 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Summaries of cases that concern more than one category of complaint appear under all relevant category headings Allocations 4 case summaries - 1 NEW February 2008 Homelessness 2 case summaries Housing repairs 4 case summaries - 1 NEW February 2008 Managing tenancies 1 case summary Regeneration/improvement 1 case summary Sales/leaseholds 1 case summary - 1 NEW February 2008 Private housing: grants 2 case summaries Private housing: landlord behaviour no recent case summaries Private housing: repair notices no recent case summaries London Borough of Hounslow (06/A/14980) Maladministration causing injustice ‘Miss Russell’ (not her real name) complained about the Council’s handling of her application for housing. She was initially a waiting list applicant. She became homeless in December 2005 and the Council effectively treated her as a new applicant. When she was moved to long‑term temporary accommodation she did not recover the priority (waiting time) she had previously on the waiting list, contrary to the Council’s allocation policy. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme for allocating housing, called ‘Locata’. It failed to deal properly with Miss Russell and other homeless applicants by assigning priority dates to their applications that were not in line with the terms of its published allocation policy. It also failed to recognise the need to make changes either to its allocation policy or to its practice of treating homeless applicants as new applicants until after Miss Russell complained to the Ombudsman, even though its actions were contrary to the terms of the Housing Act 1996. Also, between December 2005 and June 2007 the Council failed to assign to Miss Russell’s homelessness application the priority date it was entitled to under the stated practice. The Ombudsman finds maladministration causing injustice to Miss Russell, who suffered anxiety and delay, and had to take time and trouble in pursuing her complaint. The Council has agreed to pay Miss Russell £500 compensation. In view of the wider implications of Miss Russell’s complaint and the fact that it has highlighted widespread errors in the assignment of priority dates for homeless applicants, the Council has also
The Ombudsman has also asked the Council to:
Other local authority partners* within the same choice-based lettings scheme with similar if not identical policies may also be following practices that are not in line with those policies. The Ombudsman will therefore send his report to those local authorities* and invite them to consider taking similar action to that being taken by the London Borough of Hounslow. * Ealing, Hillingdon, Harrow, Brent, Hammersmith & Fulham Councils. 7 August 2007 London Borough of Ealing (06/A/11660) Maladministration causing injustice A woman missed out on permanent accommodation as a result of Ealing Council’s mishandling of her housing application. The Ombudsman said that, while he recognised the Council’s legitimate aim of preventing housing fraud, “…the Council may not have got the balance right between preventing fraud and supporting those in need of social housing.” ‘Ms Wilson’ (not her real name) complained about the Council’s handling of her application for housing. When she applied in 2001 she was not told that her application would need to be verified at a later stage, or that she would have to provide proof of residence for 10 years. The Council failed to deal properly with Ms Wilson’s application for housing by not advising her of the need to have her application verified when she first applied and what this would entail. The Council also failed to give sufficient consideration to Ms Wilson’s personal circumstances and the difficulty she might legitimately have in providing the proof requested. Had Ms Wilson been told what was required at the start, it is reasonable to assume that she would have been able to comply with the Council’s requirements when she was number one on the shortlist for a property for which she had placed a bid. She therefore missed securing permanent accommodation as a result of the Council’s failings. The Ombudsman recommends that, to remedy the injustice, the Council should:
With a view to ensuring that there is a better balance between protecting the Council against fraud and supporting those in need of social housing the Council should also review the process for verifying applications for housing, including:
22 October 2007 London Borough of Havering (06/A/10428) Maladministration causing injustice Failures by Havering Council meant that an elderly, disabled woman had to live in completely unsuitable accommodation for at least five years longer than necessary. The Ombudsman said that the Council failed to consider the woman’s housing needs and her human rights, and recommended it to pay £10,000 compensation. Sadly, the complainant died before the issue of the Ombudsman’s report, so the compensation should be paid to her daughter. ‘Mrs Oak’ (not her real name) was 86 years old, partially sighted, deaf, and suffered from bronchial asthma and arthritis in all major joints. She lived with her daughter and grand-daughter in a second-floor three-bedroom maisonette, which was reached from street level by three sets of 14 steps. There was no lift. She could not manage the stairs to reach the property or those within the maisonette to her bedroom and the only bathroom without assistance. Her daughter, the tenant, applied for a transfer for the family to a property with level access and asked the Council to award her additional priority due to Mrs Oak’s medical problems. Mrs Oak complained that the Council took too long to deal properly with the housing transfer application and, as a result, she had to live in completely unsuitable accommodation. In January 2003, a Council officer visited Mrs Oak to assess her housing needs, and reported that she was “practically a prisoner in the home”. The Ombudsman added: “That tragic, deplorable and wholly preventable circumstance did not improve in the intervening years.” The Ombudsman found that the Council had delayed in dealing properly with the transfer application and that Mrs Oak had had to live in unsuitable accommodation for at least five years longer than she should have. Sadly, between the issuing of the draft and this final report, Mrs Oak died. The Ombudsman also concluded that the Council neglected to consider Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which says that everyone has the right to respect for his/her private and family life. The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice. The Council’s recent offer of suitable accommodation addressed the family’s housing needs, but in addition, the Ombudsman recommended that the Council:
31 October 2007 Sheffield City Council (06/C/10044) NEW Maladministration causing injustice A woman in her 90s was “very distressed” by events after Sheffield City Council stopped restricting tenancies of her block of flats to older people. It resulted in a 17-year-old woman moving into the flat above her. The Ombudsman found no evidence that the Council’s officers followed the Cabinet’s instruction and considered: the age of the tenants in the block; the level of demand from older people; and the availability of properties for younger people – as they had been instructed to do - before deciding to designate the block as ‘general needs’. A Council tenant (called ‘Mrs L’ in the report) lived in a block of four Council flats that were restricted to people aged 50+ (first floor) and 60+ (ground floor). The Council changed its rehousing policy and, when Mrs L was 90 years old, the flat above hers was allocated to a 17-year‑old woman. Mrs L complained about this young woman and her visitors making noise late into the night and of being disturbed by them using the toilet in the early hours of the morning. Sadly, Mrs L 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.” 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 L’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, early in 2003, 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. 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 having 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. 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 L’s block was not one of these. However, after receiving a draft of this report, the Council recommended the designation of Mrs L’s block for people aged 40+. The Ombudsman asked the Council to urgently finalise its decisions on all the outstanding re-designation recommendations. Mrs L was caused injustice in the distress that she suffered from the clash of lifestyles with the younger tenant, which her GP said had affected her health. As Mrs L had died, there was no way that the Council could properly remedy this. However, the Ombudsman recommended that it should pay her estate £500 in recognition of that injustice. It should also pay the other elderly couple in the block £500. 5 February 2008 London Borough of Hounslow (06/A/14980) Maladministration causing injustice ‘Miss Russell’ (not her real name) complained about the Council’s handling of her application for housing. She was initially a waiting list applicant. She became homeless in December 2005 and the Council effectively treated her as a new applicant. When she was moved to long‑term temporary accommodation she did not recover the priority (waiting time) she had previously on the waiting list, contrary to the Council’s allocation policy. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme for allocating housing, called ‘Locata’. It failed to deal properly with Miss Russell and other homeless applicants by assigning priority dates to their applications that were not in line with the terms of its published allocation policy. It also failed to recognise the need to make changes either to its allocation policy or to its practice of treating homeless applicants as new applicants until after Miss Russell complained to the Ombudsman, even though its actions were contrary to the terms of the Housing Act 1996. Also, between December 2005 and June 2007 the Council failed to assign to Miss Russell’s homelessness application the priority date it was entitled to under the stated practice. The Ombudsman finds maladministration causing injustice to Miss Russell, who suffered anxiety and delay, and had to take time and trouble in pursuing her complaint. The Council has agreed to pay Miss Russell £500 compensation. In view of the wider implications of Miss Russell’s complaint and the fact that it has highlighted widespread errors in the assignment of priority dates for homeless applicants, the Council has also
The Ombudsman has also asked the Council to:
Other local authority partners* within the same choice-based lettings scheme with similar if not identical policies may also be following practices that are not in line with those policies. The Ombudsman will therefore send his report to those local authorities* and invite them to consider taking similar action to that being taken by the London Borough of Hounslow. * Ealing, Hillingdon, Harrow, Brent, Hammersmith & Fulham Councils. 7 August 2007 Eastleigh Borough Council (06/B/7896) Maladministration causing injustice Eastleigh Borough Council’s mishandling of the homelessness application of a family with four young children meant they were without proper accommodation for 11 weeks, including the Christmas period. The Ombudsman found that the Council failed to offer interim bed and breakfast accommodation, and the family was unable to stay together, relying on staying with friends and relatives and sometimes sleeping on floors. ‘Mrs Ward’ (not her real name), her husband and four young children became homeless after their homes were repossessed. She made a homelessness application to the Council. The Ombudsman said “There is no evidence to show that it [the Council] took the necessary steps to satisfy itself as to Mrs Ward’s homelessness and priority need, or that it offered her and her family interim bed and breakfast accommodation”. The Council also:
As a result of these failings, Mrs Ward and her husband and their four young children spent 11 weeks, including the Christmas period, without any accommodation other than with friends and relatives who were unable to accommodate them all together as a family. The Ombudsman found maladministration by the Council, which agreed to pay Mrs Ward £3,000 in recognition of the injustice. From the payment, the Council will recover the sum of £1,136.29 owed to it by Mrs Ward in respect of a rent in advance loan and a recoverable deposit. 10 September 2007 Watford Borough Council (06/A/17783) and Hertfordshire County Council (07/A/758) Maladministration causing injustice 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. 24 October 2007 Bristol City Council (06/B/5370) Maladministration causing injustice A woman and her two children suffered from damp and cold housing conditions for about seven years because of Bristol City Council’s failure to repair defects in their home. The Ombudsman said the Council’s response to the woman’s complaints of damp was “inadequate and incomplete”, and when remedial works were ordered they were not completed. It also failed to review its initial refusal to provide additional heating after the woman’s son received hospital treatment for pneumonia. ‘Ms Oliver’ (not her real name) was a Council tenant. The property she occupied with her young family had a number of defects including inadequate heating and ventilation that caused condensation in the principal living rooms. Ms Oliver complained about the condition of her property and the adverse effect on her children’s health for a number of years. She complained that the Council did not properly investigate the problems she reported and did not take prompt and appropriate action to repair her home. The Ombudsman found that, although the Council made a number of inspections of Ms Oliver’s home, it failed, over a long period, to properly identify and remedy the defects that caused condensation in the property. As a result, Ms Oliver and her children had to endure damp and cold conditions in their home for an unacceptably prolonged period and were caused avoidable discomfort, anxiety and distress. The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice and recommended that the Council should:
12 December 2007 London Borough of Islington (06/A/14057) Maladministration causing injustice A woman’s health suffered when she had to live for too long in poor conditions because Islington Council failed to remedy the dampness in her flat. The Ombudsman said that the damp problems continue, even though works were done before the woman moved into her flat and she later moved out for four weeks to facilitate completion of effective repairs. The Council agreed to pay £5,000 compensation and improve its procedures. ‘Ms Drake’ (not her real name) complained that the Council failed to deal with a problem of dampness in her flat from January 2005 to date. It took 18 months to settle her insurance claim for belongings damaged by the dampness. The Council also told her that it would make storage areas in her basement habitable and this did not happen. The Ombudsman found that Ms Drake’s health suffered because of the failure to resolve the dampness problem. She had to give up her job. She was caused stress and anxiety and she had to live for longer than necessary in poor conditions. The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice and the Council agreed to:
The Ombudsman also said that the Council should either resolve the damp problem and complete repairs within three months, or offer to rehouse Ms Drake. 22 January 2008 Birmingham City Council (07/C/1179) NEW Maladministration causing injustice Birmingham City Council damaged the decorations in a tenant’s home when carrying out repairs, but then wrongly refused either to redecorate or to pay compensation. The Ombudsman said it was not until Aston Legal Centre had complained to her, on behalf of the tenant (called ‘Mr H’ in the report), that the Council agreed to pay compensation. The Ombudsman commented: “If the combined tenacity of Mr H and Aston Legal Centre could not get the compensation he was due, what hope is there for other Council tenants?” The Council carried out repairs to Mr H’s staircase, and damaged the decorations in the process. It then refused either to redecorate or to pay a decorating allowance. The law says that a landlord is obliged to make good any damage that results from repairs works, but the Ombudsman found that the relevant section of the Council’s tenancy agreement was misleading about its obligations. The Ombudsman’s investigation found that the Council:
The Council compensated Mr H and agreed to review the misleading wording of its tenancy agreement. The Ombudsman said that it should also:
The Council said that it had started the relevant consultation and review process. 25 February 2008 Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (06/B/13743) Maladministration causing injustice Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council wrongly refused to accept liability for damage to a woman’s garden caused by contractors replacing fencing. The Ombudsman said that “It is clear that a council remains accountable for the actions of its contractors while carrying out an administrative function on its behalf.” The contractors admitted that three dwarf trees had been felled unnecessarily and inappropriately. The Ombudsman continued, “How [the Council] wishes to apportion costs between itself and its contractors in providing a remedy is a matter for the Council,” and comments, “The Council’s buck-passing here is entirely unacceptable.” ‘Miss Holton ‘(not her real name) complained that the Council’s contractor felled ornamental dwarf trees and a rose shrub in her garden whilst replacing fencing on the Council’s behalf. The contractor carried out the work without Miss Holton’s knowledge or consent. The Council refused to accept liability for its contractor’s actions and told Miss Holton that she should pursue the contractor to remedy her complaint. The contractor did not provide a remedy that Miss Holton considered acceptable, but the Council refused to intervene. The Ombudsman found that the Council is accountable for the actions of a contractor who is carrying out work on its behalf. He found maladministration causing injustice and recommended that the Council:
26 November 2007 Lancaster City Council (05/B/13863 & 05/C/16360) Maladministration causing injustice ‘Mr and Mrs King’ and ‘Mrs Duke’ (not their real names) owned properties in a terrace in the Council area that had been targeted for regeneration. During 2002 the Council had secured funding under a Government initiative, the Home Zone Challenge Fund. One of the options was the demolition of the terrace to make way for parking, which was agreed in March 2003. The Council had invited the property owners to sell their houses, which they were reluctant to do, but felt obliged to do so voluntarily, as they said that they had been told they would risk getting a lower price for their homes if the properties had to be compulsorily purchased. Later in the year, when it became clear that the redevelopment budget would not cover all costs, the boundaries of the Home Zone were reduced, so this particular terrace was no longer included for works. The properties were sold to a housing association for renovation, at a higher price than the Council paid for them. The two households complained that the Council misled them when it purchased their properties. At the time, Mr and Mrs King’s daughter and her family lived in one house and their disabled son in the other. Mrs Duke’s property was let out. They said that they were led to believe that the properties were to be demolished, but alleged that the Council was negotiating to sell them on for considerably more money. They said that, if they had been aware that the houses were not going to be demolished, they would not have sold them to the Council. When they tried to buy similar properties in the areas, prices were far in excess of what the Council offered. The Ombudsman found that the Council had failed to keep any written records of its discussions with the complainants and had not confirmed anything in writing. It did not fully explain to them that they could get an independent valuation of their properties and failed to advise them about the implications of buying their houses under a compulsory purchase order. He also found that the Council did not take the principles of the Crichel Down Rules into account when it sold the properties. When circumstances change after property has been purchased for a public purpose, the public body must act fairly to the person affected by the original purchase. The Ombudsman did not share the complainants’ view that the Council had set out to mislead them. “Had the complainants been properly advised of their rights at the outset as they should have been, I believe there is a strong likelihood that they would not have sold when they did, or indeed at all,” said the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice and recommended the Council to:
10 October 2007 Warrington Borough Council (06/C/9304) NEW Maladministration causing injustice Warrington Council’s management of a “challenging and complex project” was unfortunately marred by a single failure that caused a woman stress, anxiety and the expense of consulting a solicitor. The Ombudsman said that, in an otherwise “thorough and professional piece of work” in dealing with the decontamination of land (including land that the complainant’s home was built on), it failed to consider the position of people who had bought their homes from the Council under the right to buy scheme. The complainant (called ‘Mrs C’ in the report) lived in a house that had been built for the Council in the 1930s on a former landfill site. Alkali waste was discovered on the land, and the Council embarked on a project to take remedial action. Mrs C received a notice from the Council telling her that she might have to pay some of the decontamination costs. She had bought the house from the Council only two years before, under the right to buy scheme. Two weeks after serving the notice the Council sought legal advice. The advice it received was that the Council itself was liable for the decontamination costs and that it had not made ‘reasonable enquiries’ to establish whether this was the case. In the meantime, Mrs C had consulted a solicitor who made representations on her behalf. The Council refused to contribute towards her legal costs. The Ombudsman said that the Council “…could and should have recognised the effect on someone of being told they may be liable for some of the ‘clean-up’ costs.” If it had told Mrs C that it was considering whether it might itself be liable to pay the costs, she may then not have been so alarmed and may not have consulted a solicitor at that point. The Ombudsman found that the Council was involved in a challenging and complex project and had achieved high standards but had overlooked this one aspect. On receiving the Ombudsman’s draft report, the Council agreed to pay £1,500 compensation to Mrs C, and the Ombudsman commended the Council for this. 25 February 2008 Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council (04/C/17057) Further report (first report found maladministration causing injustice) 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) 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.” 15 May 2007 Leeds City Council (05/C/13157) Maladministration causing injustice Leeds City Council’s faults meant that a seriously ill and profoundly disabled woman was confined to bed in one room of her house for two years longer than necessary. The Ombudsman criticised the Council’s failure recognise its legal duties to the woman and its handling of her disabled facilities grant (DFG) application, and recommended it to pay £6,605 compensation and review its administrative procedures. The Council accepted all the Ombudsman’s recommendations. A man (called ‘Mr E’ in the report) complained about the Council’s provision of assistance to his wife, who is profoundly disabled, in particular about its handling of their DFG application. The Ombudsman criticised the Council’s failure to recognise its duties under Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act and its failure to have any direct social work contact with the family for over 15 months. On the handling of the DFG, the Ombudsman found fault in that the Council:
As a result, for two years longer than necessary Mrs E was:
To remedy the injustice, the Council agreed to:
In March 2007 a suitable property was identified for Mr and Mrs E and the Council agreed to provide a prefabricated ‘pod’ extension with bedroom, toilet and bathroom. The works were due to be completed soon. Meanwhile the Council used DFG funding to widen the doors and other work in the present home allowing wheelchair access. The Council also set up an appeal panel to resolve disputes about adaptations, and invited Mr E to take part in meetings about improving services. The Ombudsman found no fault by the Council in handling Mr and Mrs E’s rehousing applications, but commented that, “It is some measure of the extreme pressure on social housing, especially properties adapted to be wheelchair accessible, that all the higher priority cases were in even more difficult situations than the complainant and his wife and that allocations had been properly made to applicants with higher priority.” 20 November 2007 Private housing: landlord behaviour no recent case summaries Private housing: repair notices no recent case summaries |
