Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (05C04684)

Housing allocations, Managing tenancies, Housing benefit & Adult care services

Maladministration causing injustice

28 February 2007

An elderly disabled woman, her son and her disabled daughter were “passed from one department to another” by Kirklees Metropolitan Council when trying to sort out her housing problems. The Ombudsman found that the Council’s failures caused unnecessary inconvenience, distress and expense, and the Council agreed to her recommendations to pay £3,000 compensation and amend its records.

The Ombudsman said, “The many departments involved dealt with the case in isolation. The result was that a property was allocated when the tenants could not practically take up residence. When the tenants realised that … they were passed from one department to another. This lack of co ordination was maladministration.”

‘Mrs Stewart’ (not her real name for legal reasons) was in her seventies, had difficulty climbing stairs and needed help with bathing because of her disabilities. She and her daughter, who was also disabled, applied for a joint council tenancy and were allocated a property on the basis of their combined needs. She complained that the tenancy allocated was unsuitable because adaptations to meet her needs as a disabled person were not carried out, and that it failed to deal with her complaints about this. She was unable to occupy the house and the Council took legal action against her for rent arrears. Her son made many efforts to get the Council to put things right, but it did not do so.

The Ombudsman considered that the Council should have cleaned the property and removed the broken stairlift. The Council should also have considered whether it was suitable to offer the property without the necessary adaptations being ready because of the medical reasons why the property had been offered in the first place.

The Ombudsman found fault in the Council’s:

• failure in communication between the several departments responsible for letting, repairs, rent collection and social services; 
• failure to understand why the tenants had not moved in and that the rent arrears should not have required court action as the tenants were entitled to full benefit;
• failure to follow its own policies in dealing with rent arrears; and
• failure to keep proper records of how the house repairs and the tenancy situation were dealt with.

Even after the difficulties with making the house suitable to live in were resolved, the tenants struggled for over two years to repay rent arrears and court costs that they feel should not have arisen. In addition, they lost the opportunity to buy their home after two years under the right to buy scheme because of changes in legislation that took place during the periods when the tenancy was altered. The Ombudsman said that there were doubts about the Council’s application of the legislation to the periods of tenancy. In her view there should have been a continuous joint tenancy from the initial offer date.

The Ombudsman felt that the failure to establish the joint tenancy correctly in 2003 and the refusal to backdate the joint tenancy when it was admitted that a mistake had been made was maladministration that caused significant injustice to Mrs Stewart and her family. She recommended that the Council:

• reinstate the original tenancy start date of October 2003 on its records. This should then be the date used for calculation of right to buy discount and for the application of the date of eligibility for exercising the right to buy;
• remove from the relevant accounts any rent or council tax arrears outstanding as a result of the maladministration, and refunds any credit due; and
• pay £3,000 to Mrs Stewart.
   

Date Published: 03/02/09