London Borough of Bexley (25 013 275)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Disabled facilities grants 24-Feb-2026

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council handled her Disabled Facilities Grant request for her son, Y. We will also not investigate her complaint about how the Council handled its statutory housing and safeguarding duties. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Wakefield Metropolitan District Council (25 014 394)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Disabled facilities grants 24-Feb-2026

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to approve adaptations to facilitate an extra bedroom for Miss B’s child. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (25 014 399)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Disabled facilities grants 19-Feb-2026

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in processing Mrs X’s disabled facilities grant. This is because the complaint is late. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint regarding the Council’s policy regarding disabled facilities grant because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

West Northamptonshire Council (25 000 039)

Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 11-Feb-2026

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of adaptations and equipment and about poor communication and complaint handling. There was some delay by the Council in providing specialist equipment, which was fault. It has already apologised and made a symbolic payment to reflect the avoidable distress and inconvenience. This is an appropriate remedy and so no further actions are recommended.

Oxfordshire County Council (25 000 913)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Disabled facilities grants 11-Feb-2026

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered Ms X’s Disabled Facilities Grant application. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

London Borough of Lewisham (25 010 568)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Disabled facilities grants 11-Feb-2026

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to install sound insulation in her son, Mr Y’s flat because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement. The complaints about how the Council considered the flat was suitable for Mr Y when offered, and whether it met appropriate building standards, are late and we could not achieve a worthwhile outcome by investigating now.

City of Wolverhampton Council (25 007 939)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Disabled facilities grants 10-Feb-2026

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about an allegation of discrimination and safeguarding issues in the Council’s handling of Miss X’s Disabled Facilities Grant application. This is because Miss X has commenced court proceedings. The courts have said that where someone has sought a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, we cannot investigate.

Norfolk County Council (25 010 912)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Disabled facilities grants 10-Feb-2026

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s role in the maintenance of a faulty bath-lift that caused the complainant to have an accident in June 2023. The complaint is late.

Kingston Upon Hull City Council (25 002 204)

Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 05-Feb-2026

Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed progressing her Disabled Facilities Grant application and did not provide her with a report regarding its survey of her home. Miss X said the Council’s actions caused considerable avoidable distress and upset to herself and her disabled sons. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to provide Miss X with an apology and a financial remedy.

Birmingham City Council (24 017 850)

Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 03-Feb-2026

Summary: Ms X complained about the quality of works carried out by Council approved contractors under a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). There was no fault in how the Council carried out the works. The Council was at fault for a delay in responding to Ms X’s complaint about the works. It agreed to apologise for the distress and uncertainty the delay caused. However, when it did respond and investigate Ms X’s concerns it did so without fault.