Archive has 69 results
-
Portsmouth City Council (19 007 450)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Disabled facilities grants 07-Jan-2020
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s calculation and charging for grant works at her home. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
-
Surrey County Council (19 010 949)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Disabled facilities grants 23-Dec-2019
Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint about whether Mrs X should have paid for a walk-in shower. This is because there is not enough evidence that any alleged fault by the Council caused the claimed injustice.
-
Northumberland County Council (19 004 096)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Disabled facilities grants 11-Dec-2019
Summary: The Ombudsmen will not investigate this complaint about the care and support provided to a couple with significant health needs by the Council and Trust. This is because an investigation by the Ombudsmen would be unlikely to identify fault by the organisations concerned.
-
Isle of Wight Council (19 008 797)
Statement Not upheld Disabled facilities grants 03-Dec-2019
Summary: The complainant is concerned about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a Disabled Facilities Grant. The Ombudsman is discontinuing his investigation because the Council has arranged for the complainant to pursue its appeal process. Once this is completed, and if the complainant remains dissatisfied, she can resubmit the complaint to the Ombudsman.
-
Statement Not upheld Disabled facilities grants 29-Nov-2019
Summary: Ms B says the Council failed to help her to remove a lift from her property that was provided by a Disabled Facilities Grant to her mother. The Council had no statutory duty to assist, and there is no evidence Ms B told the Council of her disability or the impact the lift was having on her following her mother’s death. The Council properly considered whether to help, gave correct advice to Ms B, and signposted her to the company that installed the lift.
-
Luton Borough Council (18 013 146)
Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 28-Nov-2019
Summary: There was delay in the way the Council progressed adaptations that were required to meet Mr D’s needs. The Council has agreed to apologise to the family, to pay the family £1,200 and to consider a review in its policies.
-
London Borough of Haringey (18 017 576)
Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 28-Nov-2019
Summary: There was delay in the Council’s processing of Ms B’s application for adaptations to her flat. The Council also failed to respond to Ms B’s complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms B in writing, pay her £150, give her a decision about installing an L-shaped bath/shower and consider including timescales in its policy on delivering adaptations.
-
London Borough of Islington (18 016 444)
Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 27-Nov-2019
Summary: Ind C complained about the way in which the Council dealt with their request for adaptations (a DFG) to their flat and their request to allocate a social worker. The Ombudsman found there was fault with the way the Council progressed the DFG request and a delay in responding to the complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise and provide a financial remedy for their distress.
-
Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (19 009 964)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Disabled facilities grants 18-Nov-2019
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision following his request for a disabled facilities grant to install a level-access shower in his home. The Council agreed to pay a grant, but refused Mr X’s request for the shower to be a cubicle or have a screen, rather than a shower curtain. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s actions.
-
Melton Borough Council (19 004 417)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Disabled facilities grants 13-Nov-2019
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about Ms Q’s need for a larger property to accommodate her family. This is because we have no jurisdiction to consider the housing management issues complained of.