The Council agreed that it would introduce a policy or protocol that would explain how it will consider cases where it is asked to provide 'high cost' adaptations to homes, that will meet the needs of disabled household members. These are cases where the cost of adaptations will likely exceed the £30,000 limit for Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG) application.The Council agreed that it would present a report to its community scrutiny committee setting out our concerns about how it handled a request for 'high cost' adaptations from the complainant. The investigation found significant delay, flawed decision making and flaws in Council policy for considering discretionary awards in addition to disabled facilities grants. The report would consider how the Council was meeting timescales recommended by Government for deciding DFG requests and how these might be improved.The Council agreed that it would complete a review of its housing renewal policy, taking account of criticisms made in our decision statement where we highlighted passages that were unclear.

Provide the Ombudsman with evidence of the full safeguarding investigation the Care Provider agreed to complete following the safeguarding enquiry into the repeated medication error in Mrs X’s case. Also provide evidence to show the Council shared the safeguarding investigation outcome with the Care Quality Commission.

The Council has agreed to carry out an in-depth review of processes and procedures with KWL to identifywhy the works had to be repeated or repaired so many times before they were ofan acceptable standard and identify learning to improve communication,timeliness, and quality.The Council has agreed to produce an action plan setting out how the Council, and KWL on itsbehalf, will improve communication and improve the timeliness and quality ofDisabled adaptation works.The Council has agreed to refer the outcome of the review and the resulting action plan to the relevantscrutiny committee or Cabinet Member to ensure democratic oversight.