The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of disabled adaptations because we could not achieve a worthwhile outcome.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the Council’s poor oversight of the work of its contractor in relation to disability adaptations, funded by a Disabled Facilities Grant. Mr X also said electrical issues arose following the work, which is currently paused. Mr X said Council failings meant he had been using temporary bathroom equipment for many months, causing discomfort and emotional strain.
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 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 continue an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
What happened Mr X is a tenant in a property owned by a housing association. In early 2025, the Council agreed a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) to cover the cost of installing a level access shower to meet Mr X’s disability needs. Mr X agreed to use a contractor identified by the Council through a tendering process.
Mr X said the contractor used heavy equipment, which damaged the bathroom floor and caused visible damage to the floor beams. The DFG works were stopped, pending an assessment of the structural stability of the beams. The Council’s complaint response said: a joint visit with surveyors from the Council and the housing association was arranged; the surveyors took photos of the beams, which were shared with the Building Control team; the outcome was that all parties were satisfied the property was structurally sound, but Mr X did not accept this, so no further works could be done; it would arrange for a surveyor from a different team to carry out a further inspection. Mr X refused this as they would not be independent of the Council.
After the Council’s financial response, electrical issues were identified, which are still being investigated. In addition, Mr X raised concern about an unannounced contractor visit in January 2026, which he said caused him considerable distress.
My assessment
The Council chose the contractor following a tendering process and accepts it remained responsible for overseeing the contractor. This does not mean it was required to be on site at all times to ensure nothing went wrong.
When an issue was identified, the Council arranged a joint visit with the housing association landlord and shared information about their findings with Building Control, which was appropriate. Ultimately, it is the housing association as property owner and landlord, who is ultimately responsible for the property’s structural safety. However, the Council did offer a further surveyor’s visit, which Mr X declined. On balance, I am satisfied the Council has taken appropriate steps to identify whether there is a structural issue, and it is unlikely that further investigation by us would lead to a different outcome. It cannot complete the agreed works until Mr X agrees access for a contactor.
The electrical faults are still under investigation. It is the housing association landlord, who is responsible for electrical safety, and it could raise concerns or negotiate with the Council if it considered the Council’s contractor had caused electrical faults. Since we can only consider actions and omissions by councils, it is unlikely that further investigation by us would lead to a worthwhile outcome.
It is unclear why the Council’s contractor made an unannounced visit in January 2026 or whether this was authorised by the Council. Mr X raised concerns with the Council immediately following the visit. We would expect the Council to instruct its contractor not to make further visits until the dispute between the Council and Mr X have been resolved. However, since the Council has not yet had a chance to respond to this issue through its complaints process, it is not appropriate for us to consider this issue further at this time.
For all the above reasons, we will not consider this complaint further.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of disabled adaptations because further investigation would not lead to a worthwhile outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman