The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Ms X complains the Council has not dealt properly with disabled adaptations to her property. The Council was not at fault.
The complaint
Ms X complains the Council has not dealt properly with disabled adaptations to her bathroom and garden because: Contractors chosen by the Council were rude, incompetent and not properly registered.
Garden works have not been completed properly as artificial turf has not been laid properly, paving stones have not been laid properly and weed suppressant fabric was not used.
bathroom works have not been completed properly because some works have had to be redone, her bathroom sink has been fitted in the wrong place and the Council’s Occupational Therapist unreasonably rejected her concerns; and the toilet is too tall.
It has not considered her needs regarding the location and specification of her sink and toilet properly; and she was forced to buy equipment from a particular supplier at an inflated cost.
Ms X says the works are still not acceptable, she has suffered distress and injured herself.
What I have investigated I have investigated that part of Ms X’s complaint about how the Council has dealt with her bathroom works through a disabled facilities grant. The final section of this statement contains my reasons for not investigating the rest of the complaint.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) 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, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I spoke to Ms X and considered the details of her complaint as well as the Council’s response. I reviewed documents sent by the Council and Ms X.
Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Disabled Facilities Grants Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG) are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Councils have a statutory duty to provide grant aid to disabled people for adaptations. Before approving a grant, the Council must be satisfied the work is necessary and appropriate to meet the disabled person’s needs and is reasonable and practicable.
Councils will often consult an occupational therapist (OT) from the social services department to carry out the assessments.
‘Home adaptations for disabled people: a detailed guide to related legislation, guidance and good practice’ is non-statutory guidance, published by the Homes Adaptations Consortium. It says all major adaption work needs to be visited by a supervising officer at least once whilst they are in progress and, where work continues beyond a week, more often. In all visits, the disabled person and carer should be involved and given the opportunity to comment on the progress of the work and raise difficulties or queries.
The work must usually be completed within twelve months of the Council approving the application.
The DFG grant was provided by Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council. The grant application was managed and overseen by HEART, a partnership service between Warwickshire Councils which provide advice and assistance to deliver disabled adaptations and home improvements.
What happened?
Ms X received a disabled facilities grant for improvements to her bathroom.
The works were due to be completed in early 2020 but were delayed until July due to COVID-19 restrictions.
The Council arranged for contractor 1 to quote for the works. Ms X was unhappy with the plans and materials and asked the Council if a different contractor could be used.
The Council agreed to Ms X’s request and engaged contractor 2 IN EARLY October 2020. Contractor 2 met with the Council and Ms X at her home and later provided a quote for works.
Ms X and the Council discussed aspects of the proposed plans and works began in November 2020. Ms X was unhappy with the scope and plans for the work.
Contractor 2 was unable to progress the work due to staff illness. The Council found contractor 3 to help contractor 2 complete the works.
Ms X requested additional works that were not int the initial plans. Ms X was offered the opportunity for the additional work to be done privately at her expense and declined this. Ms X wanted a different shower and toilet and purchased them herself.
Ms X complained to the Council about contractors 2 and 3. The Council did not uphold Ms X’s complaint. The works were completed in December 2020 and the Council agreed to repay Ms X for the toilet and shower she had purchased.
Analysis Contractors Ms X did not provide the Council with evidence in support of her complaint that contractors were rude or arrogant towards her. Consequently, the Council did not investigate this part of Ms X’s complaint. I have reviewed extensive communications between the Council, Ms X and contractors. There is no evidence to support Ms X’s complaint in this respect. I do not consider this to be fault by the Council.
The specification document for contractors says: “The successful Supplier is to maintain during the life of the contract all licences, permits and trade organisations required to supply and fulfil the requirements stated within this specification. If required, the Supplier is to make requested licences, permits and trade organisational accreditations available to the NBBC if/when requested. Successful Suppliers may utilise a third party in assisting the delivery of the contract.”
The Council says in its complaint response that all sub-contractors for gas and electric are fully qualified as required by the latest regulations and are fully vetted, and that certificates issued for gas or electrical work contain the registration number of the engineer that is registered with the governing body.
I have seen the electrical certificate issued by a sub-contractor for the work completed to Ms X’s bathroom. There is no evidence that works completed by any contractor were not properly registered. This is not fault by the Council.
Bathroom works Minutes of a meeting at Ms X’s home with the occupational therapist and contractor 2 in October 2020 show plans for Ms X’s bathroom works were agreed. This included a level access shower, half height shower screens, aquaboarding, a standard height toilet, a new wall hung hand basin, a replacement radiator, replacement flooring together with necessary plumbing and electrical work.
The Council agreed to change the specification of Ms X’s shower from a single head to a dual-head unit.
The Council considered queries from Ms X about a towel rail, location of the sink, and whether a vanity unit was included. The Council considered Ms X’s requests. It changed the design to accommodate a towel rail, declined to move the sink as it would prevent further equipment being fitting around the toilet and did not recommend a vanity unit because of Ms X’s mobility.
Emails between contractors and the Council show there was a difficult working environment between contractors and Ms X.
The Council agreed to accommodate Ms X in a hotel for a short period of time if her toilet was unavailable.
Ms X requested changes to DFG supplied equipment, after the specification had already been agreed, for example a square shower head, because of her OCD.
Ms X requested additional works be included but rejected the offer for these to be completed privately.
The Council agreed to replace the flooring due to problems agreed with contractor 2. Some additional works were completed as good will to Ms X. Towards the end of the works the Council agreed with Ms X that snagging issues would be addressed.
It is clear from the communication between the Council and Ms X that she was given the opportunity to comment on the progress of work and raise difficulties or queries. These were considered and responded to by the Council.
I have seen photographs provided by Ms X and contractor 3. The Council says Ms X’s photographs show the works in an uncompleted state and do not represent the completed works. The photographs from contractor 3 appear do not show any obvious identifiable defects. I agree with the Council.
On the balance of probabilities, works were made more difficult in November as a result of Ms X’s actions and her requests to change the specifications. The bathroom works were completed with some elements redone, some additional work was included, and snagging problems were addressed. This is not fault by the Council.
Equipment purchase The Council agreed that Ms X could purchase her own toilet and shower. The Council has refunded the costs of these to Ms X. All other aspects of the agreed works have been funded through the DFG. It is clear there is no injustice caused to Ms X regardless of any fault and so I have not investigated this further.
Final decision
I have not found fault by the Council. I have now completed my investigation.
Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate I have not investigated Ms X’s garden works because this did not form part of her complaint and the Council has not had an opportunity to consider it.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman