Housing department accused of maladministration

The council’s housing department has been accused of maladministration and asked to pay £5,000 after it was deemed to have wrongly refused a grant to adapt the home of a disabled man. Dr Jane Martin, the local government ombudsman, made a finding of maladministration against Northampton Council after it refused a disabilities facilities grant application for an extension so a disabled man could access bathing facilities. In her report, Dr Martin said that even though the grant for an extension appeared to meet all relevant criteria, the council’s housing department refused it as the applicants lived in a privately-rented home without a secure tenancy.

 During the investigation, the owner of the property told the ombudsman that the family could stay in the house as long as they needed and that he was happy for the council to adapt the house as it saw fit.

According to the report, the man and his wife had been renting the home for 20 years but applied to the council for help as the man was having difficulty accessing bathing facilities through a degenerative medical condition. The man was assessed by two occupational therapists who said he needed an extension fitted to the house so he could be cared for and bathed. The council’s assessment found that the extension was necessary and appropriate and planning permission was granted. The grant application was then refused and the council instead installed a stair lift and wet room without an extension, after originally offering one of its own homes to the family. The family complained, saying they felt they had been misled into believing they had to consider moving to a council-owned property despite not wanting to move. They argued that they had been treated differently from a home owner and the house was now cramped following the subsequent adaptations. Dr Martin said: ‘In my view it was maladministration to refuse the DFG on the grounds that are not permitted under the HGCRA [Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act] 1996. ‘This has led to a delay in providing the provision originally assessed as being required to meet [the complainant]’s needs which has given rise to considerable stress and anxiety and left them living in very difficult conditions.’ The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice and recommended that the council should:

• pay the complainants £5,000 to compensate them for their distress and inconvenience and £250 for the time and inconvenience in pursuing their complaint
• engage an independent occupational therapist to review the husband’s current needs
• consider the occupational therapist’s conclusions
• provide funding for any provision identified
• provide funding for respite care for the couple while any works are completed
• review its procedures, and
• provide training to ensure that staff are aware of what is appropriate for considering applications for disabled facilities grants.

David Kennedy, Northampton Council’s chief executive, said: ‘We have received the ombudsman’s recommendations in relation to the ongoing DFG case. ‘We are looking at the ombudsman’s recommendations and will respond within the time scale. We take any case involving the ombudsman very seriously and will consider carefully the ombudsman’s findings and proposed remedies.’