Local Government Ombudsman

> | Accessiblity Options | Text Only | Text Size: A+ A- Reset | Links | Site Map

You are here: Home : : News and press : : 2009 : : March : : Ombudsman criticises Council over disabled homeless applicant

What's new

Browser support

Browse aloud

Click here for speech assisted browser support

Downloads

Site tools

Files with this symbol pdf icon are in .pdf format. To view these files you will need the Adobe Acrobat Reader software. It can be downloaded below free of charge. Click To Download

adobe acrobat reader

Ombudsman criticises Council over disabled homeless applicant

Archived press release

Date Published: 31/03/09

The London Borough of Redbridge failed to take sufficient account of a man’s hearing disability when dealing with his homelessness application.

The London Borough of Redbridge failed to take sufficient account of a man’s hearing disability when dealing with his homelessness application, finds Local Government Ombudsman, Tony Redmond. In his report, issued today (31 March 2009) he says “…the faults I have identified in this matter demonstrate a failure by the Council to comply with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 – to make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to enable disabled people to access services.” The man had to live in temporary accommodation for two years longer than necessary as a result of the Council’s failures.

‘Mr Bennett’ (not his real name for legal reasons) complains about the way the Council dealt with his needs as a disabled person when handling his homelessness application between July 2006 and October 2007, despite its response to an earlier complaint he made about the same issue in October 2006.

The Ombudsman finds that the Council was at fault for:

  • interviewing Mr Bennett without a British Sign Language (BSL) interpreter on two occasions (30 June 2006 and 11 July 2007) even though he is profoundly deaf and cannot communicate effectively without a BSL interpreter;
  • repeatedly failing to provide a textphone facility so that he could contact the Council’s Housing Advice Centre, despite a previous complaint from him about this in October 2006 and the Council’s undertaking to remedy the problem – the Council reviewed its arrangements at the time for housing applicants who are unable to communicate by telephone, but still failed to introduce a textphone facility in a timely fashion;
  • delaying unreasonably for 12 months in providing the promised training for frontline staff on disability awareness;
  • failing to comply with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 that require the Council, as a service provider, to make '”reasonable adjustments” to enable disabled people to access services;
  • delaying unreasonably from August 2006 to November 2007 in processing Mr Bennett’s housing application, partly as a result of the above faults.

The Council has already paid Mr Bennett £750 for failing to provide an interpreter and a textphone facility. Its staff at the Housing Advice Centre have now attended Deaf Awareness Training and a textphone facility has been provided, which the Ombudsman welcomes. The Council says that it has also reviewed its arrangements for communication with service users and implemented the necessary changes to ensure it complies with the latest Disability Discrimination Act requirements.

In addition, the Ombudsman also considers that the Council should:

  • pay Mr Bennett an additional £500 for the inconvenience and uncertainty of living in nightly-let accommodation for two years longer than necessary;
  • remind all staff of the importance of recording service users’ special communication needs and checking these records before attempting to contact them; and
  • remind all staff of the importance of complying with its Interpretation and Translation policy.
     

report ref 07A03275