreed to supply resin for Mrs X to repair the driveway and check the gable end holes and fit an excluder. The day after the site inspection, the grants officer confirmed the existing loft insulation had to be upgraded to comply with building regulations. Mrs X said the contractors did work to the gable ends and fitted the loft insulation in December.
32. In January 2023 Mrs X requested a breakdown of the costs. She then queried a charge made to replace the lead flashing on the chimney because the contractors had not done this work. The Grants officer obtained a revised invoice with this item removed and sent it to Mrs X in late January.
33. In mid-January 2023 the grants officer reminded Company A that Mrs X was still waiting for the resin. She said she would not release the payment to Company A until this was supplied. Mrs X confirmed in late January that the resin had been delivered and she was satisfied with this.
34. In early February the Grants officer authorised the release of the payment to the contractors and closed the case. In mid-February 2023 Mrs X reported a further issue with a gap between two roof tiles which let rain through. She reported further issues with birds getting access to the roof space from April onwards. The grants officer informed Company A who agreed to carry out a further site inspection.
35. Mrs X reported a leak from the roof in early May. Another roofing company inspected the roof then and reported their findings to the Council in mid-May. Company A repaired the lead on the chimney. Mrs X continued to report issues. She said she was not satisfied with Company A’s roof inspection.
36. In June 2023 Mrs X reported a bird had entered the loft again and there was still water ingress from the chimney despite recent repairs. The grants officer contacted Mrs X to say the Council would not get involved as this was a matter between her and the contractors.
37. The contractors returned subsequently to repoint brickwork and replace lead on the chimney. They did not charge Mrs X for these works.
38. In mid-July Mrs X informed a senior officer that Company A had not responded to her claim for compensation. He contacted a director at Company A to ask him to respond. The Council said it would not get involved in the compensation claim because this was between Mrs X and the contractor. The officer sent another email to Company A in mid-August after Mrs X made a complaint and contacted a Councillor.
39. Company A rejected Mrs X’s claim in late August. It said the issue with bird access to the roof had been resolved and the roof was fit for purpose. It said it had done extra works to repoint brickwork and replace the lead on the chimney without charge.
40. Mrs X says nails are sticking through the roof into the loft space. There is still water ingress into the loft space despite the remedial works. The issue with birds getting access has been resolved but this lasted for several months which caused her inconvenience and stress. The decorations in the bedrooms were damaged by water ingress.
41. The Council says its role is to facilitate the loan application and obtain quotations from contractors. But it does not manage the performance of the contractors. It acts as an intermediary and can withhold payment to contractors if works are not satisfactorily completed.

Building Control inspection

42. Mrs X complained that the Council’s Building Control service did not inspect the roof at a key stage when battening was done. The contractors completed the roof renewal in one day over a weekend.
43. The Council’s records show the contractors did not give the Building Control service advance notice of the start date for the works.
44. A Building Control officer inspected the completed roof works in mid-January 2023. The notes say breathable felt and battens were visible, the roof had been recovered, and extra loft insulation had been installed. The officer took photographs inside the roof space and of the roof from ground level outside the house. The Council issued the completion certificate three days later.
45. The Council says the completion certificate confirms the works comply with Building regulations. But it is not a warranty or guarantee for the quality of the works.

Inspection by independent roofing contractor

46. Mrs X wants to see a report written by another contractor who the Council commissioned to inspect the roof in May 2023.
47. The Council says the contractor gave a verbal report following the site inspection. So it does not have a written report it can share with Mrs X.
48. The Council provided a file note from mid-May 2023 which is a brief note of the contractor’s advice. He said there was an issue with the felt and lead on the chimney. The Council then informed Company A who returned to repair an area of lead on the chimney.

The Council’s response to Mrs X’s complaint and our enquiries

49. Mrs X made a complaint to the Council in early August 2023. She set out details of what had happened since November 2022 and the impact on her. She told an officer she was seeking £500 compensation from Company A for the inconvenience, stress and her time and trouble.
50. In its final response to Mrs X’s complaint, the Council said:
• It was not liable for the quality of the works done by Company A;
• The Council does not contract, sub-contract or employ the contractor;
• The contractor indemnifies the Council against any claims for defects, costs or or damages arising from their work on the client’s property;
• It could have reminded Mrs X about the terms of the CSS when she decided to opt into the service several months after she made the initial enquiry about financial assistance and received the information pack;
• It has updated the CSS information pack to explain the Council’s remit and role more clearly;
• It maintains oversight of works before it releases money to the contractors to ensure public money is spent properly. But it is an intermediary or enabler. It is not accountable for the quality of work done by Company A. It took reasonable steps to pass Mrs X’s concerns on to Company A and ensure snagging works were completed before it released the payment and closed the case in February;
51. In response to our enquiries, the Council said it asked the contractor to reconsider Mrs X’s claim for compensation but it cannot compel it to make a payment.
52. The Council also suggested it appoints an independent contractor to inspect the roof and provide a written report which will identify any defects and remedial works required. Alternatively Mrs X can select a competent surveyor or contractor to do the inspection.
53. Following Mrs X’s complaint, the Council inserted the statement below in the section headed What if I’m not happy? the CSS information pack. It said it did this to explain the position more clearly to applicants:

“It should be noted however, that when contractors enter our Framework Agreement they indemnify the Council against all claims, proceedings, actions, damages, costs, expenses, and any other liability which may arise from the carrying out of the works or the performance or non-performance by the contractor. Therefore, any issues such as compensation claims are a matter for applicants to pursue directly with the contractor.”

54. In response to a draft version of this decision, the Council said an independent contractor carried out an inspection and Company A completed remedial work which it reasonably considered sufficiently compensated Mrs X. It recognises we disagree with this and the need to formalise its processes as it has agreed to do in paragraph 71 of this final decision.

The current situation

55. Mrs X says there was further water ingress in February 2024. The Council said wind had blown rain under the ridge tiles. The contractors reset the ridge tiles to rectify this. The Council says the contractors left the roof in a watertight condition.
56. Mrs X says the roof still leaks into the loft space but not into the bedrooms. She has not reported the latest leak because she has lost confidence in Company A.
57. She told me the two bedrooms have dried out and there is no further water ingress there. But the walls are stained with mould from the water ingress and need to be redecorated. She wants compensation to cover the cost of making good the damage.
58. Mrs X said the contractors fixed the problem with birds gaining access to the loft space when they worked on her neighbour’s roof by closing some gaps and access points under the tiles.

My analysis

Information about the Client Support Scheme

59. The Council sent Mrs X adequate information about the CSS scheme in October 2021. Several months then passed before Mrs X opted into the CSS scheme. Given the passage of time, it would have been good practice to reissue the information pack or reminded Mrs X about the key features and terms of the scheme. The Council partially upheld her complaint for this reason.
60. However the decision to clarify and expand some information in the CSS pack to explain things better to applicants does not mean the original version was deficient.

Sub-standard work by Company A and support from the Grants officer

61. We cannot comment on the quality of Company A’s work. We must consider the way the Council responded to Mrs X’s concerns. The evidence shows Mrs X reported several defects to the Council after Company A completed the roof works.
62. The grants officer relayed Mrs X’s concerns to Company A and asked them to investigate and rectify any defects. She also made a site visit with Company A’s representative in early December. The contractor was responsible under the terms of the framework agreement to rectify defects at no cost to the Council or Mrs X. It was therefore appropriate for the grants officer to ask them to return to put things right.
63. The contractor carried out some repairs to deal with snagging issues identified in the first few months after the works were completed. The grants officer closed the case and made the final payment to Company A in February 2023. Before doing that, she had checked with Mrs X that the snagging issues she had reported up to then had been dealt with. So I am not likely to find fault with the decision to release the money to the contractors and close the case at that point.
64. Over the following months, more defects appeared. Mrs X did not have a contract with Company A. She therefore had no legal standing to compel them to return to fix these defects after the Council ended its involvement. Nor could she require them to consider a claim for compensation for any consequential damage to her property.
65. The Council’s legal agreement with the roofing contractors expressly made provision for what should happen in these circumstances. It said the contractors would indemnify the Council for any costs arising from its performance of the works. It expressly gives the Council the right to recover from the contractor any costs arising from damage to the service user’s property caused by the works. The indemnity clause does not mean Mrs X, as the service-user, must make a claim against Company A. Rather it says the Council can recover from Company A any costs, including damage to property, arising from defects in the work done at the service-user’s property.
66. For this reason, I consider it was fault for the Council to distance itself when Mrs X reported further defects and tell her to claim compensation from the contractors instead. She was not a party to the contract for the works and had no standing to make a claim against Company A for poor performance or breach of contract. Conversely, the Council had a legally binding agreement with Company A which allowed it to recover any costs arising from their acts or omissions, including alleged damage to the service-user’s property. When Company A rejected the claim, this left Mrs X feeling unsupported because she had no other recourse.

Building control inspection

67. It was the contractor’s responsibility to give the Council’s Building Control service advance notice before they started the roof works. This did not happen. I do not find the Building Control service at fault because it was not given an opportunity to inspect before works were completed.
68. Furthermore, although the Building Control service may inspect work or issue a completion certificate, this does not provide a guarantee for the quality of the works. It simply certifies that it complies with Building Regulations.

Contractor’s inspection report

69. The Council did not get a written report from the other contractor who inspected the roof in May 2023. It is not withholding a report because the contractor reported back verbally after the site visit. I have not upheld this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Agreed action

70. Within one month of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• apologise to Mrs X for telling her to claim compensation from Company A when she had no contract with them and the Council’s framework agreement made express provision for the Council to handle this;
• pay Mrs X £150 for the distress caused by the way it responded to her concerns and request for compensation;
• pay for an independent surveyor to inspect the roof and prepare a written inspection report. The Council should ask Mrs X if she would prefer to choose a suitably qualified surveyor or leave it to the council to appoint one. It should share the surveyor’s report with Mrs X.
• the surveyor should be instructed to inspect the roof, loft space and any rooms or other internal areas affected by water ingress. They should provide a full inspection report and photographs identifying any defects found and whether these were caused by defects with the roof renewal works. They should also specify any necessary remedial works. The surveyor should say whether internal damage to decorations in the property is likely to have resulted from the work done by Company A;
• If the surveyor’s report identifies the need for works, the Council should meet the cost of appointing a contractor to do them. It should also meet the cost of making good any internal damage to the property if the surveyor says it is likely to have been caused by defects in the work Company A did. Under the terms of the framework agreement, it can then recover this money from Company A.
71. Within two months of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• review its process for handling compensation claims about defective work or damage caused to a service-user’s property by contractors doing work under the framework agreement. The process should be consistent with what it says in the framework agreement about the Council’s role in recovery of costs.
72. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

73. I have completed my investigation of this complaint. I have found the Council was at fault and this caused injustice to Mrs X. The Council has agreed to carry out the above actions as a suitable way to remedy the injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman