Summary
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about damage to a boiler. That is because claims for damages are best considered by the court and it is not unreasonable for Mr X to ask the court to consider his claim.
The complaint
Mr X complained on behalf of his mother, Mrs Y. He said the Council’s communication with them about a Disabled Facilities Grant was poor, and it delayed getting quotations from contractors to complete work by several months. He said after the Contractor completed the work, Mrs Y’s boiler no-longer worked. He said that had left her without hot water and heating. Mr X wants either the Council or the Contractor to repair or install a new boiler.
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: there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) 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.
My assessment
The Council approved a Disabled Facilities Grant to adapt Mrs Y’s bathroom into a wet-room. Mr X subsequently complained to the Council in August 2022 about poor communication from the Officer responsible for overseeing the DFG and damages to the property caused by the Contractor. He said the work completed had caused the boiler to stop working.
In its complaint response, the Council apologised for delays in its communication with Mr X. It said it had asked the Home Improvement Service to provide training or appropriate action to the relevant Officer. It also said it expected the Contractor to update Mr X about the progress of works and apologised if that did not happen. As the Council has apologised to Mr X and taken steps to resolve the issue, there is nothing worthwhile to be achieved by further investigation.
In respect of the boiler, the Council said it spoke to the Contractor who confirmed the boiler was not fully working on completion of the wet-room installation. However, the Contractor said they had not completed any work which would have affected the boiler. Because of that the Council said it would not replace the boiler and Mr X and Mrs Y would need to replace it at their own cost.
We can not make a finding on why Mrs Y’s boiler no-longer works and whether the Contractor was responsible. Mr X would need to resolve this through Mrs Y’s home insurance or the small claims court. That is because the court is the appropriate body to decide claims about damages.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that is because the court is best placed to consider a claim for damages.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman