An Ombudsman has ordered Salford city council to pay £500 and apologise to a woman for delays and poor communication over the authority’s handling of her disability grant. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman found that the local authority’s failings caused the woman and her family ‘considerable inconvenience and distress’.
Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs) are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Councils have a statutory duty to give grants to disabled people for ‘certain adaptations’ and must be satisfied that the work is necessary, meets the disabled person’s needs and is ‘reasonable and practicable’.
The woman, referred to as ‘Mrs X’ in the Ombudsman’s report has a disabled husband, ‘Mr X’, who has care needs. She contacted the council in 2019 asking for a needs assessment for her husband and a review of their housing.
The council completed its assessment and agreed that their house needed adaptation to meet Mr X’s needs. This was agreed and in 2021 a planning application was submitted.
In August 2021, planning consent was granted and the council invited contractors to tender and quote for the work. In October 2021, the building quotes showed that the works would cost significantly more than the £30,000 available through the DFG.
The council approved the DFG application, but asked Mrs X and the housing association if either were able to meet the additional costs. Both said they were unable to do so.
Mrs X was advised by the council to submit a letter of ‘exceptional circumstances’ in November 2021. The council acknowledged her request and said as part of the process, it would arrange an occupational therapy review - a standard practice for discretionary funding - to ensure the planned building work and adaptations remained appropriate to Mr X’s needs.
This was planned for December 2021, but cancelled because of illness. Mrs X contacted the council twice to ask for this to be rearranged as soon as possible to avoid further delay. The occupational therapist completed the review at the end of January 2022.
Mrs X ‘chased’ the council for a progress update during February 2022, but the authority ‘did not respond’ the Ombudsman’s report said. “Mrs X chased again in March 2022,” he continued.
“The council told her it was in the process of changing its policy so it had not yet been able to progress her discretionary funding request. Mrs X expressed her frustration that she had submitted this request in November 2021, but the council had not yet decided whether it would agree to this.
“The council told Mrs X it would provide an update at the end of March, but did not do so.” Mrs X complained to the council in April 2022 about the delay as well as poor communication.
She said the delays and poor communication were having a ‘significant impact’ on her, Mr X, and their family and causing them all ‘ significant inconvenience and distress’. Between April and June 2022, Mrs X continued to chase the council for a decision.
In July 2022, the council considered the case and told Mrs X it had approved her discretionary funding application, confirming it would meet the additional costs of the works above the £30,000 DFG award. The council responded to her complaint and apologised for the delay and upheld her complaint about poor communication.
The Ombudsman wrote: “It [the council] said it would learn from Mrs’s complaining to improve its process for considering such funding requests. It would also act to ensure communications were easy to understand and that the service communicated more proactively with customers. Mrs X remained unhappy and brought the complaint to us.”
He said that in August 2022, the council provided the ombudsman with evidence to show how it had improved its processes following Mrs X’s complaint. The Ombudsman concluded: “I have found fault and the council has agreed action to remedy the injustice."
He ordered the council to write to Mrs X to provide a further apology, pay her £500 and acknowledge the distress caused and the impact of the delays and poor communication on her and her family. The council should provide evidence that it has complied with the ruling.
READ NEXT:
- Bare-chested bricklayer bit police officer's boot and threatened to 'get families and children raped'
- Scathing report into 'failing' high school finds 'racist, homophobic and misogynistic' bullying is rife
- Nephew of cop killer Dale Cregan who called himself 'bad man' jailed over drug dealing and theft of £5,000 Rolex
- Single mum working 50 hour weeks for NHS left heartbroken after losing out on dream home to £37k price hike
- Inside Manchester's most expensive apartment that costs an eye-watering £18,000 a month to rent
