Disabled facilities grants


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Staffordshire County Council (18 005 247)

    Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 26-Jun-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains an appropriate remedy has not been provided for the upheld complaints about a care assessment. The Council delayed in assessing the needs of his twin sons who have autism. As a result the family had to manage without necessary adaptations for 10 months longer than should have been the case. A suitable remedy is now agreed.

  • Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (18 009 778)

    Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 20-Jun-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains that the Council delayed and refused a second exit when he applied for a disabled facilities grant, despite two OT's recommendations. When he appealed this, his bathroom and other works were put on hold and his needs were not met in the best way. The Ombudsman finds the Council did not need to provide the exit but was at fault in the confusing recommendations, delays and failure to clearly explain why it was not responsible. The Council will arrange for the remaining work to be completed urgently.

  • 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.

  • Hertfordshire County Council (18 007 183)

    Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 18-Jun-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complains the occupational therapist failed to carry out an assessment which stalled her application for a disabled facilities grant. The information provided shows the Council was prepared to carry out an assessment but Mrs X declined. While the County Council should have passed on information about Mrs X declining an assessment to the Borough Council, it was her refusal of an assessment that caused her injustice.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.