Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council (04C17057)

Private housing grants & Adult care services

Further report

15 May 2007

Trafford Council’s rejection of an Ombudsman’s recommendation to waive the repayment of a housing grant acts against the legitimate interests of an elderly woman with mental health problems who it has wronged, said the Ombudsman. She had asked the Council to remedy the injustice caused, but in her second critical report she says “I am dismayed that it has responded in what I can only describe as a cavalier manner to the prejudice of a very vulnerable citizen.”

In her first report, issued on 30 November 2006 following an independent and thoroughly researched investigation, the Ombudsman criticised the Council for not having ensured that the woman fully understood the terms and conditions of the housing renovation grant at the time she signed the application, and for officers advising councillors that the woman’s mental state was not relevant. She recommended that, in the unusual circumstances, it should exercise its discretion and waive the repayment of the grant.

‘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. In spring 1996 Mrs Walker enquired about a renovation grant for her home.

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.

The result of this was that Ms Walker, who by then had power of attorney for her mother, arranged to sell the house in the erroneous belief that the old rules applied. Had those rules applied then the Council could have recovered none of the grant. Had the daughter known the truth she could have acted to delay the sale for another year, after which no recovery could have been made. In the event the grant conditions were breached and the Council insisted on a full repayment.

The Council did agree to review its existing policy on the repayment of grants and to identify possible improvements, but it is now obliged to consider this further report.

“I deplore the officers’ continued resistance to accepting my findings of fact, contrary to established case law.” said the Ombudsman, “I ask the Council to reconsider its position and waive the payment of this grant.”

Date Updated: 16/01/09