Disabled facilities grants archive 2019-2020


Archive has 74 results

  • Broxbourne Borough Council (17 004 197)

    Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 18-Jun-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complains the Council delayed determining a disabled facilities grant application. She made the application in May 2017 and there is nothing to suggest the Council ever made a decision, which is fault. However, Mrs X has not been significantly affected by this as she wanted adaptations she had never been assessed as requiring.

  • Surrey County Council (18 011 488)

    Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 04-Jun-2019

    Summary: Mr B complains about works done under a disabled facilities grant to provide a wet room for his severely disabled son in the family home. He says the works failed just over a year after they were completed. He says the Councils have failed to rectify the problem and have not acted together to ensure there is a safe and functional wet room so that he and other carers can safely provide personal care to his son. He also complains about delays in recognising the need for and provision of a new shower stretcher/bench. There was fault by the District Council in not inspecting the works done under a DFG. There was fault by the County Council in not accepting quickly enough that it needed to take responsibility for the works needed to resolve the problems with the wet room. Both Councils will, within a month of the final decision, apologise to Mr and Mrs B. And the County Council should do all it can to expedite the works.

  • Runnymede Borough Council (18 015 167)

    Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 04-Jun-2019

    Summary: Mr B complains about works done under a disabled facilities grant to provide a wet room for his severely disabled son in the family home. He says the works failed just over a year after they were completed. He says the Councils have failed to rectify the problem and have not acted together to ensure there is a safe and functional wet room so that he and other carers can safely provide personal care to his son. He also complains about delays in recognising the need for and provision of a new shower stretcher/bench. There was fault by the District Council in not inspecting the works done under a DFG. There was fault by the County Council in not accepting quickly enough that it needed to take responsibility for the works needed to resolve the problems with the wet room. Both Councils will, within a month of the final decision, apologise to Mr and Mrs B. And the County Council should do all it can to expedite the works.

  • Kent County Council (18 010 806)

    Statement Not upheld Disabled facilities grants 03-Jun-2019

    Summary: Ms D complains about the Council’s decision regarding adaptations to her home. The Ombudsman has not found any evidence of fault by the Council and has completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

  • Birmingham City Council (17 016 640)

    Statement Not upheld Disabled facilities grants 03-Jun-2019

    Summary: Ms B complains the Council started building works to her home that were not in line with agreed plans. Ms B says the Council has not finished the works, so she is living in poor conditions in her home. The Ombudsman does not find fault in the Council’s actions.

  • Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council (18 015 345)

    Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 30-May-2019

    Summary: There was fault in the way the Council assessed and reviewed Mr X’s bathing needs and recommended adaptations to his home. It did not properly consider and respond to some concerns he raised during the assessment about his need to take baths for pain management. During the investigation the Council agreed to provide a satisfactory remedy.

  • Leicestershire County Council (18 012 778)

    Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 28-May-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of disabled facilities grant applications for her, her husband and two children. The Ombudsman finds there was fault with the Council’s approach to the process, leading to unnecessary delay and distress. However, it was entitled to decide it needed more evidence to conclude her son’s assessment. The Council has accepted the Ombudsman’s recommendation to remedy the injustice caused to Mrs X by making a financial payment and writing to confirm where matters currently stand.

  • London Borough of Enfield (18 010 988)

    Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 15-May-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains that the Council took too long to assess his needs, failed to make adaptations to his property that an Occupational Therapist recommended, and handled his complaint poorly. He has been unable to properly wash himself for over two years. He says he is distressed, anxious, and disgusted with the Council. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council which has caused injustice to Mr X. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, make a payment to recognise the failure to meet his care needs and how that has affected him, and take action to address the faults with its service provision. The Council has also agreed to inform all local authority tenants with disabilities who are waiting for adaptations to their homes of their right to apply for funding.

  • Hertfordshire County Council (18 012 565)

    Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 08-May-2019

    Summary: Mr Y complains the Council told him the waiting time for a Disabled Facilities Grant was two years. He says because of the Council’s advice he decided to pay for the work himself. Mr Y later found out the wait was much shorter. The Council gave Mr Y wrong advice about how long it took to apply for a grant. This did not cause Mr Y any injustice.

  • Oadby & Wigston Borough Council (17 017 604)

    Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 01-May-2019

    Summary: Ms B says the Council failed to deal with a disabled facilities grant properly. The Council delayed telling Ms B about the amount she would have to repay if she sold her mother’s property which caused her some frustration. The Council has apologised. That is a satisfactory remedy. There is no fault in the remainder of the complaint.

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings