North Devon Council’s handling of grants to improve housing criticised

Archived press release

Date Published: 04/12/08

Council publicised the availability of £764,000 of Government funds to improve homes in a ‘big bang’ approach, but its systems for dealing with the interest "were simply not good enough".

North Devon District Council publicised the availability of £764,000 of Government funds to improve homes in a ‘big bang’ approach, but was then surprised by the scale of interest finds Local Government Ombudsman, Jerry White. In his report, issued today (4 December 2008) he says “The Council’s systems for dealing with the interest generated were simply not good enough.”

The Council has agreed with the Ombudsman’s recommendations to remedy the injustice caused to the complainants, but the Ombudsman decided to complete his investigation and publish a report because he considers there are issues of public interest.

‘Mr Alder’, ‘Mr Birch’, ‘Mrs Chestnut’, ‘Mrs Dogwood’ and ‘Mrs Elm’ (not their real names for legal reasons) all enquired about grant funding to improve their homes. They complain that the Council created expectations that its officers had no hope of meeting and that it failed to explain the process properly.

At the beginning of 2006 the Council was allocated £764,000 of Government funding to improve housing standards.

In June 2006 an officer was appointed to develop a strategy to bring private sector housing up to the Decent Homes Standard, taking into account the new funding regime. Decent Homes Assistance would be targeted towards the private rental sector, and in particular ‘vulnerable’ occupiers, vulnerability being established by the receipt of benefits.

The availability of grant funding was widely advertised through press release, public meetings and inserts with benefit cheques. In October 2006 the complainants received information about the availability of ‘Decent Homes Grants’ from the Council. The information also advised that applications would be treated on a ‘first come first served basis’.

The two officers available to carry out home inspections were overwhelmed with demand, and it soon became clear that the Council had also underestimated the level of need in the owner-occupier sector. There were some delays in Council officers carrying out inspections to identify eligible works. Properties were not visited in date order but visits were ‘batched’ to save officer time. Following on from the visits there were delays issuing schedules of work and application forms. Applicants had no way of knowing that an application for a grant was incomplete until all the quotes for work were received by the Council.

By January 2007 officers were aware that the available funding had run out but this was not communicated to potential applicants until a letter dated March 2007 – but not received by some until April or May 2007.

The Ombudsman finds maladministration causing injustice and the Council has agreed to:

• pay Mr Alder £500 in recognition of the anxiety and inconvenience he experienced and in recognition of his time and trouble in pursuing this complaint;
• pay Mr Birch £50 in recognition of the anxiety and inconvenience he experienced;
• pay Mrs Chestnut £2,000 for the anxiety and inconvenience she experienced through the delay in bringing her home up to standard as well as her time and trouble making this complaint;
• pay Mrs Dogwood £350 in recognition of aggravation she experienced and her time and trouble making this complaint;
• pay Mrs Elm £1,000 for the anxiety and delay in bringing her home up to standard and her time and trouble in making this complaint – prioritise her application according to the 2006/07 criteria;
• review procedures and ensure that appropriate information is provided for applicants as well as guidance for officers; and
• ensure a cohesive ‘Private Sector Housing Renewal Policy’ is in place as soon as possible.

Report ref 07B02080 + 4 others