Suffolk County Council (25 003 045)

Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 11-Dec-2025

Summary: There was a delay in offering Mr B an assessment by an occupational therapist, to decide whether Mr B was eligible for a disabled facilities grant (DFG) but the Council has already remedied this. The Council failed to properly consider its duties under the Armed Forces Covenant when it made its decision and this was fault. The Council has agreed to review its decision and provide a written response to Mr B.

Lancaster City Council (25 010 007)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Disabled facilities grants 11-Dec-2025

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council responded to her concerns about her wet room. This is because her complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to consider it now.

Reading Borough Council (25 010 016)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Disabled facilities grants 10-Dec-2025

Summary: We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her Disabled Facilities Grant application. This is because it is unlikely our involvement would lead to a different outcome.

Hampshire County Council (25 004 787)

Statement Not upheld Disabled facilities grants 08-Dec-2025

Summary: Miss X complains the Council has not properly assessed her needs. We have not investigated because the Council has offered Miss X a fresh assessment and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

London Borough of Brent (24 018 904)

Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 04-Dec-2025

Summary: Mrs B complains about the Council’s assessment of her son’s eligibility for a disabled facilities grant. We have found fault sa there was a delay in the provision of adaptations which have still not been provided and there was fault in the decision-making process. The Council has agreed to review the decision, pay a financial remedy and carry out a service improvement.

Kingston Upon Hull City Council (24 022 114)

Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 28-Nov-2025

Summary: We upheld a complaint made by Mr D about how the Council considered his request for support with adaptations to his home to benefit his disabled child. We found the Council wrongly refused to consider awarding a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) based on the cost of the proposed adaptations. While we could not say the adaptations would have necessarily proceeded, this fault resulted in avoidable delay and uncertainty for Mr D. The Council accepted these findings and agreed to remedy Mr D’s injustice as we recommended. This will include reviewing its decision. It will also improve its approach to considering high-cost adaptations to prevent a repeat.

Chorley Borough Council (24 019 751)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Disabled facilities grants 25-Nov-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council will not complete adaptations to a property. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Staffordshire County Council (24 022 342)

Statement Not upheld Disabled facilities grants 21-Nov-2025

Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it assessed Mrs X’s child, Y’s needs following a Disabled Facilities Grant application. It considered information from Mrs X, Y’s doctor and the local housing authority and made recommendations that met Y’s needs.

Tamworth Borough Council (25 005 826)

Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 21-Nov-2025

Summary: The Council was at fault for delay in deciding Mrs X’s Disabled Facilities Grant application. This has caused Mrs X uncertainty over what adaptations The Council is willing to proceed with. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X, finalise the adaptations scheme it is willing to proceed with and make a payment to Mrs X.

Wakefield City Council (25 008 860)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Disabled facilities grants 21-Nov-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to adapt a loft for Mr X’s daughter. This is because there is insufficient evidence in the Council’s decision making.