West Suffolk Council (23 014 915)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Disabled facilities grants 11-Mar-2024

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s management of Mr X’s application for a disabled facilities grant. This is because most of the events complained about took place more than 12 months ago and it would have been reasonable for Mr X to refer them to us sooner. In addition, investigating the parts of the complaint that are within our jurisdiction would be unlikely to result in finding fault with the Council’s actions.

South Staffordshire District Council (23 010 119)

Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 08-Mar-2024

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council’s appointed contractor took too long to complete Disabled Facilities Grant works in her bathroom and the work was of a poor standard. We found fault because of the delay in completing the necessary adaptations to the bathroom. The Council has agreed to re-state its previous payment offer to Mrs X and assess any outstanding installation issues with Mrs X before agreeing how they should be fixed.

London Borough of Haringey (23 016 424)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Disabled facilities grants 06-Mar-2024

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to update him on its service improvement plan in 2022. This is because the complaint is late and there is no good reason to investigate now.

Salford City Council (23 015 718)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Disabled facilities grants 05-Mar-2024

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about poor workmanship in relation to disabled adaptations. This is because the complaint is late. There is no evidence Mrs X could not have complained sooner and no good reason for us to investigate now.

Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (23 016 020)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Disabled facilities grants 22-Feb-2024

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s ‘relocation grant’ (RG) process and decision in 2019, that it did not help with her new property’s purchase costs, and that it has not helped others with its RG scheme. We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint because it is late and there are no good reasons to do so now. Even if we accepted the complaint as in time, we would not have investigated because there is not enough evidence of Council fault to have justified an investigation and we could not have achieved the outcome she wants. There would be insufficient personal injustice to Mrs X from the Council’s current use of the scheme to warrant an investigation.

Birmingham City Council (23 015 235)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Disabled facilities grants 21-Feb-2024

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the outcome of his occupational therapy assessment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

London Borough of Tower Hamlets (23 015 209)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Disabled facilities grants 19-Feb-2024

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the outcome of his father’s occupational therapy assessment in relation to his request for a stairlift. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council.

Dorset Council (23 009 113)

Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 19-Feb-2024

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of the bathroom work carried out under his disabled facilities grant application. The Council failed to communicate with Mr X while acting as his agent with the contractor. The Council will apologise and pay Mr X £100 to recognise the distress caused.

Durham County Council (23 005 304)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Disabled facilities grants 01-Feb-2024

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to recommend an installation of a driveway via a disabled facilities grant. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

London Borough of Harrow (23 005 280)

Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 17-Jan-2024

Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council decided what adaptations to carry out to Mr B’s property and the Council progressed matters in a timely matter. There was fault as the Council should have told Mr and Mrs B that the works to a rear gate exceeded the approved grant figure before it started the works. There was also fault in the Council’s communications once Mr and Mrs B had complained. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay a symbolic sum to reflect the distress caused by the fault.