The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X and his parents, Mr and Mrs Y complained about the Council’s failure to ensure adaptations to their property, funded by a Disabled Facilities Grant, were carried out to an acceptable standard and related matters. We have found the Council to be at fault because it did not properly record variations to the Schedule of Works. The Council has agreed to apologise for the frustration caused to the complainants. We have not identified any other areas of fault. The Ombudsman is unable to interfere with the Council’s professional assessment that the overall standard of the adaptation was acceptable.
The complaint
Mr X, and his parents, Mr and Mr Y, complain the Council has allowed sub-standards adaptations, funded by a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) to be carried out. In particular, they complain about the following matters.
The Schedule of Works was changed without agreement.
The Council failed to properly supervise and manage the work.
The conduct of the occupational therapist involved with the case was unacceptable and caused significant distress.
The Council failed to take account of Mr X’s autism.
The standard of the adaptations was unsatisfactory and not fit for purpose.
The complainants have lost confidence with both the Council and the builder who carried out the works and want an independent assessment in order for the adaptation to be completed to an acceptable standard. They say the stress of the situation has been unbearable and has led to Mr X having to move elsewhere temporarily.
What I have investigated I have not investigated the complaint about the standard of adaptations for the reason explained in paragraph 47 below. I have investigated the areas of complaint summarised at paragraph 1 a) to d) above.
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) We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint, or part of a complaint, within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), 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 the information provided by Mr X, Mr Y and the Council. This included photographs of the building works. I considered relevant law and policy. I shared a draft decision with all parties and considered all responses received before making this 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.
An occupational therapist (OT) carries out the needs assessment. The Council also carries out a means test of the disabled person to work out how much it will award. The maximum amount of a grant is £30,000.
‘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 adaptation 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 12 months of the Council approving the application.
In this case, the grant application was managed and overseen by a Home Improvement Service (HIS), an in-house service provided by the Council. The building work was carried out by a local building contractor (the Contractor).
The Schedule of Works (the Schedule) This was an agreement between the Contractor and Mr X setting out a detailed specification of the work that was to be carried out and how. Any variations/omissions/additions to the scheme had to be agreed by all parties, fully costed and sanctioned prior to works being carried out.
What happened This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
Mr X is a disabled adult who lives with his parents, Mr and Mrs Y. In 2019 he successfully applied for a DFG to fund adaptation to the family home. This would adapt an existing ground floor utility room to provide an additional bedroom and wetroom for Mr X’s sole use.
Prior to work starting on site, a “pre-start meeting” took place attended by the complainants, the Contractor and a representative of the HIS. This set out how the project would be managed and confirmed the Contractor would be responsible for quality control. The HIS would provide technical advice and raise any concerns with the Contractor. It was agreed that any defects in the first six months would be corrected by the Contractor.
The build started in December 2019 when the existing boiler was removed and replaced with a new, gas bottle fuelled boiler relocated in the loft. Work on the front extension started in February 2020, although there was a pause in construction during the Covid-19 lockdown between March and July 2020.
Mr X started raising concerns about the quality of the work soon after the build started and throughout. He had lost confidence in the Contractor and was unhappy about many aspects of the build. The Council tried to address the issues raised by liaising with the Contractor and asking its building control inspector to assess concerns about safety. The building inspector confirmed the structure was structurally sound.
During the course of the build, several site visits took place, attended by HIS officers and the Contractor to try and resolve the ongoing issues. There has also been extensive correspondence between Mr X, Mr Y and the Council. It is not my intention to detail all the correspondence exchanged but it follows a common thread and relates to the quality of the work, conduct of the Contractor, workmen, Council officers and deviation from the Schedule.
Upon completion of the works, Mr X said he was unable to move into his new bedroom due its poor standard and concerns about its safety. The Contractor accepted there may be some “snagging” to be done and he offered to inspect the property. The Contractor attended the property in November 2020 but was unable to reach an agreement with Mr Y about what needed to be done.
Soon afterwards, Mr Y made a formal complaint to the Council. He also lodged a formal complaint about the contractor with the Federation of Master Builders (the Federation).
The Federation agreed to mediate between the two parties. However, this proved unsuccessful because of the ongoing impasse.
The complainants told the Council they would not allow the Contractor to carry out any further inspection. They insist the matter can only be resolved if an independent builder carries out an assessment of what needs to be done. This remains their position.
The Council’s response to the complaint The Council has responded in some considerable detail to every area of dissatisfaction raised by the complainants. It also says: It is satisfied the works have met the required standard, subject to the outstanding snagging works.
It remains willing to carry out the remedial works but this is not possible while Mr Y will not allow an internal inspection.
The Council has summarised what has happened in the following terms, ”There appears to be a pattern. On the one hand we are invited to try and resolve matters but often with a condition, and at same time or subsequently there is a seeming refusal to engage with the complainants setting out further concerns about the process, the work and or the documentation”.
In response to the complaint, the Council has reflected on what happened and identified a number of learning points that have led to the following changes to the DFG process: Procedures tightened to ensure appropriate signatures are obtained.
Staff should always leave missed appointment cards at a clients address to prove they have been.
Introduced a new document where any changes to the Schedule are recorded.
Analysis The complainants and the Council have differing opinions about the quality of works carried out. The complainants assert the work is of poor quality and substantially different to what they had agreed to at the start. In contrast, the Council is satisfied that the work was carried out to an acceptable standard, subject to some outstanding snagging that the contractor has tried on several occasions to carry out.
The Ombudsman is not an appeal body about the quality of the work carried out or its suitability. Our role is to review the process by which decisions are made. We cannot question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer an opinion on the judgment of the Council’s officers unless there is evidence of fault in the way the decisions were taken.
In cases such as this, the Ombudsman expects councils to ensure adaptations are carried out in a timely fashion and to meet the needs of the disabled person. It should also keep them properly informed about what is happening and seek advice from relevant professionals (for example an OT, building control officer) where appropriate.
I will address the specific areas of complaint below.
The Schedule of Works was changed without agreement The Council has agreed there have been several variations so to the Schedule of Works. Many of these of these have been in response to requests made by the complainants or due to issues that arose during the construction works. The Schedule is dated August 2019, and I can see that before the build started, several changes had already been made. The Council has accepted that it should have made a better audit of these amendments and has confirmed it will do so in future. I welcome this.
I consider the Council’s failure to ensure that variations to the Schedule were properly recorded is fault. I say this because the responsibility to do so was set out explicitly in writing and was a clear expectation by the complainants that this would happen.
While I can see this has caused frustration to the complainants, I cannot say with enough certainty that the outcome would have been any different in terms of their overall dissatisfaction with the quality of the build. This is because I am satisfied there was an ongoing verbal and email dialogue between the Contractor, the Council and the complainants about the variations as they occurred. This is evidenced in the case records I have seen. For this reason, the injustice arising from this fault was minimal and this is reflected in my recommendation below.
The Council failed to properly supervise and manage the build The records show it was discussed and explained to Mr X prior to work starting that the Contractor was responsible for overall quality control. The Council was to act as technical advisor and mediate with the Contactor in the event of problems arising. This was confirmed in writing. I am satisfied these roles were carried out properly. The evidence I have seen clearly shows the Contractor made his best efforts to accommodate Mr X’s wishes and concerns. He also tried to correct any mistakes made (for example by cleaning neighbours property and changing the specification as and when requested by Mr X and Mr Y) although I note this is disputed by the complainants.
Overall, I am satisfied there was no fault by the Council here because the evidence provided so far shows the Council has inspected and where appropriate taken action to resolve Mr X’s concerns in the following ways.
The Council regularly inspected the ongoing building works.
The Council made arrangements for a building inspector to confirm the build is structurally sound.
The Council responded to all Mr X’s concerns and issues raised. While I accept the complainants do not agree with the conclusions reached by the Council, for the reason set out paragraph 47 below, this is not a matter for the Ombudsman to interfere with.
The Council appointed a different HIS officer to assess the completed works.
The Council mediated between the Contractor and the complainants to achieve a satisfactory resolution in accordance with the pre-build agreement meeting.
The Council offered to provide respite accommodation to Mr X so he was not on site when remedial works/inspections were carried out.
The Contractor participated in independent mediation.
The case records provided by the Council, Mr Y and Mr X show it has spent a significant, and arguably disproportionate, amount of time trying to resolve the current impasse. In my view, the Council has acted without fault.
The Council failed to take account of Mr X’s autism during the building works Mr X complains the Council failed to take account of his autism during the adaptations. He is unhappy about the way he was spoken to on many occasions, the impact the excessive delay has had on him and the general disruption to his life and routine. He says the situation became so untenable, he had no choice but to find somewhere else to live.
In response to my enquiries, the Council denied having acted in a discriminatory way. It did not accept it failed to take account of his autism.
I have reviewed the available records and agree with the Council’s assessment because: it generally complied with Mr X’s specific requests wherever possible and reasonable; the pause in building works was unavoidable caused by the Covid-19 pandemic; it offered Mr X alternative accommodation; and it offered a further OT assessment.
Overall, I recognise that Mr X has found the DFG process extremely difficult. However, I could not conclude on the basis of what I have seen that this is as a result of fault by the Council in its dealings with him and failure to take account of his disability.
The conduct of the OT involved with the case was unacceptable and caused significant distress Mr X was particularly unhappy about the attitude of the OT, particularly when she decided the shower head/control should not be moved. She explained the height of the controls was standard for a disabled adaptation. Mr X says the OT was extremely rude and caused considerable upset.
The Council said the alteration could be made, but at Mr X’s expense.
The Ombudsman is unable to interfere with the professional assessment of the OT about the suitability of the adaptation. She reached a different view as to whether it was acceptable to Mr X. As for her conduct, I have considered the records available and can find no evidence that she acted unprofessionally. The Ombudsman makes decisions on the balance of probabilities. In this complaint the issues relate to one person’s word against another. As I am unable to prefer one account over another, I am unable to make a finding on this part of the complaint.
Agreed action
In line with my recommendations, the Council has agreed to write and apologise to Mr X, Mr Y and Mrs Y for the one area of fault identified in this decision statement.
I am satisfied with the action taken by the Council already to improve its practices, particularly regarding the recording of changes made to the Schedule. For this reason, I do not make any further service improvement recommendations.
Final decision
I have found the Council to be at fault regarding one aspect of the complaint and recommended a suitable remedy. On this basis, I have completed my investigation.
Parts of the complaint I did not investigate Part of Mr X’s complaint relates to the quality of the work carried out by the contractor. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body about the quality of the work carried out or its suitability. The complainants would need to take this up with the contractor as a consumer matter.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman