London Borough of Havering (06A10428)
Housing allocations Maladministration causing injustice
31 October 2007
The complaint
Mrs C was 86 years old, partially sighted, deaf and suffered from bronchial asthma and arthritis in all major joints. She lived with her daughter and granddaughter in a second-floor, three-bedroom maisonette which was reached from street level by three sets of 14 steps. There was no lift. She could not manage the stairs to reach the property or those within the maisonette to her bedroom and bathroom without assistance. Her daughter first applied for a transfer for the family in 2000.
The Ombudsman’s investigation
Despite contact from Mrs C’s daughter, from her MP and her local councillor, the Council failed to consider the family’s the need for rehousing properly. In January 2003 a housing office visited the home and reported that Mrs C was “practically a prisoner in her own home”. However, the Council continued to fail to consider the application properly. It informed the MP, in response to his enquiries in 2003, that, “every effort will be made to secure a ground floor property for them to move into”. However, the Ombudsman found no evidence to support this statement. Mrs C’s daughter continued to bid unsuccessfully for properties under the Council’s choice-based lettings scheme.
In response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries the Council first of all said that Mrs C stood no chance of being rehoused into a level access property because they all had gardens and she did not satisfy the criteria for a property with a garden. When it was informed that if this were the case then it would be fettering its discretion and possibly be in breach of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, it changed its response, saying that it did in fact exercise discretion. The Ombudsman expressed serious concern about the accuracy of information he was given during the course of the investigation and reminded the council of the provisions of section 29 (8) of the Local Government Act 1974. He said:
“I wish to remind the Council and its staff that obstructing me in my work may be an offence which I can certify to the High Court.”
Outcome
During the course of the investigation the Council reconsidered its position and the family was rehoused. The Council apologised for providing misleading information to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman was critical of the Council for failing to take this action five years earlier. He said:
“The Council has a limited housing stock and faces many competing demands for housing which far outstrip supply. I do not underestimate the difficulties it faces. But, because of this, it is particularly important that it ensures its policies properly address housing need, and that there is sufficient flexibility to take account of the special circumstances of housing applicants.”
He recommended the Council to pay £10,000 to Mrs C. However, Mrs C died before the final report was issued and so the payment was made to her daughter. The Ombudsman also recommended that the Council review all of its rehousing applications over five years to see whether others had been affected in a similar way by the failure to give them proper consideration, and to offer appropriate compensation to those affected.
Date Updated: 16/01/09