Disabled facilities grants


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • London Borough of Hillingdon (16 011 430)

    Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 06-Jun-2017

    Summary: The Council did not delay in considering Mr X's application for a Disabled Facilities Grant. It did not consult a number of professionals involved with the family before reaching a decision. This amounts to fault and the Council should conduct these consultations now and then consider its decision on the application in light of these.

  • London Borough of Havering (16 016 444)

    Statement Not upheld Disabled facilities grants 01-Jun-2017

    Summary: Mr A complains the Council failed to properly monitor the disabled facilities grant works being carried out by a contractor at his home and it allowed the contractor the opportunity to correct sub-standard work which he failed to do. There was no fault by the Council and we will not pursue the complaint any further.

  • Northumberland Council (16 011 471)

    Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 31-May-2017

    Summary: There was some delay in the application process for the stair-lift after the repairs service transferred to the control of the Council. The Council should have explained to Mr X that he could choose a stair-lift manufacturer, and says it now does so. The Council has now installed an alternative stair-lift after Mr X complained that the original lift did not meet his needs, but in the interim the Council sought to modify the lift instead. The Council agrees to offer a payment to Mr X to recognise the delay in processing his application between August and November 2015.

  • London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (16 005 280)

    Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 15-May-2017

    Summary: The Council is allowed to consider relative costs of two options when approving funding for adaptations. So there is no fault in the refusal to fund an extension for Mr A when adaptations to the footprint of the home would be cheaper and meet his assessed needs. The Council failed to assess Mr B's social care needs or his needs as a carer. To remedy the injustice, the Council has accepted my recommendation to apologise, carry out fresh assessments of Mr A and Mr B, pay Mr A £250 and apologise to both.

  • Luton Borough Council (17 000 373)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Disabled facilities grants 05-May-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman does not have grounds to investigate this complaint about the Council's decision concerning a Disabled Facilities Grant. This is because there is no sign of fault on its part.

  • London Borough of Croydon (16 018 677)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Disabled facilities grants 02-May-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr and Mrs B's complaint that the Council wrongly withdrew funding for adaptation works for their disabled son. This is because Mr and Mrs B have not complained within 12 months and there are not good reasons to investigate the complaint now.

  • Durham County Council (16 011 028)

    Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 21-Apr-2017

    Summary: Mr X would like the Council to fund a grant for an extension to his home to house a lift for his disabled son. There was no fault in the Council's decision that a lift could be installed inside the home. However, the Council failed to give Mr X enough information about how to proceed with a disabled facilities grant or the process. This has caused delay and confusion. Mr X has not reached the stage of a completed application 20 months since he began the process. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Mr X £500 for his uncertainty and frustration and improve the information available to the public.

  • Southampton City Council (16 011 556)

    Statement Not upheld Disabled facilities grants 13-Apr-2017

    Summary: Mrs F asked the Council for a Disabled Facilities Grant to replace her windows and renovate a downstairs bathroom. There is no evidence of Council fault in it refusing to do this.

  • Daventry District Council (16 008 493)

    Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 13-Apr-2017

    Summary: There were delays when the Council dealt with Mr and Mrs X's request for a DFG grant. However, a change in their circumstances meant they were no longer eligible for the grant rather than fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to pay Mr and Mrs X £250 to acknowledge the frustration and distress caused by the delays.

  • Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (16 004 300)

    Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 13-Apr-2017

    Summary: Ms B and Mr C complain the Council failed to provide the family with services and failed to ensure work was promptly carried out under a disabled facilities grant. There was evidence of fault leading to injustice for the family and a remedy has been agreed.

;