Agenda item

To report omissions that the Local Government and Social Ombudsman has determined were maladministration by this Council in two separate housing cases.

RESOLVED that Cabinet notes the report.

Cabinet was aware that the Constitution (Article 12.03(a)) required the Monitoring Officer to report to Cabinet (or to Council for non-executive functions) if any decision or omission had given rise to maladministration.  This report concerned omissions that the Local Government and Social Ombudsman (‘the Ombudsman’) had determined were maladministration.  There were two separate cases. Both related to applications for housing by the Council (with one also concerning Council Tax recovery).  Both households had been in private rented accommodation at the time. 

Case 1

In the first case, the Ombudsman had determined the complaint on 1 July 2022.  The investigation had identified that the Council had adjusted the effective date of the application for housing from September 2018 to April 2019 and had not notified the applicant of the adjustment.  There had also been a delay of five months in notifying the applicant of a request for additional medical information and an occupational therapist assessment of the applicant’s accommodation at the time.  The medical panel had not considered the evidence of the applicant until June 2021.  Whilst the pandemic had contributed to some of the delay, in referencing the case to the medical panel, it was not the only factor.  The assessment of the medical panel had been backdated to April 2019.  Prior to submitting the complaint to the Ombudsman, the Council had considered these circumstances.  The Council had, as part of its processes, apologised and offered the complainant £200 to recognise the time and trouble they had been put to in making the complaint and for any distress it had caused.  The Ombudsman considered that this offer had remedied the injustice caused.

The Ombudsman had not found that the delays incurred in this case had affected the applicant’s opportunity to be rehoused by the Council.

It was reported that, since the period to which the complaint related, the Council had introduced a new digital self-service system to manage applications to the housing register, which was relieving the pressure on its housing team. It had also restructured its housing team to provide a more effective service.  In a further measure, it had reviewed the process for handling medical assessments and had carried out further work to ensure medical assessments were timely and outcomes communicated to applicants.

Case 2

In the second case, determined on 1 September 2022, the Ombudsman had considered that the medical circumstances associated with an application for housing should have been reviewed in response to a representation received.  The representations had been made in June 2019.  Whilst the case had not been subject to a full review, with a call for fresh evidence made, the existing position had been re-examined and an offer of support to the complainant had been made.  The Ombudsman had been of the view that the Council knew, or could reasonably conclude, that the needs of the household had increased since the last set of medical assessments had taken place.  On that basis, a full review and call for fresh assessments should have been made.  In 2017, the Council had made an offer of accommodation to the complainant and this had been declined following advice received by the complainant from the County Council’s Occupational Therapists.  The medical needs had indicated that a single storey property was required.

The Ombudsman did not find that the review of the case in June 2019 would have affected the complainant’s opportunity to be rehoused by the Council.  There were also other elements of the complaint around housing that the Ombudsman had not upheld. 

In addition to the housing application matters referred to above, the complainant had, between 2018/19 and 2021/22, accrued arrears in Council Tax of around £635 including costs.  Recovery agents had been engaged when the complaint had not responded to bills, reminders and summonses from the Council directly.  In February 2019, an enforcement agent had noted that the complainant might be potentially vulnerable on grounds of mental health illness.  In April 2019, a further contact with recovery agents had recorded that the complainant was “not in a good place” and feeling suicidal.  Those interactions should have meant that the case was referred back to the Council.  However, it was not and recovery steps had continued.  It had then been returned to the Council in 2019 (and at that stage had included council tax arrears for 2019/20 as well).  The Ombudsman had considered that the delay in referring the case from recovery agents back to the Council would have caused distress to the complainant.

Prior to submitting the complaint to the Ombudsman, the Council had considered the circumstances.  The Council had, as part of its processes, written off a significant part of the complainant’s council tax debt.

Since the Ombudsman’s investigation, and in accordance with the agreed recommendations, the Council had apologised to the complainant and had made payments totalling £500 for the identified failings across housing and council tax recovery.  Debt advice had also been offered.  A briefing for housing staff on issues identified in this case had also been programmed.

Under powers delegated to the Chief Executive, decisions authorising the payments outlined in this report had been made and published separately.  Those decisions had followed consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Housing

It was moved by Councillor Stock OBE, seconded by Councillor P B Honeywood and:-

RESOLVED that Cabinet notes the report.