Failings over housing transfer
Archived press release
Date Published: 27/05/09
A family has lived in overcrowded and unacceptable conditions since 2001 due to failures by the London Borough of Ealing to deal properly with their housing transfer application.
A family has been living in overcrowded and unacceptable conditions since 2001 due to failures by the London Borough of Ealing to deal properly with their application for a housing transfer, finds Local Government Ombudsman, Tony Redmond. In his report, issued today (27 May 2009), he says: “Taken together [the various faults] show that the Council failed to give proper and timely consideration to the values and principles that underlay Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights [the right to respect for family life].”
Mr Barat (not his real name for legal reasons) complains about the way the Council dealt with his transfer application.
He lives with his wife, his mother-in-law (Mrs Kumar) and three sons in a two bedroom Council flat. In 2000 the Council included Mrs Kumar in Mr Barat’s application to transfer to a larger property. When his second child reached the age of 10, in December 2001, his application should have received some priority. The Council did not award this priority until September 2004 and did not backdate this to December 2001 until March 2005.
In 2006 the Council ceased to treat Mrs Kumar as part of the household for the purposes of the transfer application and as a result the application lost priority. The Council did so on the basis of the Medical Adviser’s advice that Mrs Kumar was suitable for sheltered accommodation. It did not seek any other advice. The decision was taken by a Team Manager rather than, as required, by the Head of Allocations. The Council did not consult Mr Barat.
Mr Barat challenged this decision. The Medical Adviser confirmed his advice, initially on the basis of comments by an Occupational Therapist, even though these were made on the assumption that Mrs Kumar was part of the household. In July 2007 Mrs Kumar’s GP provided clear evidence that she needed to live with her family. The Head of Allocations was asked to review matters but instead referred the issue to the Social Welfare Panel, even though this was not a matter for the Panel to decide. The Medical Adviser considered the GP’s letter in November 2007 and says he then changed his view about her suitability for sheltered accommodation. But he did not make this clear to the Council. The Council did not accept that Mrs Kumar should be part of the household and restore the lost priority until more explicit advice from the Adviser in February 2008.
The investigation has identified a lack of clarity within the Council as to how to query the Medical Adviser’s views. It has also shown that the Council has no record of ever not accepting his advice, even though the decision as to what priority to award an application on medical grounds rests with the Council.
The Ombudsman finds that the Council was at fault in the way it dealt with Mr Barat’s application. These faults caused Mr Barat and his family injustice in that he was denied the opportunity to be considered properly for a number of alternative properties in 2003/04 and another in 2007. In the meantime he and his family have continued to live in overcrowded and unacceptable conditions.
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council pay Mr Barat compensation of £2,000. It should also ensure its staff are aware that the Medical Adviser’s advice is just that and that any decision as to what to do in the light of that advice must remain with the Council.
Report ref 07A10617