Disabled walkin shower

teajug

rogerblack wrote: »

Several avenues.
Firstly - the police - if there was an actual criminal offence committed. http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/disability_hate_crime_leaflet.pdf

This is extremely unlikely to lead anywhere, unless 'was dreadful' amounted to physical or severe verbal abuse.

Other than that - he has no contractual relationship with the builder, if he was not the person that paid for the shower.
They would need to make a complaint, or take further action against the firm employing them.
It's possible that the place may not have been legally habitable - which would raise issues with the landlord.

What specific ways was he taken advantage of?

Mentioned some of it below, but there is more and will get to see it all when I speak to him and see the photos he took of the mess in his bathroom over the last 3 weeks by the council. My friend thought that the men were employed directly by the council, but he learned later that the men used to be employed by the council and they are now self-employed and is now employed by a company that used them mainly for changing in bathrooms for disabled people.

As he is still a tax payer, surly he must have some say in what takes place in his home despite it being rented from the council.

Can he request reports on the company that came into his home weeks before the work took place to see if there was asbestos in his bathroom to protect the workmen. There was no asbestos in his bathroom and despite the company taking away samples of his floor tiles to have analysed, which my friend had brought and had them laid about 5 years ago. However, the same company came again back a second time and took up the flooring and said that they got to assume that there is asbestos in his bathroom before they let workmen work in it.

My friend wanted to keep his sink as it was only put in a year ago, but the man that was constantly on the phone took it away and put unsuitable one back in its place.

One of the men was very loud and constantly on the phone arranging other work and my friend could help hearing him discussing prices. The other guy was decent with more consideration and my friend would not mind having him back in his home, but would not let the one in his home again as he had no consideration whatsoever for anyone let alone disabled people, all he seem interested in was making deals for the next job on the phone.

As my friend is a tax payer and would like to see what was paid out to the company that employed these people for the walk-in shower that is not working now? Would his MP be able to get this for him? Also the other council partner company would have to have a report done on the asbestos would he be entitled to see that also.

Errata

Being a taxpayer has no bearing on the matter, everyone is a taxpayer.
As far as who charged for what and how much, this will be a matter of commercial confidentiality between the contractor and the social housing landlord and it won't be disclosed to a third party.
A sensible way forward would be for him to have a discussion with the estate manager about all the problems he's experienced.

Richie-from-the-Boro

- the dwelling was it LA or HA owned and rented to the friend ?
- the wet room, was it 100% paid by the householder ?
- the wet room, was it social services / OT / adaptation officer designed and supplied ?
- the wet room, was it a private design / supply arrangement between the householder and supplier ?

teajug

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

- the dwelling was it LA or HA owned and rented to the friend ?
- the wet room, was it 100% paid by the householder ?
- the wet room, was it social services / OT / adaptation officer designed and supplied ?
- the wet room, was it a private design / supply arrangement between the householder and supplier ?

The wet room was designed by the council's surveyor with OT in on the instructions of the OT, I think the householder had to sign for the adaptations and got a copy of it in the post. I will ask and see if that is correct.

He had no idea what was in store for him and would not go through that again. From what he tells me if he had any idea what was in store for him he would not have let them start as he feels that they were Malevolent toward him. I think he will get some good craft person in and make workable for him as he has not way of bathing now.

The agree to it as the concept was good for any disabled person but not good at all having the council people involved.

It is a basic bathroom not very big in a one bedroom flat, but one of the men took completely advantage of the situation and he would not have that man back again and would go without showering until he is able to get a working shower himself installed. I will see the photos next week and see what if anything I can do for him.

Forgot to mentioned his home is rented from LA.

paddedjohn

So how was your friend taken advantage of?

Brassedoff

In my day of owning a firm that did a lot of rip out and renews, you and your mate would have been known as PITA's by my lads.

Do you honestly expect builders to do the sort of job you describe and not be seen or heard?

True, one or two things you report would not have been acceptable, but by its very nature building work can be stressful, noisy and dirty. It's the end result you judge if the job was done inside only three days. For us the best customer was a vacant customer. The job got done, the customer wasn't watching over us.

On the subject of three days, you describe a wet room. I think that is a very good timeframe. I would have expected an extra two days allowing bits to go off etc.

OldFartPlumber

teajug wrote: »

My friend thought that the men were employed directly by the council, but he learned later that the men used to be employed by the council and they are now self-employed and is now employed by a company that used them mainly for changing in bathrooms for disabled people.

.

Your`e decades behind the times - DLO`s Direct Labour Organisations were dismantled by Thatcher . I worked for one from 1980 - `87 . I then left of my own volition . By 1990 the rest of the staff were made redundant . Coincidentally I now live near our old base which was on a Housing Association site - Every time a works van turns up I have a chuckle - there goes more Government £ into private hands .

Errata

go without showering until he is able to get a working shower himself installed

He will need the permission of his social landlord to do that, and they'll want to know what's wrong with the one they've just paid to have installed.
Why on earth isn't he complaining to the LL?

teajug

Brassedoff wrote: »

In my day of owning a firm that did a lot of rip out and renews, you and your mate would have been known as PITA's by my lads.

Do you honestly expect builders to do the sort of job you describe and not be seen or heard?

True, one or two things you report would not have been acceptable, but by its very nature building work can be stressful, noisy and dirty. It's the end result you judge if the job was done inside only three days. For us the best customer was a vacant customer. The job got done, the customer wasn't watching over us.

On the subject of three days, you describe a wet room. I think that is a very good timeframe. I would have expected an extra two days allowing bits to go off etc.

If only 3 days, it took 3 weeks and it is still not completed. My friend is not a child he knew that it would have been lots of dust and drilling with kind of work involved, but he did not expect one of the builders not turning up and when he did he was constant on the phone wheeling and dealing about other work.

Errata wrote: »

He will need the permission of his social landlord to do that, and they'll want to know what's wrong with the one they've just paid to have installed.
Why on earth isn't he complaining to the LL?

He will as soon as he gets a bit more energy, hopefully I will be able to help him but does not hold up much hope of getting results knowing that council only looks after themselves.....He has no shower now and he wishes that he never enter into such a mess and would have been far better off not having a walk in shower, he said the concept is very good but with the cowboy builder he had to put up with it was never worth it.

BTW OFP some council still employ direct labour and they are very good, it is a shame that council do not give this type of work to them instead of giving it to an outside organisation to gain from it by employing ex council employees.

Richie-from-the-Boro

- if the Local Authority installed it, and they did, the funding will be from a means tested DFG
- he should get in touch with both Local authority and landlord, and explain the work was not completed
- not completed because the shower does not work !

The LA will have signed off the DFG work, I'm amazed that the work was signed off as satisfactory if the shower [hygiene requirement] does not function. If that's the case report the non-functioning shower in the first instance immediately by phone and then in writing to both the landlord and the Local Authority. Send the written formal complaint to both and as both to inspect the work as~is and as soon as possible!.