Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council (04C17057)

Private housing grants & Adult care services

Maladministration causing injustice

30 November 2006

‘Ms Walker’ complained on behalf of her mother, ‘Mrs Walker’ (not their real names for legal reasons) who suffered from severe mental illness over a long period. Because of her illness, Mrs Walker was unable to maintain her home which was declared unfit to live in by the Council. The social worker assigned to Mrs Walker found her temporary supported accommodation and gave priority to finding a way to make her own home fit to live in. In spring 1996 Mrs Walker enquired about a renovation grant.

If someone who received a renovation grant sold or moved out of their property within a specified time period, the council could require partial repayment. Between the time when Mrs Walker first enquired about a grant and the time she applied for one, the time period when this rule applied was extended from three to five years. But no-one appears to have explained this to Mrs Walker who, when she signed the application in January 1998, was an in-patient in a psychiatric ward. In June 1998, the grant was approved.

In January 2003 Mrs Walker wanted to sell the house and move to live close by her daughter in Scotland. She believed that the grant would not have to be repaid as three years had passed. It was only when the house was sold again that the grant condition came to light. By this time Mrs Walker was settled into sheltered accommodation near her daughter on the basis that she could use the equity from the sale of her house to fund the costs. The Council began to try to recover the grant in January 2004. Ms Walker’s requests that the Council should exercise its discretion and not require repayment were refused by officers, by an executive member, and then by the Council’s Cabinet.

The Ombudsman found maladministration by the Council in:

• not ensuring that Mrs Walker was aware of the change from three years to five years when she signed the grant application;
• officers always recommending that discretion not be exercised and that grants should always be repaid; and
• officers advising councillors that Mrs Walker’s mental state was not relevant to their decision about whether to exercise discretion and waive the requirement for Mrs Walker to repay the renovation grant.

The Ombudsman recommends that, to remedy the clear and significant injustice, the Council should now waive repayment of the grant in full. It should also devise an appropriate policy on how to deal with waivers of repayments of renovation grants and to make sure that all of the lessons that emerge from this complaint are learnt.

Date Updated: 16/01/09