Disabled facilities grants archive 2016-2017


Archive has 48 results

  • Birmingham City Council (15 018 410)

    Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 28-Mar-2017

    Summary: the Council failed to respond to the needs of both Mr A and Ms B appropriately. There were delays in processing their application as well as a failure to inform them about the waiting list. The original schemes for adaptation did not take their individual needs into consideration. The Council agrees to apologise, make swift progress to complete the schemes in line with Mr A and Ms B's needs, and also offer a payment in acknowledgement that its failings have caused distress and inconvenience over a long period of time for both Mr A and Ms B.

  • Luton Borough Council (16 011 879)

    Statement Not upheld Disabled facilities grants 24-Mar-2017

    Summary: There are problems with the quality of works done under a Disabled Facilities Grant at Mr J's parents' home. Mr J complains about the Council's proposed solution. There was no fault by the Council in the way it inspected the works and proposed a solution.

  • Lichfield District Council (16 003 781)

    Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 20-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Council investigated Mr and Mrs X's complaints about the way it dealt with a Disabled Facilities Grant application from 2014. The Council upheld Mr and Mrs X's complaint. Its offer of £3271 in compensation is a suitable remedy for the delay and distress caused. There are no grounds for the Ombudsman to exercise discretion to investigate as it would not achieve anything more for Mr and Mrs X. so the Ombudsman is completing his investigation.

  • Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (15 019 050)

    Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 15-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Council did not properly advise Miss Y during the planning stage of proposed works for a Disabled Facilities Grant. As a result, the subsequent building work does not fully meet her disabled son's needs. The poor workmanship of the Council's contractors caused further injustice to Miss Y and her son. The Council has already offered a remedy for this part of the complaint. To fully remedy the other matter the Council will arrange an independent inspection and some remedial building work.

  • Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (16 009 168)

    Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 14-Mar-2017

    Summary: There was some delay by the Council in dealing with Mrs B's Disabled Facilities Grant to provide essential adaptations to her home and improve her quality of life. The Council has agreed to pay her £450.

  • London Borough of Camden (16 011 485)

    Statement Not upheld Disabled facilities grants 13-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Council was not at fault in the way it supported Mrs X while she waited for major repairs to her home to be completed.

  • West Lancashire Borough Council (16 004 708)

    Statement Not upheld Disabled facilities grants 28-Feb-2017

    Summary: The delays in progressing adaptations to Mr and Mrs X's property to meet Mr X's needs are not due to fault by the Council.

  • Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (16 004 816)

    Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 24-Feb-2017

    Summary: The Council's agents failed to keep original flagstones removed as part of work for a Disabled Facilities Grant, as agreed. It has agreed to get these replaced. There were small delays in completing the work. The Council has agreed to pay for the flagstones to be replaced.

  • London Borough of Harrow (16 012 784)

    Statement Not upheld Disabled facilities grants 20-Feb-2017

    Summary: Miss B complained the Council refused to carry out an occupational therapy assessment. During the investigation the Council carried out the assessment. No purpose would be served by further enquiry into the Council's actions.

  • Royal Borough of Greenwich (16 014 653)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Disabled facilities grants 16-Feb-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint alleging negligence from Council arranged adaptation works. This is because it is reasonable for the complainant to take action in the court.