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.

Salford City Council (25 001 048)

Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 03-Feb-2026

Summary: Miss X complains the Council did not provide the necessary adaptations to her property to assist her to care for her teenage daughter, who is severely disabled. She complains the matter has been stressful. We found the Council failed to take and communicate decisions in a timely way, and it did not have regard for all the facts. This caused delay and meant adaptations were not implemented. We recommended an apology, a meeting to explain the Council’s position and a payment to reflect the impact of the period the family have had without suitable adaptations.

Birmingham City Council (25 013 140)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Disabled facilities grants 29-Jan-2026

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about works offered under a disabled facilities grant. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. The recommended works changed but the Council made its decisions following the proper process.

North East Lincolnshire Council (25 013 641)

Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 29-Jan-2026

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about work carried out as part of a Disabled Facilities Grant. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

London Borough of Harrow (25 012 121)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Disabled facilities grants 29-Jan-2026

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adaptations carried out in Miss X’s home in line with a disabled facilities grant. This is because the complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate.

North Somerset Council (25 012 050)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Disabled facilities grants 27-Jan-2026

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the repayment of a Disabled Facilities Grant. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Hertsmere Borough Council (25 003 840)

Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 22-Jan-2026

Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed getting permission from the freeholder for adaptations under a disabled facilities grant. He also complained the Council did not properly consider it’s anticipatory duty under the Equality Act 201 as it failed to consider using discretionary funding to pay for the works. There was an initial delay by the Council in seeking permission but most of the 12 month delay was down to the freeholder. The Council will provide an apology for its failings which caused Mr X frustration and impacted on his safety, dignity and wellbeing.