Archive has 74 results
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Disabled facilities grants 31-Mar-2022
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the outcome of his occupational therapy assessment in relation to his request for major adaptations to his home. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council in how it carried out and decided the assessment.
Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 15-Mar-2022
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to tell her it had placed a land charge on her property following disabled facilities grant works. The Council was not at fault for placing a charge on the property. It was at fault for failing to properly consider whether to waive repayment of the grant, for providing conflicting information about the amount due and for requiring repayment of a second grant which was for remedial works resulting from faults with the original works. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X, remove the charge for the second DFG, review its decision to require repayment of the grant and pay Ms X £150 to acknowledge the frustration caused to her.
Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 11-Mar-2022
Summary: We upheld part of Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s funding for a disabled facilities grant to adapt his home for his son. The Council failed to consider whether it should pay a discretionary grant towards the work. This created uncertainty for Mr X about whether more funding should have been available. The Council agreed to apologise and consider Mr X’s request for discretionary funding.
Statement Not upheld Disabled facilities grants 09-Mar-2022
Summary: Ms X complained the Council told her to remove her conservatory, resulting in loss of property value and damage to her property. We have discontinued our investigation because we cannot add to any previous investigation by the Council and it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.
Statement Not upheld Disabled facilities grants 07-Mar-2022
Summary: Mr X complains the Council hasn’t properly considered the terms and conditions of a Disabled Facilities Grant. The Council is not at fault.
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Disabled facilities grants 07-Mar-2022
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to do a loft conversion funded by a Disabled Facilities Grant. This is because the Council is revising the decision and considering approving a loft conversion.
Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 03-Mar-2022
Summary: the complainant, Mrs X, complained the Council failed to properly consider adaptations for her family when it could not find her a four-bedroom home. The Council says it has offered suitable solutions which the family refused and could do no more when the family withdrew permission to engage with other professionals. We found the Council at fault. It agrees to apologise, pay Mrs X £200 and arrange a meeting to discuss reassessing the family.
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Disabled facilities grants 02-Mar-2022
Summary: A man complained about the way the Council dealt with his mother’s application for a Disabled Facilities Grant. But we do not have reason to investigate the complaint. This is because there is no sign that fault by the Council has caused the man or his mother an injustice to warrant our further involvement.
Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 01-Mar-2022
Summary: Mr B says the Council failed to follow through with an occupational therapy assessment it agreed to carry out six months after the first visit and failed to involve him in the later visits. There is no evidence the Council agreed to carry out a further visit after six months but the Council accepts Mr B should have been involved in the later visits. That did not result in Mr B’s mother missing out on any provision but led to Mr B having to go to time and trouble to pursue the complaint. An apology and payment to Mr B is satisfactory remedy.
Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 24-Feb-2022
Summary: Mr B says the Council failed to properly consider his mother’s needs when completing works for a disabled facilities grant, failed to take action when the issues became clear, misled him and is unreasonably requiring a new disabled facilities grant application. The Council’s communications with Mr B have been poor and there was delay, although that is unlikely to have affected the issues being resolved. An apology, payment to Mr B and prioritising a visit to assess the works required is satisfactory remedy.