Local Government Ombudsman

> | Accessiblity Options | Text Only | Text Size: A+ A- Reset | Links | Site Map

You are here: Home : : Complaint outcomes : : Housing : : Housing archive 2006-07 : : Stonebridge Housing Action Trust (05A07668)

Quality and efficiency

Browser support

Browse aloud

Click here for speech assisted browser support

Downloads

Site tools

Files with this symbol pdf icon are in .pdf format. To view these files you will need the Adobe Acrobat Reader software. It can be downloaded below free of charge. Click To Download

adobe acrobat reader

Stonebridge Housing Action Trust (05A07668)

Housing repairs                           Maladministration causing injustice

13 September 2006

‘Ms Hussein’ (not her real name for legal reasons) is a tenant of Stonebridge Housing Action Trust (‘the HAT’). She complained, through her solicitors, that the HAT had failed to carry out effective repairs to her home to prevent water penetration and to remedy damage caused by the leaks.

The HAT undertook numerous visits to the property and carried out repairs on several occasions. But it took about 18 months to identify the source of the roof leak and to carry out effective repairs.

The Ombudsman concluded that it should have taken no longer than six months to rectify the problem, and that the HAT’s delay in doing so was maladministration, causing injustice to Ms Hussein in terms of anxiety, disruption and inconvenience.

The HAT expressed willingness to settle the complaint to the Ombudsman’s satisfaction by paying compensation of £1,250 to Ms Hussein. Of this, £750 was intended to remedy the injustice to her, and £500 was to go towards the legal costs she had incurred by using solicitors to make her complaint to the HAT and to the Ombudsman. (From the £1,250 Ms Hussein will have to repay all of her solicitors’ costs.) The Ombudsman has agreed this remedy with the HAT.

The Ombudsman says this case highlights the fact that, if someone who is entitled to legal aid makes a complaint to the Ombudsman with the help of a solicitor, some or all of the material compensation that they may obtain as a result of the Ombudsman’s investigation may have to be repaid in order to cover the solicitor’s costs, because of the Legal Services Commission’s statutory charge procedure.

The Ombudsman questioned whether it was essential for Ms Hussein’s solicitors to have embarked upon the statutory charge procedure once they had referred the complaint to him in August 2005. But he considered it appropriate in the circumstances of this case to ask the HAT to make a contribution towards the solicitors’ costs.

Date Updated: 15/01/09