The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Ms B complained about the quality of work carried out by a contractor as part of a Disabled Facilities Grant. She says poor work by the contractor and a lack of action by the Council meant the adaptations were delayed and her health was negatively affected. We did not find fault with the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, who I shall refer to as Ms B, complained about the quality of work carried out by contractor 1 as part of a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). She says poor work by contractor 1 and a lack of action by the Council meant the adaptations were delayed and her health was negatively affected.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered: Ms B’s complaint and the information she provided; documents supplied by the Council; relevant legislation and guidelines; the Council’s policies and procedures; and our focus report, ‘Making a house a home: local authorities and disabled adaptations’.
Ms B, HEART and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft decision. I considered their comments before making my final decision.
What I found
Legislation and guidance 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.
Councils only approve grants for work they decide is necessary. An occupational therapist usually assesses need.
The maximum grant is £30,000. Grants are means tested. Councils can use their discretion to give more help if they think it is necessary.
Best practice guidance issued by the Home Adaptations Consortium says all major work needs to be reviewed by a supervising officer at least once while 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 works must usually be completed within twelve months of the council approving the application. Councils can allow further time for work to be completed if it is satisfied work cannot or could not be carried out within the time allowed.
HEART From 2017, Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council delivered its Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) function through the Home Environment Assessment and Response Team (HEART) shared service. This is a partnership between five Warwickshire Borough Councils and Warwickshire County Council. Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council are the hosts for HEART.
HEART provides advice and assistance to deliver disabled adaptations and home improvements, including disabled facilities grants. HEART will explain the grant process and assist with completion of application forms and any required means test.
It will prepare a schedule of works and arrange quotations from suitable contractors. It will liaise with the contractor and ensure works are carried out in a satisfactory manner and to a good standard on behalf of the grant applicant or disabled person. The contractor and/ or the customers agent will provide any necessary certification of the works and get any necessary Building Notice or Planning Approval.
During and on completion of works, contractors may request interim or final payments. The service will check the work undertaken before approving payment with the customer’s permission. In the case of dispute over value, work quality or otherwise, the HEART service will mediate towards mutual satisfaction and a fair outcome for all.
An approval may be for less than 100% of the cost of the works. HEART should inform the customer of their contribution or shortfall.
HEART charges a fee. The fee is normally paid for by the grant.
The contract applicants sign with HEART states: “HEART is not responsible for any failure of the contractor to carry out and complete works contained in contract documents which you may enter into. In the event that works are not completed satisfactorily HEART will assist with dispute resolution but are not responsible for the cost of making good defective works, this is the responsibility of the contractor.”
“…you are free to choose your own contractor(s) and are under no obligation to use any contractor introduced through HEART.”
COVID-19 From March to May 2020, England was in the first of three national lockdowns. People could only leave their home for limited purposes including travelling to and from work, but only where this was absolutely necessary. In May 2020, the Government said people who could not work from home should return to the workplace. In September 2020, the Government announced new restrictions including working from home. A second national lockdown came into force from November to December 2020. The third national lockdown was in place from January to March 2021.
What happened This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
In February 2020, occupational therapy assessed Ms B for a DFG. It decided she needed a wash basin and toilet on the first floor of her property to help her to manage her personal care at night. Ms B had a bathroom, with a shower, on the ground floor.
HEART wrote to Ms B in April 2020 to confirm it had approved her DFG. It completed a financial assessment and awarded her a DFG of around £5,000 for an upstairs toilet and sink. Ms B said she would pay for a shower to be installed. Ms B signed an agreement with HEART.
Contractor 1 visited Ms B to discuss the work. Contractor 1 said it would box off part of her bedroom for the shower. Ms B said she would need a window in the shower. Contractor 1 gave Ms B a quote and schedule of works in May 2020. This included the cost of installing a shower and creating a window in the shower. These were not part of the DFG.
Ms B told the Council she needed to shield for 12 weeks and needed to postpone the work.
Contractor 1 started work in September 2020. Ms B asked HEART to visit her because she was worried about the standard of contractor 1’s work. Contractor 1 told the Council Ms B asked it to deviate from the agreed plans and to help with other tasks in her home.
HEART and building control visited the site. HEART completed a COVID19 Clinical / Housing Visit Risk Assessment before the visit. Building control found problems with the waste pipe and guttering. It told Ms B she needed planning permission for the window. Ms B contacted the Council. It confirmed if the window was obscured glass and non-opening, and if it was less than 1.7m from the ground, she would not need planning permission.
An electrician visited the property and produced a domestic electrical installation condition report. He found contractor 1’s work was safe although it was not finished. He reported that Ms B’s cooker’s electrics were dangerous and needed immediate attention. Ms B told the Council the electrician had turned off the electricity to her kitchen. The Council arranged for an electrician to undertake the work to the cooker.
Ms B asked the Council to assess her for a level access shower under a DFG. She asked for the work to her property to stop until the Council decided whether she was eligible for this. In October 2020, the Council accepted Ms B’s application for a level access shower. It amended her DFG to reflect the extra work. The revised DFG was for around £8,000. The Council completed a financial assessment for Ms B. It told her it would put a charge of around £2,000 on her property. It explained it could recover this charge if the property was sold or the ownership or title was transferred within 10 years of completion.
In December, an electrician inspected Ms B’s ground floor shower and issued an electrical safety advice notice because it did not have the right fuse.
A second national lockdown came into force from November to December 2020. The third national lockdown was in place from January to March 2021.
Contractor 1 sent an invoice to the Council in April 2021. There was a dispute between Ms B and contractor 1 about the work quality. HEART used its discretion to pay contractor 1.
Ms B told HEART contractor 1 had damaged items and the fuse it installed in the shower was not standard. HEART asked Ms B for details of the damage caused by contractor 1 and told her it had arranged for an electrician to contact her. Ms B wanted a different contractor to finish the work.
Between April and June 2021, HEART arrange for contractors to quote to complete the work.
In May 2021, HEART wrote to Ms B to say costs had increased because she had asked for a change of contractor. It advised the new price for the work was around £14,000. The Council said this cost could be met by an increase in both her DFG and the charge on her property to around £7,000.
Ms B said she wanted to use contractor 2. In June 2021, HEART visited Ms B with contractor 2 to discuss the outstanding work. Contractor 2 completed a domestic visual electrical condition report. It made four improvement recommendations. It did not find any electrical work that was dangerous, or potentially dangerous, and needed immediate or urgent action.
In August 2021, Ms B sent HEART a quote from contractor 2 for the work. HEART accepted the quote and held a pre-site meeting in September 2021 with the contractor, occupational therapy and Ms B. Contractor 2 finished the work and invoiced HEART in October 2021. HEART checked the work and Ms B confirmed she was happy for it to pay contractor 2. HEART paid contractor 2 and put a land charge of around £2,000 on Ms B’s property.
Complaint Ms B complained to HEART in May 2021 about the standard of contractor 1’s work and the time it was taking for the DFG work to be completed. She said she did not have access to medical equipment during this time.
HEART responded in June 2021. It said costs increased because of unexpected work, including emergency electrical work and installation of a shower. It said it was unacceptable for contractor 1 to have left her without access to her medical equipment and apologised for this. It told her she could have raised this with HEART or contractor 1 at the time. HEART recognised Ms B was unhappy with the service contractor 1 provided and confirmed it had agreed another contractor could finish the work.
Ms B was unhappy with HEART¢s response and asked it to consider her complaint at stage two. She said HEART did not give her a choice of contractor, contractor 1’s work was substandard, and it overcharged her. She reiterated that because of the work, she could not access medical equipment. She said she was unhappy HEART increased the charge it was going to put on her property.
HEART responded in August 2021. HEART said it would cover the costs associated with getting another contractor to finish the work and it would not increase the land charge on her property. It confirmed the land charge would be £2,000, not £7,000. HEART apologised for the difficulties and inconvenience she had experienced.
Analysis The Council nor HEART had legal responsibility for the standard of the work carried out by contractor 1. In the contract Ms B signed with HEART, it stated HEART was not responsible for the quality of the work carried out by a contractor or its completion. It also said Ms B could choose her own contractor.
When Ms B raised concerns about the quality of the work, HEART visited the site with building control and arranged for domestic electrical installation condition reports. Although the Council nor HEART were not responsible for the work carried out by contractor 1 or for historical problems with her electrics, it increased Ms B’s grant to pay for remedial work. It also decided not to increase the land charge on her property.
Ms B signed an agreement with HEART in January 2020. Works must usually be completed within 12 months of approval unless an extension is agreed by the Council. Ms B’s DFG was finished in September 2021. Although the work took longer than 12 months, I do not consider this was fault by the Council. In March 2020, Ms B was told to shield for 12 weeks; in October 2020, she asked to postpone the work while she applied for a further DFG for a level access shower; and, there were national lockdowns from November to December 2020 and January to March 2021. Neither the Council nor HEART were responsible for these delays.
Ms B also complained she did not have access to her medical equipment when contractor 1 was undertaking work. There is no evidence Ms B raised this with contractor 1, HEART or the Council at the time.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation and do not uphold Ms B’s complaint.
Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman