> | Accessiblity Options | Text Only | Text Size: A+ A- Reset | Links | Site Map
LGO Advice Team: 0300 061 0614
Quality and efficiency
Click here for speech assisted browser support
Files with this symbol 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
Housing repairs Maladministration causing injustice
24 October 2007
Watford Borough Council and Hertfordshire County Council’s failure to co-operate over housing repair and refurbishment led to unsatisfactory living conditions for a man and his disabled wife for two years. The Ombudsman says that neither Council took responsibility for ensuring the needs of the tenants were met. Watford Borough Council managed the property on behalf of the County Council, which owned it. “At the heart of the problem appears to have been uncertainty over who was the [tenants’] landlord,” said the Ombudsman. “Neither Council took responsibility for ensuring the needs of the tenant were met. I do not consider that the poor service [the tenant] has received has been a result of harassment. Primarily, it has been a result of the poor standard of service provided by the Borough for its (and the County’s) tenants.” The Ombudsman found both councils to be at fault. He welcomed the County’s decision to fund and carry out the works. He recommended that the Borough pay the complainants £2,000 and the County pay the couple £250 compensation (as well as paying for the works) for the delay and for their time and trouble. The Ombudsman was pleased that both Councils accepted his recommendations. He suggested both Councils should also consider their arrangements for partnerships with other bodies in the light of the Ombudsman’s recently-published special report on Local partnerships and citizen redress. ‘Mr and Mrs Armstrong’ (not their real names for legal reasons) lived in a property owned by Hertfordshire County Council. For many years Watford Borough Council had managed the property but it needed permission from the County for any repairs costing more than £1,000. From 2005, complaints about failure to do repairs were not handled well by the Borough, with information not being passed on from officer to officer, and delays in liaising with the County. At times the County applied insufficient pressure to the Borough, and matters were allowed to slip. At one point a dispute over which Council was Mr and Mrs Armstrong’s landlord unnecessarily complicated discussions over who was responsible for certain works, involving provision of a stairlift and a bathroom suitable for Mrs Armstrong’s disabilities. Mr Armstrong claimed he was being victimised by the Borough. When a Council housing officer was asked about this, she said that Mr Armstrong had received the same poor standard of service as the Borough’s own tenants. Eventually, after the complaint to the Ombudsman, both Councils met with Mr Armstrong and agreed the works to be done. In September the Borough transferred its housing to Watford Community Housing Trust. The County has asked the Trust to manage its Watford properties for it. As this is a housing association it is not within the Local Government Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, but the Ombudsman has sent copies of the report to the Housing Trust and the Housing Ombudsman.
Date Published: 27/10/08
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