Issue - meetings

Recommendations

1)    Accept the findings of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s investigation into the handling of a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) application.

2)    Endorse the proposed actions to address the issues raised, including improvements to service delivery, waiting list management and publishing of target delivery timescales.

Considered – A report of the Corporate Director Community Development presenting the findings of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s investigation into the handling of a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) application, and the Council’s proposed actions to address the issues raised, including improvements to service delivery, waiting list management and publishing of target delivery timescales.

In introducing the report the Executive Member for Culture, Arts and Housing, Councillor Simon Myers, advised that the findings had been accepted by the Council and a comprehensive action plan had been developed to enable DFG applications to be progressed more quickly, with target timescales set out at paragraph 4.7.  It was confirmed that there was currently no waiting list for the handy person service which was introduced last year for minor adaptations.  The Executive Member noted that delays in adaptations resulted in longer hospital stays and increased pressure on Health and Adult Services budgets and therefore it was important that the issues raised were addressed.

Resolved (unanimously)

That the Executive

1)    Accept the findings of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s    investigation into the handling of a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) application.

2)    Endorse the proposed actions to address the issues raised, including improvements to service delivery, waiting list management and publishing of target delivery timescales.

Reasons for recommendations

Having reviewed the Ombudsman’s findings, the service was already taking steps to implement the proposed action plan. This included working towards the good practice timescales, regular reporting, and allocating appropriate resources.

Ensuring both democratic and service-level oversight would support transparency and help improve delivery timescales in relation to adapting the homes of some of our most vulnerable residents.

Alternative options considered

Inaction on the Ombudsman’s findings would risk repeated service failures and signal a lack of accountability, eroding public trust. It may also expose the Council to legal scrutiny and compromise its commitment to improving resident-centred services.

There were no viable alternatives. Failure to implement the proposed actions would risk continued service gaps, delayed responses, and unmet needs, particularly for vulnerable residents who depended on timely support to maintain their independence. Further increases to waiting lists were likely to increase pressure on emergency services, reduce wellbeing outcomes, and damage the Council’s reputation.