Housing Management
Return To The HMD Archive
Index
January 1998
Ombudsman: Anti-Social Behaviour of
Neighbours
Two residents alleged that Warrington BC failed to respond properly to their complaints about the anti-social behaviour of their council tenant neighbour.
The Ombudsman's report found some evidence of failure by the Council, including:
However, the Ombudsman considered it very unlikely that enough evidence could have been obtained to sustain an action for possession of the neighbour's home. Therefore, whilst the report did identify maladministration and accepted that the complainant had suffered real and significant problems, the Ombudsman did not find injustice, as she did not find that the problems persisted because of significant failures by the Council.
Investigation No. 96/C/4583 (Warrington BC).
February 1998
Slight Growth in Rent Arrears
Latest statistics published by the Government showed that rent arrears owed to English local authorities rose slightly in 1996/97. As at 31 March 1997, the total amount of rent arrears owing to housing authorities in England was £464 million, or 6.4% of the rent roll. This compared with £453 million in 1995/96 (which then represented 6.3% of the rent roll).
Commenting on the figures, Housing Minister Hilary Armstrong said that she was disappointed to see that the figures had crept up slightly after falling for 5 successive years and that it was clearly in the interest of both local authorities and their tenants that rent arrears be kept to a minimum. She also said that it was clear that some local authorities were following best practices and doing their best to keep arrears as low as possible, but poor-performing local authorities should look again at the advice offered in her Department's housing research report, Rent Arrears in Local Authorities and Housing Associations in England, which was published in 1994. She urged local authorities with a poor record in the area of rent arrear management to look at new ways of preventing and managing the problem and bring them up to the standards of the best - she hoped that this was just a blip in the figures and looked forward to seeing some improvement by the poor performers next year.
Copies of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions' Housing Research Summary No 24/1994 on rent arrears are available from the Department's Research, Assessment and Evaluation Division, Zone 1/J5, Eland House, Bressenden Place, London, SW1E 5DU (Tel. 0171 890 3333).
February 1998
Rehousing Sex Offenders
The Chartered Institute of Housing issued a briefing/policy paper - Rehousing Sex Offenders: A Summary of the Legal and Operational Issues. Whilst the paper focuses on sex offenders, including those who have committed offences against children, the paper argues that many of the principles outlined in it apply equally to people who have committed other types of offences and who have been assessed as potentially posing a risk to vulnerable people in the community. The paper considers the position in England and Wales, with a separate leaflet published by the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland.
The paper starts by outlining the relevant legal and regulatory framework for the allocation of social housing in England and Wales. It then focuses on the role of local authorities, as well as the implications for registered social landlords (RSLs), in the allocation of housing through the housing register. It highlights issues of concern with regard to a growing trend for local authorities to consider introducing blanket bans to exclude certain types of offenders from qualifying for the allocation of accommodation.
The paper urges authorities to consider carefully before applying blanket bans. It argues that defining an appropriate class of persons may be elusive, as well as opening an authority to possible legal challenge. It also argues that attempts to solve a problem by introducing blanket bans may well create problems elsewhere for others. If a local authority refuses to house certain classes of people, short of leaving them homeless, they will need to be housed elsewhere. The underlying argument of the paper is that the problem is not solved but merely moved.
The paper makes a number of key recommendations:
The paper highlights the responsibilities of authorities with regard to homelessness and that, in particular, they cannot adopt general policies on intentionality. Thus, when considering allocation policies that may seek to exclude groups of people considered undesirable, local authorities must also consider the interaction between their responsibilities under homelessness legislation. The paper points out that Regulations made under the Housing Act 1996 mean that certain categories of homeless people are qualifying persons and must be entered on to the local authority's register.
Part of the paper is devoted to examining the type of accommodation and support required by offenders, resources currently available and the possible need to consider whether additional specialist accommodation is needed as part of a local authority's strategic role.
The paper raises important issues of interest, highlighted by the immediate interest of the wider media. In focusing on the problems experienced by housing professionals in dealing with one fundamental problem of society, the paper allows parallels to be drawn in other conflicting areas.
Further information on the paper is available from the Institute's Good Practice Unit: Tel. 01203 851700.
February 1998
Ombudsman: Anxiety Caused But No Injustice
An Ombudsman report found that Newham LBC delayed in carrying out works to a woman's former home to deal with problems of damp and also in arranging an inspection to test electrical installations. When the woman applied for a transfer, the Council refused to grant her medical points. There was a delay by the Council in reaching the point where its central appeals panel considered the case. The panel granted the complainant a medical override.
The report concluded that the family would not have been rehoused earlier, but the delay caused the complainant much anxiety and prolonged her uncertainty.
Investigation No. 95/A/2735 & 5076 (Newham LBC).
Ombudsman: Carer Not Advised on Succession Rights
An Ombudsman's report criticised Hackney LBC in the way that it dealt with an elderly man's request to take over a tenancy. The man moved into an elderly woman's council flat in 1986 to act as her carer. Hackney LBC had given permission for him to live there. When the tenant died in 1994, the man asked if he could take over the tenancy. At that time he was nearly 65 years old and had nowhere else to live.
The Council failed to deal adequately with his request:
To remedy the injustice resulting from the Council's maladministration, the Ombudsman recommended that Hackney LBC should grant the man the tenancy of the flat and pay him £350 compensation.
Investigation No. 96/A/4484 (Hackney LBC).
Ombudsman: Nuisance Complaints Not Dealt With Properly
The Ombudsman catalogued errors made by Gravesham BC in dealing with complaints of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour, which were made between October 1995 and February 1997. The Ombudsman found that the complaints were not satisfactorily investigated by the Council's Housing Department, nor were they referred for investigation to the Environmental Health Department. The Council also failed to respond to the man's request in 1995 for a transfer.
From early in 1997, the Council took his complaint seriously and eventually transferred him to a new home in July 1997. However, just one month later, the noisy neighbour was also transferred. Had the Council explained to the complainant that his neighbour was being moved, then he might well have decided to stay in the flat that had been his home for 17 years.
The Ombudsman was critical of the lack of record-keeping in the Housing Department and said "such pervasive maladministration makes it almost impossible for the Council to know whether its housing stock is being properly managed and whether its tenants are getting the service to which they are entitled".
Investigation No. 96/B/4384 (Gravesham BC).
March 1998
Ombudsman: Compensation of £20,000
Recommended
Ombudsman Jerry White recommended compensation of £20,000 following finding maladministration in the way that Bristol City Council handled transfer requests from a couple with a child seriously disabled with cerebral palsy and requiring 24-hour care.
The complainants lived in a series of unsuitable council properties. At each accommodation they had to either carry their son up and down stairs, or take care of his bathing needs in a ground floor kitchen. As the child became a large-framed teenager, the arrangement grew more and more difficult, causing undue strain on the health and well-being of the parents.
The Ombudsman's report found that:
To remedy the injustice caused, the Ombudsman recommended that the Council should make an ex-gratia payment of £20,000 to the family and also review its procedures for dealing with the housing needs of disabled people. He also recommended that the Council ensure that appropriate staff training needs are met.
Investigation Nos. 96/B/4035 and 4143 (Bristol CC).
March 1998
Ombudsman: Miscellaneous Reports
April 1998
Performance Indicators - Wales
The Audit Commission published its latest Performance Indicators for council services in Wales, providing statistics for 1996/97.
Housing Relet Times
The report showed that relet times between Welsh councils in 1996/97 varied significantly, with urban councils in South Wales generally taking longer.
Some of the best performing councils had almost halved the time taken by their predecessor councils in 1993/94, whereas other councils showed relet times that had doubled in the same period.
Generally speaking, councils which relet homes quickly did not necessarily spend any more on housing management or repairs than other councils.
Rent Arrears
The worst performing Welsh councils have more than twenty times the percentage of tenants in arrears than the better performing councils (only tenants who were in arrears of more than a quarter of a year were included).
The average performance achieved by Welsh councils overall was worse in 1996/97 than for their predecessor councils in 1993/94, with the average percentage of tenants in arrears of more than a quarter of a year rising by around one-third in that period.
However, this deterioration in overall average performance was due to a significant deterioration by a few councils.
Homelessness
The overall average stay for homeless people in bed and breakfast accommodation in Wales increased slightly between 1993/94 and 1996/97.
There were wide variances in the length of time councils kept homeless people in bed and breakfast accommodation, but there was no relationship between the length of stay in bed and breakfast accommodation and the number of households accepted as homeless by councils.
Some councils which left people in bed and breakfast for long periods also allocated a very small percentage of their available council housing to homeless people.
Generally speaking, the Performance Indicators for Welsh local authorities showed similar trends to those for English councils.
Local Authority Performance Indicators: Council Services in Wales is available from the Audit Commission Publications on Tel. 0800 502030, priced £25.
April 1998
Ombudsman: Presentation Housing Association
The Independent Housing Ombudsman, Roger Jefferies, found that Presentation Housing Association failed to deal adequately with defects which had arisen following the construction of a tenant's newly built home. The Ombudsman's report concluded that some of the defects affected the tenant's safety and security.
The report listed evidence of maladministration in the following aspects of the Association's dealings with the complainant:
The Ombudsman also found maladministration in the way in which the Association failed to provide satisfactory assistance to resolve the complainant's Housing Benefit entitlement and to follow its own complaints procedures at all stages.
In awarding compensation of £525, the Ombudsman noted that there had been significant organisational and structural changes in the Association during the past year, together with the introduction of a revised set of procedures. These answered some of the problems found during the investigation.
The Ombudsman, in his report, also commented that while associations had to pursue rent arrears rigorously, the relationship of arrears and the effectiveness of local authority Housing Benefit administration was significant. Associations should offer advice and support to their tenants in their dealings with the local authority, if it became clear that problems with rent arrears lay with the Benefit administration.
Investigation No. 60352 (Presentation HA).
April 1998
Ombudsman: Failures In The Way Harassment Dealt
With
An Ombudsman report found that Tower Hamlets failed to deal properly with complaints of racial harassment and noise nuisance made against the complainants:
The Ombudsman’s report recommended that the Council should pay compensation of £500 to each complainant, plus £250 each for time and trouble. It should also review the monitoring of its complaints procedures.
Investigation No. 96/A/4485-6 (Tower Hamlets LBC).
April 1998
Ombudsman: Transfer Policy Criticised
A man's family applied for a transfer to more suitable accommodation. The Ombudsman concluded that the Council had accurately assessed the family's housing need according to its published points scheme.
However, in practice, when deciding allocations, officers made reference to the date on which applicants reached the qualifying points level. This practice had not been authorised by Members and was not referred to in any published documents. This, the Ombudsman decided, amounts to maladministration.
He further decided that this had given the family justified cause to feel aggrieved at seeing families with demonstrably less housing need move into properties that they had identified as being suitable for them.
Investigation No. 96/B/0357 (Chelmsford BC).
April 1998
Ombudsman: Elderly Tenant's Repairs Delayed
The Ombudsman found that Hounslow LBC failed to repair windows in a Grade II listed building occupied by a council tenant in her eighties. The tenant's daughter reported the repairs in 1993. In 1994 a Council officer recommended complete renewal of the windows but, by April 1998, this had not been done.
The Ombudsman recommended that the Council should act on the recommendation of its contractor's report on the remedial works to the window and pay the tenant compensation of £700 per annum to reflect her loss of housing amenity from October 1994 until the works were completed, with payment for the first three years to be made straight away.
The Ombudsman also recommended that the Council should pay the daughter £250 for time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.
Investigation No. 97/B/0130 (Hounslow LBC).
May 1998
Best Value
and RSLs
The Housing Corporation launched its own consultation paper on Best Value and Registered Social Landlords (RSLs), with the objective of consulting RSLs and other interested parties on two main issues:
The paper focused on a number of key principles:
In outlining the proposals at the Housing Corporation's conference on Best Values and PIs, the Corporation's Deputy Chief Executive, Simon Dow, told delegates that the Housing Corporation wanted to introduce a similar framework for RSLs to that proposed for local authorities, which would assist them to achieve sustained improvements in their levels of performance above the requirements of Performance Standards. Thus, Best Value could be used to strengthen and develop the existing regulatory regime further, to assist RSLs in achieving performance well above the minimum.
The Best Value consultation exercise was due to last until 31 July 1998, after which the Corporation would issue guidance on a Best Value framework for RSLs.
Copies of the consultation paper are available from the Regulation Division of the Housing Corporation, 149 Tottenham Court Road, London W1P 0B9.
May 1998
Housing
Management in Brief
May 1998
Ombudsman:
Failure to Implement Shared Ownership Scheme
The Independent Housing Ombudsman issued a report in which he concluded that Bradford & Northern HA demonstrated some failures in the way it implemented a shared ownership scheme. The complainants (who had been reliant on the Association) having bought their shared ownership lease, found that:
Upholding the complaints in relation to the Association's original failure to acquire the freehold, its delays in remedying the defects, and failing to advise the complainants regarding the existence of the drainage easement which affected their property, the Independent Housing Ombudsman acknowledged that the Association had taken a number of steps to remedy at least some of the matters of which complaints had been made. He did not uphold the complaint regarding the insurance excess, which the Association had successfully renegotiated to £50.
The Ombudsman expressed some concern that, during the course of his investigation, he had discovered that officials appeared not to have a knowledge, or sometimes an understanding, of what had occurred on this estate. In particular, there were serious errors in relation to the acquisition of the freehold and in establishing the proper boundaries of the site. In his report he commented that, if registered social landlords were to develop shared ownership schemes, then buyers who were encouraged, usually for the first time, to enter into home ownership, required particular support and advice. They were entitled to assume that an RSL had particular responsibilities towards them.
During his investigation, the Ombudsman discovered that it was not possible to tell whether a discount, which the DoE had required to be passed on to the purchasers, when consenting to the sale of the site by a district council to the Association, had in fact occurred. Although this was not part of the original complaint, the Ombudsman was critical of the Association's approach to the matter and referred the issue to those concerned with securing compliance with the conditions. In his report, the Ombudsman awarded compensation as follows:
The report also recommended that the Association put in hand a number of measures to remedy issues that were subject of the original complaints.
Investigation No. 40877 (Bradford & Northern HA).
May 1998
Ombudsman:
Harassment Not Dealt With
The Ombudsman decided that Waltham Forest LBC failed to deal properly with complaints made by a council tenant that she and her daughter were being harassed by other residents of the estate. The Council also failed to promulgate the anti-harassment policy it had introduced earlier (in 1993), or to keep proper records, or to carry out a timely and proper investigation of the woman's complaints. Had these been dealt with more quickly, both the decision to award a management transfer and the offer of suitable alternative housing could have been made sooner.
The Ombudsman recommended that the Council pay the complainant £750.
Investigation No. 97/A/1181 (Waltham Forest LBC).
May 1998
Ombudsman:
Faulty Heating System Caused Anxiety
A woman council tenant complained to her landlord about her heating system. Such systems are prone to faults due to age and the Council's policy was to replace them when finances allowed. The complainant was concerned about the emission of carbon monoxide fumes.
The Council arranged for British Gas to carry out tests in August 1996, but no records were kept of the tests carried out and it failed to obtain a clear view in writing from British Gas that the system was safe. In May 1997, the system was again tested and a representative from the Health and Safety Executive was present, who reported that the Council should have arranged independent testing sooner.
The Ombudsman found that, had an independent test been done earlier, it might not have reached the same conclusions as for that conducted in 1997. There was no evidence that the complainant had to live longer with a defective appliance than she might have done.
However, she was caused some additional avoidable anxiety. Therefore, the Ombudsman recommended that the Council should pay her £250 and review its procedures.
Investigation No. 96/B/2324 (Luton BC).
May 1998
Ombudsman:
Failure to Inspect Gas Appliance
The Ombudsman decided that Camden LBC failed to inspect its gas appliances in a woman's council home between May 1993 and October 1995 (after she had complained about smelling gas). A gas engineer contacted by the Council gave conflicting information about levels of carbon monoxide in the flat. The Council had no records to show through which chimney the old flue to the gas fire ran, or the height of the flue in relation to the roof ridge. The absence of this information impeded the Council's consideration of whether or not carbon monoxide was likely to have spilled from the fire.
The Ombudsman recommend that the Council pay the complainant £150 compensation.
Investigation No. 95/A/3586 (Camden LBC).
June 1998
Enhanced
Caretaking Role
Speaking at a conference on social exclusion, Anne Power - Adviser to the Government's Social Exclusion Unit - praised the success of so called super-caretakers in tackling problems on some of the worst estates in Europe. Her comments illustrated the possibilities perceived by the Unit for an enhanced caretaking role and its likely recommendation for pilot studies in this country.
Recent research by Anne Power highlighted the potential for introducing an on-estate caretaking role that offers residents a wide range of services. Indications were that, whilst expensive, such local management services help to restore order on estates and provide the right structure for communities to develop and for combatting exclusion.
Earlier this year the Social Exclusion Unit visited Broadwater Farm Estate in Haringey, which represents the UK’s only real tried and tested model of the type of local services structure now being widely pioneered in the rest of Europe.
June 1998
Ombudsman: Local Settlement to Repairs
Complaint
An Ombudsman’s report concluded that:
During the Ombudsman’s investigations, the Council took actions to complete the repairs and paid the complainant £300 compensation. The report noted these developments and concluded that they were a satisfactory settlement of the complaint.
Investigation No. 97/C/3298 (Liverpool CC).
July 1998
Ombudsman: Tenant Misled on Right of Access
Colchester BC was found to have misled a tenant about his neighbour's right of access across a pathway running through his garden.
In 1990 it told him incorrectly that the access was only supposed to be used by tradespeople.
The Council's attempts between October 1996 and May 1998 to resolve the matter only served to exacerbate the situation. It delayed in informing the complainants of the correct rights of access, and it delayed in implementing a solution to the problem reached with an independent mediator.
The Ombudsman found that the maladministration had caused the complainant avoidable stress and inconvenience and recommended £500 compensation.
Investigation No. 97/B/1187 (Colchester BC).
July 1998
Ombudsman: Gas and Electricity Services Not
Inspected
An Ombudsman’s report concluded that Charnwood BC did not ensure that the gas and electricity supplies to the property it allocated to a man had been adequately inspected, or that they were safe to use. It was later established that the electricity supply was defective.
In addition, the property was not in a reasonable habitable condition when the Council certified that all works were complete and satisfactory. The complainant had to bring the property up to the standard it should have been on allocation and live for two months in a home which required further repairs. The Council also failed to tell him that the installation of gas central heating would result in a rent increase.
The Ombudsman recommended the Council pay the complainant £500 compensation and £250 for his time and trouble in pursuing his complaint.
Investigation No. 96/B/3132 & 4370 (Charnwood BC).
August 1998
Two
Tier Housing Management Pilot Funded
Irwell Valley HA was awarded an Innovation and Good Practice Grant of £129,000 by the Housing Corporation to pilot its proposed two tier housing management approach.
Under the proposals, the Association would provide a basic housing management service to all of its tenants, but those who maintained a clear rent account for six weeks and also had not been in breach of their tenancy would be offered an enhanced Gold Service. This would include:
The Corporation aimed to evaluate the pilot, with a view to exploring the potential of the approach for wider use. To this end, a panel was appointed, which included the Corporation's former Director of Housing Management and Research - Cathy Garner.
The Association was also given permission to introduce introductory tenancies in some of its areas.
August 1998
Ombudsman: Transfer to Resolve Harassment
Delayed
In a complaint that Southwark LBC delayed unreasonably in arranging a management transfer for a family who were experiencing harassment from immediate neighbours, the Ombudsman concluded that:
The Ombudsman’s report recommended that:
Investigation No. 96/A/5026 (Southwark LBC).
August 1998
Ombudsman: Application to Transfer from Sheltered
Home
In a report on Doncaster MBC, concerning a complaint that the Council failed to consider the complainant’s elderly father-in -law’s application to transfer from sheltered accommodation to another Council-owned home, the Ombudsman concluded that:
The Ombudsman’s report recommended that the Council:
Investigation No. 97/C/3275 (Doncaster MBC).
August 1998
Ombudsman: Intentionally Homeless Decision
Flawed
A family applied for rehousing as homeless and East Northamptonshire DC decided that they were intentionally homeless.
The Ombudsman concluded that:
The Ombudsman’s report recommended that the Council should pay £500 compensation and review its procedures.
Investigation No. 97/B/532 (East Northamptonshire DC).
August 1998
Ombudsman: Local Settlement Costs Over £4,000
The complainant alleged that Southwark LBC delayed unreasonably in:
It was also alleged that the Council:
The Council accepted that it was at fault and it:
Investigation No. 97/A/3158 (Southwark LBC).
August 1998
Ombudsman: Failure to Carry Out Sound Tests
An Ombudsman complaint alleged that Westminster CC:
The Ombudsman found no fault in the way that the Council responded to the complaints about noise during the period July 1995 to December 1996, when it:
After that, when the need for sound tests became obvious, things went wrong. Had the tests been carried out promptly, the Council would have been in a position to advise the complainants on whether the existing sound insulation was adequate or, if it was defective, actions proposed to remedy it.
The Ombudsman’s report recommended that the Council should:
Investigation No. 96/A/4265 (Westminster CC).
September 1998
Ombudsman: Nuisance Suffered Longer than
Necessary
Trafford MBC were alleged to have failed to carry out any effective enquiry into complaints from one of its tenants about harassment and unacceptable behaviour from a neighbour. This was despite having information that suggested failure to comply with the tenancy agreement by one of the neighbours complained about.
The Ombudsman concluded that, even after serving Notice of Seeking Possession on the tenant causing the nuisance, the Council failed to take enforcement action for eight months.
The complainant, therefore, continued to suffer from harassment, threats of violence, assault, nuisance, trespass and damage to his property for longer than was necessary.
Investigation No. 97/C/0250 (Trafford MBC).
September 1998
Ombudsman: Misinformation is
Maladministration
A woman complained that the Broxbourne BC failed to take action to prevent noise disturbance and harassment by her neighbours, that it failed to carry out proper monitoring of the nuisance complained about and misinformed her about the neighbours’ future occupation of the adjoining house.
The Ombudsman did not uphold the first two elements of the complaint because the Council had sought to get the neighbours to moderate their behaviour and had attempted to monitor the noise, although the equipment used had failed. The Council then served a Notice of Seeking Possession on the neighbours, citing the nuisance they were causing as grounds for possession.
The complainant refused the offer of further monitoring because the noise was not so bad by then and she thought that the proceedings for possession would solve the problem. However, the complainant was misinformed about the true position regarding the Council’s actions in respect of the neighbours. She was told that they were leaving the property when in fact the proceedings had been dropped, apparently because of lack of corroborative evidence. This, the Ombudsman concluded, was maladministration.
Investigation No. 97?b/1498 (Broxbourne BC).
September 1998
Ombudsman: Failure to Keep Records
Barnsley MBC terminated a man’s tenancy of a council-owned house after concluding that the property had been abandoned. This occurred in April 1997 after, according to the complainant, his relationship with his girlfriend broke down and she left - taking much of the goods and furniture from the house.
The complainant says that he continued to live at the property, but because, he claimed, his life had been threatened due to a debt owed by a relative of his, he had moved temporarily to live with his mother in another town.
The Council was given information that the premises had been abandoned. No further checks were made with neighbours and the house was boarded up - apart from the front door. The Council says that a notice was pinned to the boarding and posted through the letterbox. The complainant claims that he did not see the notice.
There is conflicting evidence on how quickly the complainant contacted the Council after this, but the Council says that it was not until October 1997. No rent was being paid during this period. There was also evidence to suggest that the complainant was not living with his mother, but with his girlfriend in a house that she owned in Leeds.
The Ombudsman, therefore, concluded that the Council had reasonably regarded the house as abandoned. However, the Council was at fault in failing to keep proper records and its probable failure to check with neighbours that the house was abandoned. The maladministration did not, however, cause any injustice to the complainant.
Investigation No. 97/C/3682 (Barnsley MBC).
September 1998
Ombudsman: Repair Failure Report Issued as a Matter of Public
Interest
Brent LBC delayed dealing with repairs to a woman’s council home, including major roof work, leaking gutters, cracks and repairs to the porch.
The Ombudsman issued his report as a matter of public interest because the circumstances giving rise to the complaint were not an isolated instance, but an illustration of the Council’s failure to provide a satisfactory repairs service to its tenants in the South Wembley area.
The Council agreed to pay £750 compensation to the complainant and to take steps to improve its repairs service.
Investigation No. 96/A/3727 (Brent LBC).
September 1998
Ombudsman: Failure to Repair Leak Caused
Damages
Wesminster CC delayed in repairing a leaking radiator in a man’s council home. His carpet and curtains were damaged as a result of the leak.
The Council’s first attempt to repair the leak was unsuccessful and the contractors had to return the next day to fit a new valve.
The Ombudsman’s report recommended that the Council pay the complainant £325 for the additional damage caused and for his time and trouble in pursuing his complaint.
Investigation No. 97/A/0924 (Westminster CC).
October 1998
Ombudsman: Criticism for Continued
Shortcomings
In his report on a complaint about the way the Blaenau Gwent CBC dealt with a tenant’s application for a transfer, Welsh Ombudsman Elwyn Moseley expressed concern at the continuing shortcomings in the way that the Council allocated its houses and dealt with transfer requests from its tenants. He commented that:
To avoid a recurrence of the maladministration and of injustice identified in his report, the Ombudsman recommended the Council to:
Noting that the complainant had now been adequately rehoused, the Ombudsman recommended that the Council should pay her £200 in compensation.
Investigation No. 98/0046/BL/049 (Blaenau Gwent CBC).
October 1998
Ombudsman: Exchange Should Have Been Agreed
To
A woman complained that Ashfield DC unreasonably refused to approve a mutual exchange of houses, failed to deal properly with her request for rehousing, or take account of her complaint of racial harassment in the area where she formerly lived. The Ombudsman's report found no evidence of maladministration in the way that the Council dealt with the complainant's allegation of racial harassment at her former address. There was no evidence that the perpetrators were Council tenants.
There was maladministration in the Council's refusal to approve retrospectively the mutual exchange of houses, which the complainant undertook without the Council's consent - because it had earlier offered her a neighbouring property and it subsequently (albeit reluctantly) offered her another neighbouring property. As a result, the complainant had to undertake two further moves - back to her old address and then to the newly offered property.
The Council should pay the complainant for the cost of the loan to enable her to return to her former address and the cost of the removal to her new address, plus half the cost of the carpets in her present home.
Investigation No. 97/C/4303 (Ashfield DC).
October 1998
Ombudsman: Repair Outstanding Despite Previous
Report
A man had to live in adverse conditions because Liverpool CC failed to take effective action to eradicate water ingress at his council home, despite previous involvement by the Ombudsman.
In 1995, the Ombudsman had issued a report finding maladministration and injustice on the same topic, and the Council had paid compensation and completed repairs. However:
The man had to live in damp conditions for considerably longer than necessary. He redecorated his house, only to see the decoration ruined by ingress of water.
The Ombudsman's report recommended that the Council pay £1,000 compensation.
Investigation No. 97/C/4691 (Liverpool CC).
October 1998
Ombudsman: Racial Harassment Not Recognised
A family being harassed by neighbours found that their complaints to their landlord - Easington DC - were not effectively dealt with.
The harassment was motivated by a mistaken perception that the family was Irish. The Council failed to recognise that this constituted racial harassment and did not support the family as victims. This led to the further failure to deal with their application for a transfer in accordance with the Code of Practice. The family could have been moved 2 years earlier.
There was also failure to deal properly with the family's complaint of damp in their home.
The Ombudsman’s report recommended that the Council pay £1,250 compensation and ensure that its policy allowed for investigation of claims of racial harassment. The Council should also ensure that it could respond consistently to complaints of damp.
Investigation No. 97/C/2221 (Easington DC).
October 1998
Ombudsman: Council’s Response Satisfactory
This report provided details of the Ombudsman’s investigation into a complaint that Halton BC failed to respond adequately to a man’s complaints of harassment and disturbance from council tenant neighbours.
The Council argued that without evidence from witnesses it would be difficult to secure the neighbours' eviction. The complainant was understandably concerned that his elderly mother would be vulnerable to retaliation if he were to speak out.
The Ombudsman did not criticise the Council for its decision that this was not a case where professional witnesses should be employed. The Council had sought information from the police but has not yet obtained accurate information about the neighbour's criminal conviction.
Overall, the Ombudsman considered the Council's response to the man's complaints to be satisfactory and did not uphold the complaint.
Investigation No. 97/C/2546 (Halton BC).
November 1998
Ombudsman: Work Needed Before Occupation
Ombudsman Edward Osmotherly found maladministration and injustice in his investigation of a complaint against the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea.
The complainant and her family were offered and accepted the tenancy of a 2-bedroomed Victorian flat. She complained that necessary repairs were not completed before she moved in and that she was misled into believing that central heating would be installed. She also complained about delays in completing repairs and that these matters caused her and her family worry, inconvenience and affected their health.
The Ombudsman's report commented that in the particular circumstances it would have been reasonable to expect the works to have been completed before the complainant moved in.
He also concluded that the Council allowed a misunderstanding to arise about the provision of central heating and that subsequent repairs to water heaters took too long to complete.
The Ombudsman’s report recommended that the Council pay compensation of £750.
Investigation No. 96/A/3001 (Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea).
November 1998
Ombudsman: Compensation of £5,000 Recommended
In his investigation of a complaint against Brent LBC, Ombudsman Edward Osmotherly decided that the complainant was caused serious and prolonged injustice and recommended that the Council pay him £5,000 compensation.
The case concerned complaints from a council tenant about the Council's failures in dealing with the repair and management of his own flat and the communal area of the block, which is in the North Kilburn housing area. The Council agreed to pay the complainant £250 for its delay in providing a controlled door entry system at the block. It also proposed ways of maintaining the communal rear garden.
The Ombudsman found maladministration by the Council for its delay in dealing with the man's complaints about the fire prevention measures at his property, the problems of inadequate sound insulation and neighbour nuisance, and the inadequate heating in his flat.
Also, the Council's inability to produce gas safety certificates for every year since October 1994, the 3-year delay in repairing the roof, and the exclusion of the flat from a refurbishment programme, all amounted to maladministration.
In addition to the £5,000 compensation, the Ombudsman recommended that the Council should install sound insulation within 3 months, install central heating and complete a survey of the flat and implement its recommendations.
Investigation No. 97/A/1442 (Brent LBC).
November 1998
Ombudsman: Other Reports in Brief (Repairs)
Ombudsman: Inconsistencies of Investigation Panel
Ombudsman Patricia Thomas issued a report on her investigation of a complaint against Sutton LBC. The complaint investigated was that:
There were also complaints about the way in which the Council dealt with subsequent complaints through its complaints procedure.
Part of the Council's response to the allegations each family made against the other was to convene, for the first time, its Disability Harassment Panel. In doing so, it:
More importantly, the Council failed to consider evidence from the complainant's family. The complainant only discovered the panel's decision when served with a Summons. The Council also dealt with her complaint through its own complaints procedure inconsistently.
The Ombudsman recommended that the Council pay £1,000 compensation to the complainant for the distress and inconvenience.
Investigation No. 97/C/3034 (Sutton LBC).
December 1998
Ombudsman: Errors in Dealing with Repairs
The Ombudsman released a report concerning the way that Brent LBC dealt with a tenant’s repairs when she moved home. The report also dealt with complaints about the way that allegations of neighbour nuisance were dealt with by the Council.
The Ombudsman’s report noted that the Council’s responses to enquiries about the tenant’s complaints contained apparently conflicting information and that there were also conflicts between the complainant’s account of events and that of the Council.
Subsequently, the Council accepted that there were faults in the way that it dealt with the repairs. Most of the problems have been put right and administrative changes have been put in hand.
The Ombudsman’s report concluded that there had been injustice caused by maladministration and recommended that the Council pay the tenant £500 compensation.
Investigation No. 96/A/2382 (Brent LBC).
January 1999
Ombudsman: Delays Caused Major and Prolonged
Injustice
The complainant began reporting disrepair in her home to the Council - her landlord - in 1991. In July 1992, a Council survey said that it was neither economical nor viable to repair the roof of the house and strongly recommended that it should be renewed. No action was taken.
In November 1992, another surveyor's report recommended that work costing about £30,000 was needed to bring the house back to a habitable condition. The repairs were not done. In April 1996, a report by an independent Environmental Health Officer said that the house was unfit for human habitation. There was rising and penetrating damp, as well as other defects. A copy of the report was sent to the Council in May 1996 but repairs were not done.
In January 1998, the Council decided to move the complainant and dispose of the house. At the time of the Ombudsman's report, the complainant had still not been moved.
The Ombudsman's report severely criticises the Council for the way it dealt with repairs to the house of one of its tenants. In the conclusion to his report, the Ombudsman says:
The Ombudsman finds that the Council's delays and inaction amount to maladministration, which has caused the complainant and her family a major and prolonged injustice. He recommends that the Council urgently rehouses the complainant and no rent should be charged her from May 1996 until such rehousing is effected. He also recommends that the Council pays £500 to the complainant.
Investigation No. 97/A/2989 (Hackney LBC).
February 1999
Local
Authority Rent Arrears Rise
Housing Minister Hilary Armstrong warned local authorities with poor rent arrears records to look closely at their procedures and get to grips with the problem. Her comments came as the latest rent arrears statistics were published, showing that English local authority rent arrears for the year ending 31st March 1998 rose to 6.5% of the authorities' rent roll (being some £472 million) - from 6.4% last year.
The Housing Minister also commented that:
March 1999
London
Councils Improve Services
A new Audit Commission report reveals that Londoners have benefited from improvements to local services made by their councils but the performance of individual councils still varies widely.
The report shows how London councils have performed across a range of services, including social services, housing, homelessness, libraries, Council Tax collection, rent arrears and recycling. It shows how councils compare with one another and how their performance has changed over time.
Key findings include:
Local Authority Performance Indicators 1997-1998: Council Services In London (ISBN 862401489): Audit Commission: Freephone 0800 502030: £20.
March 1999
Ombudsman:Statutory Overcrowding Not Given
Priority
The complainant applied for rehousing by Liverpool CC on the grounds of overcrowding.
She complained that the Council did not deal properly with her application and, in particular, did not treat her in the same way as other applicants with rent arrears. As a result, her family had to live in overcrowded conditions for longer than necessary.
There were also complaints that the house suffered from a number of electrical and other faults, which were not repaired within a reasonable time.
A third aspect to the complaint was that harassment was not dealt with properly.
In her report, Ombudsman Patricia Thomas concludes that when the complainant applied for rehousing, her family was statutory overcrowded. The Council did not have a policy which ensured that it complies with the legal obligation to give reasonable preference to those who are statutory overcrowded - as opposed to those overcrowded according to the Council's own standard.
There were several shortcomings in the way that the Council dealt with the complainant's application for rehousing. The most significant was the allocation of the family into a category for those overcrowded by two bedrooms and the failure to follow the usual practice for applicants with rent arrears by not making informal offers to the family.
With regard to the complaints about repairs not completed, the Council was not able to supply an accurate record of repair work undertaken to the complainant's home. Although there were records showing that some reported faults were repaired promptly, it is likely that there were delays in responding to others and this caused injustice.
The Ombudsman finds that the Council dealt with the complaint regarding harassment correctly.
The Ombudsman’s report recommends that the Council should identify a suitable house for the complainant's family, offer them the opportunity to clear their rent account and pay them compensation of £500.
Investigations Nos. 97/C/2026 and 2052 (Liverpool CC).
March 1999
Ombudsman: Compensation of £2,000 for Three
Complaints
Ombudsman Edward Osmotherly issues a report on his investigation of three complaints about housing allocations and transfers against Lewisham LBC.
All three complainants alleged maladministration in the way in which the Council dealt with their rehousing and transfer applications. All three believed they and their families have had to live in unsuitable and overcrowded conditions for longer than they should.
One of the complainants is visually impaired and has an artificial leg. Further, her husband is registered disabled because of hearing impairment. The husband of the second complainant is also registered disabled, and two of her three children are hearing impaired.
The children of the third complainant have asthma and her mother, who lives with them, has a medical condition.
The Ombudsman finds that offers of housing were made to applicants with fewer points than the complainants, and that the records of those allocations did not allow the Council to demonstrate the reasons why the complainants had not been made those offers. The Ombudsman's report notes that there may be good reasons why the offers were made to lower-pointed applicants and welcomes the action already taken by the Council to improve its record keeping and monitoring of allocations. He has no doubt about the commitment of the Council's officers to act clearly and properly in making allocations. However, he does find that the failure in the Council's system, which prevented him and the Council from reaching a judgment on whether allocations of housing had been made properly, amounted to maladministration.
The Ombudsman concludes that, although one family has now been rehoused, the three complainants had suffered an injustice because they will always feel that they may have been wrongly passed over for offers of housing which would have improved their conditions earlier. He recommends that the Council should pay one family £500 and the other two £750 each in compensation.
With regard to one of the complainants, the Ombudsman recommends that she should be invited to submit further medical evidence for consideration by the Council.
With regard to the two families not yet rehoused, the Ombudsman recommends that the Council carries out a detailed audit of all the properties allocated to people with less priority than them, since their transfer applications were approved, and if any of the properties would have met their needs, the Council should make them the next suitable offer of accommodation. If not, the Council should confirm their points level and position on the housing register.
Investigations Nos. 97/A/2919, 3880 and 0414 (Lewisham LBC).
March 1999
Ombudsman: Like for Like Policy Criticised
Ombudsman Edward Osmotherly issues a report on the investigation of three complaints about housing transfers against Greenwich LBC. All three complainants were awarded priority for rehousing, all had children, and all were affected by the Council's like for like housing policy.
The first complainant experienced racial harassment and she alleged that the Council failed to deal properly with her complaints about it and delayed unreasonably in moving her and her family to suitable accommodation away from the area where they were being harassed.
The daughter of the second complainant suffers from Down's Syndrome and the complainant herself has limited mobility and suffers from agoraphobia. Her complaint was that there was unreasonable delay in moving her from a flat to suitable accommodation, with a secure garden, and a separate dining space - in accordance with a child in need assessment.
The elder son of the third complainant has learning difficulties and her younger son suffers from cystic fibrosis. She also cares for her mother, who is unwell. Her complaint was that there was unreasonable delay in moving her family to three-bedroomed accommodation near to her mother.
The Council applies a like for like policy to transfers for priority applicants. Under this policy, applicants are eligible for offers of accommodation only of the same kind as the accommodation from which they wish to move.
The Ombudsman's report finds that, in general, the like for like policy is a reasonable way of dealing with priority applications. However, because of the scarcity of like for like accommodation in some parts of the Borough, there can be conflict between the need for an urgent transfer and the requirements of the like for like policy.
The Council has made some changes recently, which should resolve some of these conflicts.
However, there has been no relaxation in the rule that the type of accommodation to be offered must be similar to that currently occupied (eg. a flat for a flat). The Ombudsman recommends that the Council should consider granting senior officers the flexibility to offer housing of a different type - in exceptional circumstances - without putting the applicant to the trouble of making an appeal.
The Ombudsman's report also recommends that the Council introduces a procedure to review all priority cases at regular intervals, to check how long they have been waiting for an offer, the reasons for any long delays and options to give effect to the priority which the Council has awarded.
Further recommendations are made about the way in which information is given to applicants, the need to review information published about how to appeal and also about the priority scheme.
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council pays compensation to the three complainants, totalling £3,000.
Investigations Nos. 95/A/4048, 4047 and 0359 (Greenwich LBC).
March 1999
Ombudsman: Local Settlement For Injustice
Accepted
Ombudsman Patricia Thomas issues her report on three complaints from one complainant about the way that Barnsley MBC dealt with housing repairs.
The first complaint concerned delays in preventing dampness at the complainant's council home and carrying out associated repairs. Some delay seems to have arisen because of a need to avoid a double disruption that would otherwise have occurred due to planned improvement work. However, a significant cause of the delay was because work was held back, pending the allocation of resources.
The second complaint was over what the complainant saw as an inadequate redecoration allowance, following damage to his decorations caused by the works noted above.
The final complaint arose because the Council paid redecoration costs in vouchers redeemable only at a specific supplier.
The Ombudsman's report concludes that the delay in carrying out the repairs was unacceptable but she notes that the Council has already agreed to pay £500 to the complainant to remedy any outstanding injustice.
The report also notes that the Council has agreed to pay extra money, which the complainant says is a satisfactory resolution of his concerns about the inadequacy of redecoration allowances.
With regard to the issue concerning vouchers only being redeemable at a specific supplier, the Ombudsman concludes that this was unduly restrictive but that it caused no clear injustice to the complainant. The report also notes that the Council is now actively considering changing its scheme to allow cash payments.
Ombudsman Patricia Thomas concludes that maladministration did cause injustice but that the Council's subsequent actions represent a satisfactory local settlement of the complaint.
Investigations Nos. 98/C/1214 and 1613 (Barnsley MBC).
March 1999
Ombudsman: Damage To Satellite Dish
The complainant is the only leasehold owner-occupier of a flat in a council block. He complained that his satellite television dish was damaged by contractors employed by the Council to replace fascias and gutters.
The Council failed to inspect the damage, to ascertain whether the claim was properly considered, or to determine whether the contractors' obligations were properly discharged.
Record keeping and administration of the contract were poor and work was sub-contracted without the Council's prior approval.
The Council failed to monitor the claim, or its outcome, and 18 months after the complainant submitted it, the Council found its contractors had not properly passed it to their insurers.
Ombudsman Jerry White finds maladministration causing injustice to the complainant from:
He recommends that the Council pays compensation of £250 and puts in place procedures to ensure that, as far as possible, there is no similar recurrence of the problem.
Investigation No. 96/B/1249 (Cannock Chase DC).
March 1999
Ombudsman: Heating Recommended on Medical
Grounds
The complainant, her two daughters and her elderly disabled mother-in-law were re-housed by Brent LBC in January 1996 to a bungalow, which had been specially adapted for wheelchair use. The Council's Medical Advisor had recommended that the family needed warm and dry accommodation.
As soon as they moved in, the complainant found that the hot water and heating were not working. The Council did not replace the water heater until April 1996. The heating system was designed to provide a background heating only, although the complainant may not have been told this. Contractors twice recommended the provision of central heating.
Despite the complainants repeated requests for proper heating, the Council did not put the family forward for assessment of its need for central heating on medical grounds until October 1996. Central heating was not installed until December 1997.
The Council failed to respond properly to five letters from the complainant and her advisors seeking compensation.
Ombudsman, Edward Osmotherly, finds that the Council's delays in replacing the water heater and its delay in dealing with the repairs of the space heating system, taking account of the complainant's mother-in-law's needs, amounted to maladministration which had caused injustice to the complainant and her family.
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council pays the complainant £1,000 in compensation.
Investigation No. 97/A/4290 (Brent LBC).
March 1999
Ombudsman: Defects Not Dealt With by Managing
Agents
The complainant lived in a retirement scheme built by a developer. It was due to be transferred to Devon and Cornwall Housing Management Society when the last flat was sold.
The Society is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Devon and Cornwall HA.
The sale of the flat unexpectedly took nine years. The Society acted as managing agents until they could take ownership of the whole scheme.
The complaint, which had been made over a long period, concerned the management of the flat and defects in their construction. The defects which emerged over a period of years concerned:
That there were, and remain a number of defects, has been confirmed by independent surveys.
Further, the complainants were concerned that, as a result of the original development agreement and a gentleman's agreement, the developer was absolved from paying any service charges for unsold flats and, in particular, no contribution to the management fee or to the scheme's sinking fund. In view of the length of time which elapsed before the final flat was sold, this issue became of some significance.
The lessee had also been concerned about over-charging on the service charge account because of a misinterpretation of the terms of the lease by the freeholder and had embarked upon successful litigation, which resulted in financial settlement in their favour in 1996.
Ombudsman Roger Jeffreys concludes that the Society could have taken a more active role in dealing with the defects for the lessee. He notices that they were in a difficult position but also that they were going to become the owners and, therefore, had a long-term interest in the construction and management of the scheme.
The Society’s overall failure amounted to maladministration.
The Ombudsman awards the complainants £300 compensation and makes recommendations as to the steps which the Society should now take, including making a contribution to the scheme's sinking fund.
The Ombudsman at this stage does not specify the sum which should be contributed to the sinking fund, as he considers that this should reflect the outcome of advice to be received and negotiations to take place. He regards it as desirable that the Society itself has the opportunity to assess that contribution. However, if there proves to be difficulty or a dispute in the matter, in order to give finality he will determine the sum on a reference by either of the parties.
Independent Housing Ombudsman: Complaints Nos. 71002 and 80077 (Devon and Cornwall Housing Management Society).
May 1999
Ombudsman:
Nuisance Procedures Need Reviewing
The complainant lived next door to a Council tenant. She complained of harassment by the tenant, which started when the neighbour received a plan (as part of a Right to Buy application), indicating that part of the complainant's garden would be conveyed in the sale. The Council failed to ensure that information about the harassment was passed to the Housing Management Section.
After the complainant made a formal, written complaint, the Council failed to carry out any investigation of the allegations, relying solely on evidence supplied by the police. The first complaint was made in April 1997 and the Council decided, in December 1997, to take no action against its tenant - whose Right to Buy was processed in April 1998.
Ombudsman Jerry White's report concluded that there was maladministration causing injustice to the complainant and recommended that the Council should:
Investigation No. 97/B/4595 (New Forest DC).
May 1999
Ombudsman:
Victim of Harassment Feared Reprisals
The complainant had suffered harassment but fears of reprisal made him reluctant to give evidence against those who were perpetrating it. Without such evidence, the Council was unable to take action.
New legislation provided an opportunity to use professional witnesses but no clear directions were given to officers on its use for some time.
Ombudsman Patricia Thomas concluded that, even if the Council had a policy in place to use professional witnesses, the matters complained about were not severe enough to warrant such use. Whilst noting that the complainant had been a victim of a number of incidents over the last few years and understanding his reluctance to give evidence for fear of reprisals, the Ombudsman recognised the Council's inability to proceed and did not criticise it for not taking action in these circumstances.
The Ombudsman concluded that the complainant did not suffer injustice as a result of the Council's actions or lack of clarity in this matter, even if those actions constituted maladministration.
Investigation No. 97/A/0736 (Liverpool CC).
May 1999
Ombudsman:
Health Affected By Nuisance
The complainant alleged that
Hackney LBC had not taken action to deal with noise and other nuisance caused by
his neighbour. In his complaint, he said that the problems he experienced had
affected his health because he kept being woken up at night and in the early
morning.
Ombudsman Edward Osmotherly found that there had been multiple faults in the way that the Council dealt with the situation and that this had caused the complainant acute frustration and avoidable trouble.
The Ombudsman recommended that the Council should:
Investigation No. 97/A/4522 (Hackney LBC).
May 1999
Ombudsman:
Appointments to Repair Not Kept
The complainant, a Council tenant, listed a number of failings in the way Tynedale DC carried out repairs to his home:
Ombudsman Patricia Thomas found that the Council had made a timed appointment to undertake a repair to a window lock in the complainant's house and had failed to keep that appointment. Her investigation also revealed that Council officers had been given contradictory instructions about the way in which they should respond to telephone enquiries.
The Ombudsman also found that there had been significant failures by the Council to:
The Council acknowledged that there were failings in its dealings with the complainant and it agreed to write a comprehensive letter of apology to him and pay him £100 compensation. The Ombudsman regarded this as a satisfactory settlement of the complaint.
The Ombudsman also welcomed the Council's decision to review the contradictory advice it issues to staff on responding to telephone enquiries from members of the public.
Investigation No. 98/C/3934 (Tynedale DC).
May 1999
Ombudsman:
Procedures to Remedy Faulty Gas Appliances
The complainant, an elderly single man, alleged that Brent LBC:
Ombudsman Edward Osmotherly found that the tests carried out by the Council when Flat A was vacant were inadequate to ensure the safety of a future tenant. There was an improper 16 months' delay in carrying out the first gas safety inspection - as required under Regulations which came into force in October 1994. There was also confusion and delay in dealing with the complaints about leaking fumes.
The gas safety check at Flat B was 4 months overdue. The Council's records and reports were found to be inadequate. After it was established that the boiler was defective, there were delays in organising further inspections and tests and in replacing the boiler.
Because of the maladministration, the Ombudsman concluded that the complainant could have been at risk of exposure to carbon monoxide. However, the Ombudsman also noted that it is not possible now to find, as a matter of fact, whether the complainant was or was not exposed to poisonous fumes.
The Ombudsman concluded that the complainant could not live in Flat A for 15 months and was effectively homeless, sometimes sleeping rough. He was without heating for 7 months in Flat B and without hot water for four of those months. He was also put to a lot of time and trouble in complaining to the Council.
The Ombudsman recommended that the Council pay the complainant £1,000 compensation.
Investigation Nos. 97/A/3015 and 3170 (Brent LBC).
Note: This report is one of three issued on the same day about investigations which illustrate defects in the way Brent LBC dealt with faulty gas appliances. The other two reports are not detailed here, as they are similar to the one above. However, for those who wish to access them, the reference numbers are 97/A/1980 and 98/A/0398.
June 1999
Ombudsman: Failure to Maintain Vacant
Properties
Ombudsman Patricia Thomas instigated two complaints about Liverpool CC's failure to maintain vacant properties next to the complainants' homes. The Council has since cleared the properties and paid the complainants compensation of £150 and £146.
The Ombudsman noted that, despite her previous investigations and recommendations, the Council had failed to introduce a system for ensuring that vacant properties are checked and cleared. This has resulted in residents having repeatedly to approach her to ensure that the work is done. This, she concluded, is maladministration which, in these instances, has resulted in injustice to both complainants.
The Ombudsman accepted that these complaints have been resolved for the time being by the local settlement; however, she seeks confirmation from the Council that an effective system for checking and carrying out clearance work will be introduced and implemented within three months of her report.
Investigation Nos. 98/C/0858 & 0968 (Liverpool CC).
June 1999
Ombudsman: Unsuitable Accommodation Offered
The complainant suffers from psychiatric illness causing severe depression and suicidal tendencies. In 1996, he applied for a transfer from his flat in a tower block, after complaining of harassment and noise nuisance caused by neighbours. The Council accepted his application and decided that he needed a home in a low-rise, low-density building.
In August 1996, the complainant was transferred to a home that the Council believed was suitable for him. However, the previous tenant had been transferred after complaining of noise nuisance from the flat upstairs. The complainant made similar complaints soon after the commencement of his tenancy.
Environmental Health officers quickly established that the sound insulation between the complainant's flat and the one above it did not meet modern standards and they recommended that the Council’s Housing Department should carry out works to improve the insulation.
No works were carried out but, in April 1998, the complainant was transferred again to an end-of-terrace house without neighbours above or below.
The complainant argued that the Council offered him unsuitable accommodation in August 1996. He further complained that the Council delayed unreasonably in taking action after its Environmental Health officers recommended works to improve the sound insulation.
The Ombudsman's report found that the Council could reasonably have been expected to know that the accommodation to which the complainant was transferred in August 1996 was not suitable for him. He concluded that, if the Council had given proper consideration to the complainant's vulnerability, it would not have offered the property to him.
The Ombudsman also concluded that the Council should either have arranged sound insulation works without delay, or promptly transferred the complainant to suitable accommodation. He recommended that the complainant should be paid compensation of £1,500.
Investigation No. 97/A/2870 (Newham LBC).
June 1999
Ombudsman: Complaints About Criminal Activity
A group of residents complained about criminal activity in their locality. There were some failures by the Council to support the residents adequately, although this was partly due to inadequate information. One serious incident, which was reported, was not fully followed up by the Council.
Ombudsman Patricia Thomas found that the Council's caused some injustice to the complainants and recommended that it pays them £100 per household. Investigation No. 98/C/2402 (Liverpool CC).
July 1999
Empty
Homes Agency Warning
The Empty Homes Agency issued a reminder to local authorities, housing associations and executive agencies that it would use its powers of serving a Public Request to Order Disposal (PROD), if it considered that they were not dealing efficiently with empty dwellings.
The warning was prompted by a number of recent developments. These included the granting of legal possession of a former council house worth £200,000 to a squatter who argued Section 12 of the Limitations Act 1980, which states if someone trespasses on land for 12 years, they may acquire the legal title or ownership (subject to certain conditions).
The announcement also followed in the wake of Government figures released, showing an increase in empty Ministry of Defence properties and Home Office owned dwellings.
Whilst the Empty Homes Agency can not serve a PROD on Government departments, it can exercise its powers against executive agencies, such as the Defence Housing Executive.
July 1999
Ombudsman: Hostel’s Long-Term Occupation
Suitability
Between August 1995 and March 1998, the complainant lived in a hostel owned and managed by Westminster City Council. She complained to the Ombudsman that the Council delayed in transferring her from the hostel to more suitable accommodation.
She also complained that the repairs to the hostel were not carried out promptly, that the fire alarm was not in working order for a long time and that security there was inadequate.
Ombudsman, Edward Osmotherly, concluded in his report that the hostel was not suitable for the complainant's long-term housing needs. He found that the Council lost the transfer application made by the complainant in December 1995 and delayed unreasonably in dealing with the application she made in December 1996. He considered it likely that, but for this maladministration, the complainant would have been rehoused about two years sooner than she was.
Further, the Ombudsman found that there were excessive delays in completing repairs. For example, the fire alarm had been inoperative between April and October 1997. His report recommended that the Council pay the complainant £2,250 compensation.
Investigation No. 97/A/2389 (Westminster CC).
July 1999
Ombudsman: Policy Changes Not Reflected In Published Allocations
Scheme
The complainant's parents were owner-occupiers living in a bungalow. They applied for warden-supervised sheltered accommodation for medical reasons. The couple's medical condition deteriorated. They indicated that they were also interested in housing association accommodation.
The Council failed to rehouse them, or nominate them, to a housing association. The complainant was dissatisfied with the Council's response to his subsequent complaint.
Ombudsman Jerry White's report noted that the Council's published allocations scheme states that allocations are made on a date order basis. However, in 1992 the Council changed its policy and allocations of elderly persons' accommodation were made to those in greatest need - based on the subjective judgment of two housing officers. The published allocations scheme was not amended but applicants were informed of the Council's policy when visited.
The report also noted that the Council's present system cannot be seen to be objective and fair and there is a danger of inconsistency in its current method of deciding which applicant should have priority on medical grounds. It further noted that the Council planned to introduce a new scheme shortly.
The Ombudsman concluded that the Council's failure to amend its published allocations scheme did not cause direct injustice to the complainant's parents. He was unable to conclude that they should have been rehoused before anyone else recently rehoused in suitable accommodation. However, he did conclude that the complainant had sustained injustice in that he suffered avoidable frustration and anxiety from the failure.
The Ombudsman recommended that the Council pays the complainant £500 compensation.
Investigation No. 98/B/3172 (North West Leicestershire DC).
July 1999
Ombudsman: Rainwater Penetration Not Dealt
With
The complainant reported to the Council constant rainwater ingress through the front door of his Council flat. The Council made a number of unsuccessful attempts to deal with the problem and refused to accept the advice of an independent expert engaged by the complainant, that the door frame was out of true line. The problem persisted for three years. When the door frame was eventually replaced, the leaks ceased.
The Council's insurers compensated the complainant for carpets damaged by rainwater. The Ombudsman's report recommended that the Council pays the complainant compensation of £150.
Investigation No. 98/C/3175 (Mansfield DC).
July 1999
Ombudsman: Works to Prevent Damp Delayed
The complaint concerned delays by Newham LBC in carrying out works to prevent the accumulation of water on the floor of the complainant's Council flat and dealing with growth of mould on the walls.
The Ombudsman found that there was an avoidable delay between May and July 1998. He also found that work to fit a novel proprietary floor covering was done incorrectly in September 1998 and early 1999 and that it was not done properly until April 1999.
The Ombudsman’s report recommended that the Council pay the complainant £500 in compensation.
Investigation No. 97/A/4176 (Newham LBC).
August 1999
Ombudsman: Cramped Living Conditions Could Have Been
Alleviated
The complainant lives with his wife and three daughters in a council house which, until recently, had only two bedrooms. The landlord, Bath & North East Somerset Council, operates an opportunity bedroom conversions scheme, to increase the bedroom capacity of council tenants.
In June/July 1996, the complainant asked for an extra bedroom to be added to his home under the scheme. In February and March 1997, a Council officer visited the home and took measurements. The complainant alleged that the officer told him that an extension could be funded under the scheme but, in May 1997, the Council told him that there was no funding available in the financial year 1997/98. An extension to the complainant's home was funded in the financial year 1998/99 and it was completed in January 1999.
The Ombudsman's report concluded that a total of £20,000 had been allocated to the scheme in the year 1996/97, of which £16,150 was not spent. This would have been more than enough to fund the extension. The Council had not been able to explain why the extension was not funded in the year 1996/97. The complainant and his family, therefore, had to live in cramped conditions for two years longer than necessary.
The Ombudsman's report recommended that the Council pay the complainant £2,000 compensation, plus a further £250 for his time and trouble.
Investigation No. 98/B/3723 (Bath & NE Somerset Council).
August 1999
Ombudsman: Insufficient Effort to Trace
Relatives
The son of the complainant was found dead in his flat, which he rented from Birmingham CC. The complainant was concerned that the Council failed to make proper efforts to trace her and her family before it disposed of her son's possessions to a dealer. By the time relatives were aware of his death, his goods were effectively beyond recovery.
In her report, Ombudsman Patricia Thomas expressed the view that the Council acted with undue haste in disposing of the son's possessions before enough time had been allowed for relatives to be contacted. The Council accepted that matters could have been handled better and it has reviewed its procedures. It also agreed to make an ex gratia payment to the complainant of £1,000, which the Ombudsman accepted as a satisfactory resolution of the complaint.
Investigation No. 98/C/3105 (Birmingham CC).
August 1999
Ombudsman: Failure to Support in Service Charge
Support
The complainant was the lessee of a flat under a Do It Yourself shared ownership lease. The equity in her flat was shared with Notting Hill Home Ownership (NHHO), which was also her immediate landlord. NHHO itself held a lease from the freeholder of the building.
In June 1995, the complainant received a service charge demand from the freeholder, which she considered excessive and withheld payment. In June 1996, the freeholder contacted NHHO with the threat of forfeiture. There was confusion as to who would deal with this dispute. The complainant considered that NHHO were inclined to take the freeholder's side. In the end, she resolved the matter herself.
On 30th September 1996, the complainant advised NHHO that she wished to increase her share of the flat to 100% as soon as possible. In order to do so, she had to remortgage and therefore needed a clear service charge receipt from the freeholder. On 7th November 1996, she sent to NHHO a cheque made payable to the freeholder for the sum needed to clear the service charge account. Instead of passing this to the freeholder, NHHO paid it into its own account and failed to pass the payment on. This caused difficulty on the day set for completion of the staircasing, although completion was not in the end delayed.
The complainant also alleged that NHHO released confidential information to the freeholder, to NHHO's bank and to another of its lessees. The complainant made a written complaint to NHHO in August 1996, to the effect that the internal complaint process was unsatisfactory. She alleges that NHHO was slow to respond and did not answer her complaint adequately. The NHHO complaints procedure required there to be an aural hearing. The complainant objected that this was unnecessary and would delay reference of her complaint to the Ombudsman. She was also dissatisfied about the conduct of the hearing itself.
Whilst not upholding the complaint in its entirety, the Independent Housing Ombudsman, Roger Jefferies, awarded the complainant £400. This was for failure by NHHO to support her in a service charge dispute with the freeholder of the flat.
His report noted a series of administrative errors and failures in communication, although he also noted that the complainant was also partly responsible for the latter. His report concluded that the Association did not have adequate policies in place that recognised its continuing obligation and commitment to a shared owner for whose home it too had significant responsibilities.
Whilst his report identified failings, it also recognised that NHHO has taken important steps to improve matters already. The Ombudsman made a number of recommendations for changes to practice, particularly for introducing revised internal guidance notes, setting out a comprehensive approach to DIYSO service charge disputes, including the incorporation of standard letters for future use.
Investigation No. 80571 (Notting Hill Home Ownership).
September 1999
News in Brief
The National Housing Federation launched a new service - Feedback - provided for social landlords who use STATUS (the standardised tenant satisfaction postal survey) to obtain feedback on tenant satisfaction. The Feedback service offers the ability for landlords to compare or benchmark their performance for tenant satisfaction with other social landlords. As part of the service, NHF will mail out the questionnaire and analyse results. A full description of the service was included as an Update in the 9th September '99 edition of Housing Today. Further information can also be obtained from Danny Friedman - Tel: 020 7843 2263.
The National Radiological Protection Board published a new brochure which details how housing managers can evaluate and monitor the risks of radon. Radon Measurement and Advisory Services, NRPB, free. Tel: 0800 614529.
September 1999
Ombudsman: Charge Levied for Enlarging Flue Excessive
The complainant is a tenant of Sefton MBC. When the chimney of her house became defective, the Council chose to offer her a replacement gas fire with a standard flue, rather than repair the chimney.
The complainant agreed to pay an extra charge of £500 to have a larger flue, so that she could retain her living flame gas fire, which she had installed without the Council's consent. The extra cost to the Council was estimated to be £311.
Ombudsman Patricia Thomas found that the tenancy agreement did not set out the respective repairing obligations of landlord and tenant and also she decided that the charge was unreasonably high. She recommends that the Council should:
As part of its review of the Tenants' Handbook, ensure that it sets out in that publication the repairing obligations of both parties.
Reduce its charge to £250 and allow the complainant a reasonable time to repay this sum in instalments.
Investigation No. 98/C/0025 (Sefton MBC).
September 1999
Ombudsman: Consultation Arrangements Questioned
The law requires that a Council consults its tenants on housing management matters and publishes details of its consultation arrangements.
The complainant alleged that his landlord, North Tyneside MBC, had failed to consult its tenants properly about the introduction of introductory tenancies and about the introduction of a new secure tenancy agreement.
Ombudsman Patricia Thomas' report finds that:
The Council's arrangements for consultation of tenants on the introduction of introductory tenancies by the distribution of individually addressed leaflets was reasonable; but
Similar arrangements, plus discussion of the proposed agreement in Area Consultative Committees, were not adequate to satisfy the legal requirements for the introduction of a new tenancy agreement.
On the question of the new tenancy agreement, the Ombudsman also notes that the Council had not allowed the required four weeks between delivering copies of the new agreement to its tenants and the implementation of that agreement. Nor had the Council published details of its consultation arrangements.
The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice in the failure to publish consultation arrangements and in the consultation on the introduction of a new tenancy agreement for existing tenants. She recommends in her report that the Council should pay the complainant £100 compensation, as well as review its procedures and publish consultation arrangements.
Information Note
The Ombudsman's decision was based on the provisions of the Housing Act 1985, which requires consultation with individual tenants where there are intentions to vary the terms and conditions of secure tenancies. The Act also requires councils to publish details of their relevant consultation arrangements.
Investigation No. 98/C/3177 (North Tyneside MBC).
October 1999
Ombudsman: Unreasonable Delay in Carrying Out Works
The complainant, a Council tenant, alleged delays by the Council in adapting
and extending her house to enable her blind son to have a separate bedroom,
as recommended by social workers and an occupational therapist. The blind son
also suffered from severe learning difficulties and he had particular difficulty
in sleeping. This had the effect of disrupting the sleep of his twin brother,
with whom he shared a bedroom. His behaviour had had a disruptive effect on
the twin brother, which had resulted in a serious deterioration in the brother's
behaviour. A consultant child psychiatrist had confirmed that this was due to
lack of sleep.
On 20th August 1997, an occupational therapist recommended particular works
of adaptation, including the provision of a separate, sound-proofed study/bedroom.
The recommendation was passed to the Council's Housing Department on 16th September
1997. However, construction work did not start until 27th April 1999 and it
was not completed until 9th August 1999 - over two years after the social worker
submitted her recommendations.
Ombudsman Elwyn Moseley concluded that the overall delay, particularly given
the urgency of the work, was unreasonable. Although the works had been completed
by the time his report was issued, the son had been deprived of the proper facilities
to which he had been entitled for a longer period than had been necessary. His
report recommends that the complainant is paid £500 compensation.
Investigation No. 99/0008/R/180 (Rhondda Cynon Taff CBC).
October 1999
Ombudsman: Rent Arrears Block Transfer
The complainant applied for a transfer from one Council house to another on
the grounds that she was being harassed and consequently suffered from stress.
Because she had substantial rent arrears, the Council did not grant her request
for a transfer, nor did it consider the request properly.
No special consideration was given to her allegation of being stalked, or to
the medical grounds that she put forward for being transferred. Further, communication
between the Council and both the complainant and her solicitor was poor. Neither
was sent any formal notification of the decision to defer her application, or
of her right to have the decision reconsidered, or of the outcome of a subsequent
reconsideration.
The Council subsequently gave proper consideration to the complainant's application
but decided it should be deferred because of her rent arrears.
Ombudsman Patricia Thomas concluded that, in view of the continued deferral,
the only injustice suffered by the complainant was the uncertainty and confusion
of not knowing what was happening to her application and the lost opportunity
to seek alternative re-housing earlier. In recommending £200 compensation, the
Ombudsman also suggested that the Council reviews its procedures.
Investigation No. 98/C/2981 (Knowsley MBC).
October 1999
Ombudsman: Delays in Dealing with Nuisance
The complainant alleged that the Council had failed to deal with her complaints
of neighbour nuisance (both are council tenants) and also with the problem of
water ingress into her flat.
In 1997, the Council agreed to carry out a sound insulation test. No test was
done. The Council did not tell the complainant for 18 months that it accepted
that there was a sound- proofing problem but could not put this right, and that
she could apply for a transfer to alternative accommodation; her application
would be given major repairs priority.
The Council told the complainant that it would not consider taking possession
proceedings against her neighbour, unless it was satisfied that a noise nuisance
existed for which there was independent corroboration. It told her that a successful
prosecution by the Environmental Health Department could be used as evidence
in possession proceedings.
On 13th April 1998, the noise control officer witnessed a statutory nuisance
and served an Abatement Notice; a breach of the Notice was witnessed in June.
The Council told the complainant that it would take possession proceedings against
her neighbour, if he was successfully prosecuted. Six months later, the neighbour
pleaded guilty in Court. However, the papers were not referred to the Council's
Legal Services until April 1999. Legal Services took the view that the noise
which had been the subject of the prosecution had occurred too long ago to be
used as the basis of possession proceedings.
Ombudsman Edward Osmotherly found that the Council delayed unreasonably in concluding
that the complainant should be offered a transfer on the grounds that it could
not afford to resolve the sound-proofing problem.
He also found maladministration in the Council's unreasonable delay in referring
the case to Legal Services, once it had evidence that a statutory nuisance was
occurring. The complainant was caused injustice because she was misled about
what the Council would do, and was put to avoidable time and trouble.
The Ombudsman acknowledged the frustration which the complainant suffered in
getting the problem of water penetration resolved but did not conclude that
the Council's actions in this respect amounted to maladministration.
In conclusion, the Ombudsman recommended that the Council should pay the complainant
£500 compensation and backdate her housing transfer application to January 1997.
Investigation No.99/A/3343 (Lambeth LBC).
October 1999
Ombudsman: Limitations in Remedying Not Explained
The complainant is Irish and suffered racial harassment from her neighbours.
She considered that they were running an unlawful business from the property
and had incited racial hatred among their customers. She complained to the Council.
The Council told the complainant that it would help her, but did not explain
to her the limits on its powers in dealing with racial harassment between private
house owners, and did not explain fully why it would take no action against
the neighbours' business. As a result, the complainant sold her property and
left the town. The Council then failed to respond to her complaint about the
way it had dealt with the matter.
Ombudsman Jerry White recommended in his report that the Council should: Pay
£350 for the distress caused to the complainant by not making its position clear;
and Pay a further £120 as a contribution towards her legal costs in pursuing
her complaint.
Investigation No. 98/B/0680 (Northampton BC).
October 1999
Ombudsman: Dog Nuisance Not Resolved
The complainant lived in a Council flat. He complained that the Council failed
to address his complaints about a neighbour who, in contravention of his tenancy
agreement, kept dogs in his flat - causing the complainant nuisance and annoyance.
The Council took insufficient steps over a period of approximately 14 months
to establish whether the neighbour was keeping dogs. Eventually the Council
served Notice of Seeking Possession but then took no effective steps to follow
it up.
Evidence of continuing breaches of the tenancy conditions was presented to the
Council's Legal Department in March 1999 but, by the end of June 1999, no action
had been taken. Throughout the history of the complaint, there has been no effective
internal liaison.
Ombudsman Jerry White recommended that the Council should:
Investigation No. 99/B/0016 (Plymouth CC).
November 1999
Ombudsman: Sex-Discrimination in Housing Allocations
The complainant, a 62-year-old man, applied to the Council for a transfer to
sheltered accommodation, on the grounds of ill health. The Council refused his
request as he was under the age of 65. The complainant alleged that this contravened
sex-discrimination laws, as the Council allocated sheltered accommodation to
women from the age of 60.
Ombudsman Mr Jerry White found that the Council's policy did indeed discriminate
against men. The Council accepted that it was at fault in this respect, it has
revised its policy in accordance with the law. It has transferred the complainant
to sheltered accommodation and paid him £1,000 compensation. The Ombudsman considered
this a satisfactory settlement of the complaint.
Investigation No. 98/B/2748 (Winchester CC).
November 1999
Ombudsman: Slow Response To Complaint But No Injustice
The complainants alleged that the Council took no effective action regarding
their complaints about their next-door-neighbour, a council tenant. When the
complainants first complained of noise nuisance from their neighbour, the Council
responded properly but was slow to investigate subsequent complaints.
Ombudsman Patricia Thomas was not sure that an Abatement Notice would have resulted,
had the Council reacted quickly to the noise complaints. She found that there
was some maladministration by the Council but no injustice was caused and the
Council was not in breach of its duties as landlord. She did suggest, however,
that the Council should make sure that it is able to investigate complaints
promptly, even outside of office hours.
Investigation No. 98/C/4052 (Wakefield MDC).
Note: December 2000 to January 2001 updates pending
Return To The HMD Archive Index