Sheffield City Council (06C10044)
Housing allocations Maladministration causing injustice
05 February 2008
The complaint
Mrs E, a woman in her 90s, lived in a property with two ground floor flats and two first floor flats. She complained that the Council unreasonably rehoused a young single woman into the flat above her, after it changed its rehousing policy and stopped restricting the flats in the block to people aged 50+ (first floor) and 60+ (ground floor).
What happened
As part of a citywide exercise, the Council’s cabinet had approved a review of the age restrictions on 52 blocks of flats in Mrs E’s area. The report on which this decision was based set out good reasons for change. The cabinet was aware that altering the age restrictions could result in clashes of lifestyles between some young tenants and existing, older tenants. It resolved that the head of housing operations should decide the age designation for each block, taking into account the age of the existing tenants, the level of demand from older people, and the availability of properties for younger people.
Two years later, all 52 blocks were designated as ‘general needs’. The Council could not produce evidence to show who took this decision or that each block was considered against the criteria approved by the cabinet.
The Ombudsman’s investigation
Mrs E was 90 years old when a vacant first floor flat in her block of four was allocated to a 17-year-old woman. She complained about this young tenant and visitors making noise late into the night and of being disturbed by them using the toilet in the early hours of the morning. The Ombudsman investigated a complaint from Mrs E about the way that the Council had dealt with these problems and found no evidence of maladministration.
In the meantime the Council allocated another flat in the block to a young man whose behaviour included firing a pellet gun at the young woman and her child, noise and abusive visitors. The Council cautioned him after six days and served notice seeking possession of his flat within three weeks. He moved away within seven months of taking up the tenancy.
In early 2007 a local housing board reviewed the designation of the 52 blocks and recommended changing 26 of them to be for people aged 40+ or 60+ but Mrs E’s block was not one of these. However, after receiving a draft of the Ombudsman’s report, the Council recommended that Mrs E’s block should be designated for people aged 40+.
The Ombudsman’s view
Sadly, Mrs E died while the Ombudsman was investigating her complaint. The Ombudsman said:
“Based on the accounts of third parties and council officers, I conclude that she spent much of the final years of her life very distressed, frightened and upset.”
The Ombudsman was critical of the failure by the Council’s officers to follow the cabinet’s instruction to consider the age of the tenants in Mrs E’s block, the level of demand from older people and the availability of properties for younger people, before deciding to designate the block as ‘general needs’.
Outcome
The Ombudsman recommended that the Council urgently finalise its decisions on all the outstanding redesignations, pay £500 to Mrs E’s estate and £500 to the other elderly couple who lived in the block.
Date Updated: 13/01/09