 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Summaries of cases that concern more than one category of complaint appear under all relevant category headings Housing benefit 5 case summaries - 2 NEW February 2007 London Borough of Waltham Forest (05/A/5092) Maladministration causing injustice ‘Mr Lester’ complained on behalf of his elderly relative, ‘Mrs Holland’ (real names are not used). He alleged that the Council delayed unreasonably in transferring the tenancy to Mrs Holland following her husband’s death, and in reassessing her housing benefit claim. The tenancy matters were dealt with by ‘Ascham Homes’ on the Council’s behalf, and the housing benefit claim was dealt with by the Council. As a result of the delay, and the failure of the relevant departments to liaise effectively, Mrs Holland was shown as having rent arrears, for which Ascham Homes took recovery action. She was “shocked and distressed” to receive a notice of seeking possession in her deceased husband’s name. Mr Lester complained also about the Council’s delay in dealing with his complaint and in informing him how to pursue it through the procedure. The Ombudsman found no significant administrative fault in dealing with the housing benefit claim itself, but there was a failure by the Revenues and Benefits Service and Ascham Homes to liaise effectively. Ascham Homes took far too long to amend the tenancy agreement, and failed to suspend rent recovery action pending the outcome of the tenancy transfer and the housing benefit claim. The Council also failed to deal properly with Mr Lester’s complaint. As a result of the maladministration, Mrs Holland was caused unnecessary worry and distress, and Mr Lester had to take time and trouble to deal with both the matter itself and the complaint. The Council accepted there were shortcomings and agreed to amend its procedures. The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice and recommended that the Council should:
28 March 2006 Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (05/B/11901) Maladministration causing injustice ‘Mrs Dunne’ (not her real name) complained that the Council failed for over a year to act upon complaints she made about nuisance from her neighbours. The Ombudsman found little evidence to suggest that officers had followed its antsocial behaviour procedures in dealing with Mrs Dunne’s complaints about her neighbours or with counter-complaints by her neighbours about her. Mrs Dunne provided evidence in the form of police crime reference numbers relating to assaults and other offences committed by her neighbours against her, but the housing office did not involve the antisocial behaviour team. Eventually the Council reassessed Mrs Dunne’s medical priority and rehoused her elsewhere. The Ombudsman found maladministration in the lack of documented evidence of an investigation into Mrs Dunne’s complaints, its failure to follow procedures for dealing with antisocial behaviour, and the lack of liaison between the housing office and the antisocial behaviour team. Mrs Dunne also complained that the Council mishandled her claims for housing benefit, as a result of which it threatened her with repossession of her property. The Ombudsman found that the Council could have used the figures supplied by Mrs Dunne at an earlier stage, but that there were still underlying arrears of rent on her rent account that may have led the Council to seek repossession. The Ombudsman recommended that the Council should pay Mrs Dunne £1,000 compensation, part of which should be used to offset any remaining rent arrears. The Council agreed to settle the complaint in this way and the Ombudsman completed his investigation and issued a report because this complaint raised issues of public interest. 18 May 2006 Nottingham City Council (04/C/18012) Maladministration causing injustice ‘Ms Porter’ (not her real name) and her three small children left their council home after experiencing harassment and actual physical assault from her sister and associates who lived nearby. The charity, Shelter, complained on Ms Porter’s behalf about the way the Council handled her rehousing, as she could be considered statutorily homeless. The Council tried using alternatives to homelessness legislation to deal with the situation. In her report the Ombudsman did not criticise this approach in principle, but said “It should not be used to set aside the rights and duties conferred by the law”. After the Council had given the family a temporary tenancy, it took over two years to rehouse them permanently. The Ombudsman found compound failures by the Council. It was legitimate for the Council to try to find an alternative to dealing with Ms Porter under the homelessness legislation but, having given her a temporary tenancy whilst maintaining her original tenancy, it then:
As a result she was not rehoused to a permanent tenancy until almost two years after she had fled from her original home. Ms Porter and her children suffered the injustice of having to live temporary accommodation for longer than necessary. The Council’s failings also meant that a property was standing empty for almost two years. The Council accepted fault and agreed to review its procedures so as to avoid the problems noted above. It also agreed to pay compensation of £2,000 to Ms Porter. The Ombudsman asked the Council to complete its review within three months of the publication of the report and to tell her of the results. 12 July 2006 London Borough of Brent (05/A/17099 and 05/A/18870) Two separate reports NEW Maladministration causing injustice Brent Council’s Revenues and Benefits Department was criticised in two reports by the Local Government Ombudsman for mishandling debt recovery. In two separate reports, Ombudsman Tony Redmond found fault by the Council in taking recovery action against a woman for a council tax debt she did not owe; and for failing to consider its Anti-Poverty Strategy when seeking recovery of underpaid council tax from a man after it had wrongly granted him a 50 per cent council tax ‘empty property’ discount. The Council wrongly awarded a 50 per cent empty property council tax discount to ‘Mr Holding’ while he was still living in his home. It discovered its error in April 2004 and issued Mr Holding with a retrospective bill. He was unable to meet the proposed arrangements for payment, and the Council took recovery action against him. The Ombudsman found fault because the Council:
The Ombudsman did not recommend payment of financial compensation as the Council had already written off council tax arrears. But he considered that there was public interest in the Council’s approach to debt recovery, particularly as it related to vulnerable people, so he decided to issue the report. In the second case, ‘Ms Benn’ (not her real name) claimed housing and council tax benefits and had a number of changes in her circumstances. The Council delayed in assessing her underlying entitlement to benefit for the period 4 August 2003 and 1 February 2004. As a result, Ms Benn’s account showed council tax arrears that she did not owe. The Council referred the matter to bailiffs and their approaches caused Ms Benn worry and distress. She asked for help from two advice agencies before the matter was resolved. The Ombudsman recommended the Council to pay £500 compensation to Ms Benn and let him know the outcome of its Anti-Poverty Strategy review. 26 and 27 February 2007 Kirklees Metropolitan Council (05/C/4684) NEW Maladministration causing injustice An elderly disabled woman, her son and her disabled daughter were “passed from one department to another” by Kirklees Metropolitan Council when trying to sort out her housing problems said Local Government Ombudsman, Anne Seex. In her report she found that the Council’s failures caused unnecessary inconvenience, distress and expense, and the Council agreed her recommendations to pay £3,000 compensation and amend its records. The Ombudsman said, “The many departments involved dealt with the case in isolation. The result was that a property was allocated when the tenants could not practically take up residence. When the tenants realised that … they were passed from one department to another. This lack of co‑ordination was maladministration.” ‘Mrs Stewart’ (not her real name) was in her seventies, had difficulty climbing stairs and needed help with bathing because of her disabilities. She and her daughter, who was also disabled, applied for a joint council tenancy and were allocated a property on the basis of their combined needs. She complained that the tenancy allocated was unsuitable because adaptations to meet her needs as a disabled person were not carried out, and that it failed to deal with her complaints about this. She was unable to occupy the house and the Council took legal action against her for rent arrears. Her son made many efforts to get the Council to put things right, but it did not do so. The Ombudsman considered that the Council should have cleaned the property and removed the broken stairlift. The Council should also have considered whether it was suitable to offer the property without the necessary adaptations being ready because of the medical reasons why the property had been offered in the first place. The Ombudsman found fault in the Council’s:
Even after the difficulties with making the house suitable to live in were resolved, the tenants struggled for over two years to repay rent arrears and court costs which they feel should not have arisen. In addition, they lost the opportunity to buy their home after two years under the right to buy scheme because of changes in legislation which took place during the periods when the tenancy has been altered. The Ombudsman said that there were doubts about the Council’s application of the legislation to the periods of tenancy. In her view there should have been a continuous joint tenancy from the initial offer date. The Ombudsman felt that the failure to establish the joint tenancy correctly in 2003 and the refusal to backdate the joint tenancy when it was admitted that a mistake had been made was maladministration that caused significant injustice to Mrs Stewart and her family. She recommended that the Council should:
28 February 2007 |
