The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint about damage to his property or the Council’s refusal to change his front door. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the Council’s actions to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. Claims for damages are properly for the courts to consider and it would be reasonable for Mr C to ask the court to consider his claim.
The complaint
Mr C complains about damage to an air bed caused by contractors undertaking work to his property under a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). Mr C also complains of the outcome of an Occupational Therapist (OT) report and says he is suffering because the Council has refused to change his front door. Mr C says access across the threshold of the door causes severe pain and the Council is making him choose between pain and wetting himself. Mr C would like compensation for the damage and delay in implementing a new door.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and previous ombudsman decisions.
My assessment
We have previously considered and decided two separate complaints about the delay in works to Mr C’s property, the last one in February this year, and cannot investigate the same matters again. The Council has concluded works to Mr C’s property, but he is unhappy with the outcome of the Occupational Therapist (OT) assessment who refused his request for a new front door. The OT acknowledged Mr C rated his pain as 10 out of 10 when crossing over the threshold of the door but observed him, via video, moving quickly over the threshold which caused the chair to jolt. The OT said the jolting impact lessened significantly when he moved slowly over the threshold and going over it slowly took approximately three seconds, causing minimal delay and allowed for safe access to the toilet. The OT also considered feedback from Mr C that when he is out in the community in his chair, contending with uneven pavements and ascending and descending kerbs, he does not encounter similar problems. The OT recommended Mr C move slowly over the threshold. Although Mr C disagrees with this we could not say there is evidence of fault with the Council’s actions. In the absence of fault, we cannot comment on the merits of decisions.
Mr C complained broken plasterboard damaged his air bed. If Mr C believes the Council’s actions have caused damage to his property he can either make a claim through his insurers or the small claims court. We could not make a finding on how Mr C’s property was damaged.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman