Privacy settings

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.

Disabled facilities grants


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • London Borough of Hillingdon (21 009 959)

    Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 04-Apr-2022

    Summary: Ms X complained the Council refused to carry out kitchen adaptations and delayed carrying out adaptations to the bathroom. There was no fault in the way the Council reached the decision not to adapt Ms X's kitchen. The Council significantly delayed adapting the bathroom and failed to keep Ms X updated on progress. This caused her avoidable frustration and meant she had to use unsuitable facilities for longer than necessary. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her £750 and to review its procedures.

  • Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (21 011 984)

    Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 04-Apr-2022

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council told her it would build a ground floor extension to provide suitable facilities for her disabled son, Mr Z, and then changed its mind and failed to respond to her telephone calls. The Council assessed Mr Z's case without fault and made suitable recommendations. There is no evidence it told Mrs X it would build an extension. There was some delay in communicating its recommendations to Mrs X but this did not cause her an injustice.

  • London Borough of Hillingdon (21 009 149)

    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.

  • Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council (21 000 966)

    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.

  • Staffordshire County Council (21 005 636)

    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.

  • North Norfolk District Council (21 006 006)

    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.

  • Staffordshire County Council (20 005 443)

    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.

  • London Borough of Waltham Forest (21 005 158)

    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.

  • London Borough of Hillingdon (21 002 369)

    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.

  • South Norfolk District Council (21 001 353)

    Statement Not upheld Disabled facilities grants 17-Feb-2022

    Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council handled her disabled facilities grant application. There was no fault in the Council's actions.