I hope this helps. I went into ChatGPT and asked it to list ombudsman cases where the complaint related to a failure to inspect works on completion. The results are pasted below
I have found three particularly relevant Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman cases involving councils failing to inspect, adequately supervise or properly sign off works funded through Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs).
Two resulted in findings of fault. A third is useful because the council agreed to inspect the works after the resident complained.
1. Case tel:24%20008%20867 24 008 867 — Failure to inspect and sign off completed works
This is the strongest case I have found for your question.
Read the full Ombudsman decision – 24 008 867
The council funded adaptations to a disabled resident’s home. However, the completed works did not correspond with the approved plans.
The Ombudsman established that:
- The council could not demonstrate that anyone had inspected the completed works.
- There was no evidence that an occupational therapist or other appropriate officer had approved the completed adaptations.
- Some adaptations had not been carried out in accordance with the agreed plans.
- The council incorrectly claimed that an occupational therapist had approved the work.
- The council attempted to direct responsibility towards the housing association managing the project.
The Ombudsman’s finding was particularly significant.
At paragraph 40, the Ombudsman concluded that the absence of evidence of inspection or sign-off constituted fault.
At paragraph 41, the Ombudsman also criticised the council for incorrectly stating that the occupational therapist had approved the finished work and for attempting to pass responsibility to the housing association.
Why this matters: A council cannot necessarily avoid responsibility by arguing that contractors or another organisation were responsible for supervising the adaptations.
2. Case tel:25%20000%20678 25 000 678 — Inadequate supervision and final inspection
Read the full Ombudsman decision – 25 000 678
This case concerned substantial adaptations to a family home.
The resident complained about poor workmanship, inadequate supervision and the council’s failure to involve her in the final inspection.
The investigation established that:
- The council had delegated project management to an architect.
- Council officers had made only limited visits during construction.
- The resident was not invited to the final inspection.
- Problems with the completed adaptations remained unresolved.
- The council accepted that the resident should have been invited to the final sign-off meeting.
- The council acknowledged shortcomings in its procedures.
The council’s own policy required it to inspect works during construction and on completion.
The Ombudsman found fault in the council’s DFG procedures.
Why this matters: It demonstrates that a final inspection is not simply an administrative exercise. It should establish whether the adaptations meet the agreed requirements and identify outstanding defects before final sign-off.
3. Case tel:21%20010%20192 21 010 192 — Contractor paid without inspecting completed works
Read the full Ombudsman decision – 21 010 192
A resident complained that the council had paid a contractor before inspecting whether the adaptations were complete.
The resident alleged that:
- The work remained incomplete.
- The property had been left unsafe.
- The council had released DFG funding without checking the completed works.
- The council initially directed the resident to complain to the contractor.
During the Ombudsman’s consideration of the complaint, the council agreed to visit the property and investigate.
The Ombudsman subsequently declined to investigate further because the council had agreed to inspect the works and seek a resolution.
Why this matters: Although this was not an upheld finding of fault, it provides an example of a council agreeing to undertake an inspection in response to a complaint about incomplete DFG works.
4. An important distinction: an inadequate inspection versus defective workmanship
I also identified a case that illustrates an important limitation.
Case tel:20%20011%20124 20 011 124
Read the full Ombudsman decision – 20 011 124
The resident complained that the council had inadequately inspected and wrongly approved DFG-funded works.
The adaptations included electrical work, and the resident subsequently alleged that defects had caused damage.
However, the Ombudsman did not uphold the complaint.
The council had obtained appropriate electrical certification and had undertaken a final inspection.
The Ombudsman concluded that it was reasonable for the council to rely on the electrical certificate issued by a competent person.
The distinction is important: The discovery of defective work after completion does not automatically establish that the council’s inspection was inadequate.
The relevant question is whether the council followed a reasonable inspection and approval process, taking account of the information available at the time.
5. What these decisions establish
Taken together, the decisions suggest that councils may be found at fault where they:
- Fail to undertake or document an appropriate final inspection.
- Approve works without establishing whether they comply with the agreed plans.
- Fail to involve the disabled resident appropriately in the completion process.
- Ignore identifiable defects before authorising payment.
- Fail to investigate complaints about incomplete or defective adaptations.
- Attempt to transfer responsibility to contractors or managing agents when the council retains oversight responsibilities.
However, the extent of a council’s responsibility will depend partly on its role in commissioning and supervising the works, its published procedures and the circumstances of the particular DFG.