Disabled facilities grants archive 2015-2016


Archive has 41 results

  • Redcar & Cleveland Council (14 014 629)

    Statement Not upheld Disabled facilities grants 29-Mar-2016

    Summary: Mr B and Miss C have waited a long time for adaptations to meet Mr B's needs. The building work has caused considerable disruption to their lives. However, this is not the result of fault by the Council. Mr B paid a Home Improvement Agency to manage the project. The Home Improvement Agency, not the Council, is accountable for any delay and disruption. The Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints about the Home Improvement Agency. The evidence shows the Council has gone to considerable lengths to address problems for which it was not responsible.

  • London Borough of Waltham Forest (15 016 917)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Disabled facilities grants 21-Mar-2016

    Summary: X complains on behalf of Ms Y about alleged faults in how the council carried out disabled adaptations to her former flat. This is a late complaint and Ms Y has not given persuasive reasons as to why she took until now to make her complaint to the Ombudsman.

  • Lancashire County Council (15 011 608)

    Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 10-Mar-2016

    Summary: The Council failed to properly assess Mr B's eligibility for a Disabled Facilities Grant and it did not explain its decision sufficiently. The Ombudsman has recommended a re-assessment.

  • Cheshire East Council (15 016 286)

    Statement Not upheld Disabled facilities grants 10-Mar-2016

    Summary: There are no grounds for the Ombudsman to challenge the merits of the Council's assessment that Mr B's application for a disabled facilities grant could be met by less costly adaptations than he would like. The Council's offer to reassess Mr B's needs is a reasonable response to his complaint that these were misunderstood.

  • Thurrock Council (15 006 306)

    Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 03-Mar-2016

    Summary: there was fault in the way the Council processed a Disabled Facilities Grant and managed work done by building contractors to provide adaptations for a disabled young person. This caused the young person and his parents a serious injustice. The Council accepts my findings. It has agreed to undertake a full review and provide a suitable remedy.

  • Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (15 011 868)

    Statement Not upheld Disabled facilities grants 03-Mar-2016

    Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council processed Mrs V's mother's disabled facilities grant. The Council did delay in reassessing her mother's needs in 2015. However it has apologised for this and I consider this to be a suitable remedy.

  • Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (15 011 162)

    Statement Not upheld Disabled facilities grants 23-Feb-2016

    Summary: The problems Mr X faced with a building contractor did not result from fault in the way the Council dealt with the schedule of works for his Disabled Facilities Grant.

  • Worcester City Council (14 017 310)

    Statement Not upheld Disabled facilities grants 19-Feb-2016

    Summary: The Council took all reasonable steps to respond to Mr and Mrs Y's complaint about their grant-aided improvement work. The Council is not legally responsible for the standard of the work itself. The complaint is not upheld.

  • Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (14 019 165)

    Statement Not upheld Disabled facilities grants 18-Feb-2016

    Summary: There is no evidence of fault in how the Council has dealt with Mrs B's Disabled Facilities Grant.

  • London Borough of Wandsworth (15 008 836)

    Statement Not upheld Disabled facilities grants 18-Feb-2016

    Summary: Mr B complains the Council failed to take account of his need for downstairs bathing facilities and has failed to offer enough funding via a Disabled Facilities Grant to cover the cost of a downstairs toilet which it accepts he needs. The Council has not been at fault over this matter.