Section: Housing & Estate Management

Property Unsuitable for Disabled Tenants

An elderly disabled woman, her son, and her disabled daughter were "passed from one department to another" by Kirklees Metropolitan Council when trying to sort out their housing problems. This was the conclusion of Local Government Ombudsman, Anne Seex.

The Ombudsman said:

"The many departments involved dealt with the case in isolation. The result was that a property was allocated when the tenants could not practically take up residence. When the tenants realised that ... they were passed from one department to another. This lack of co-ordination was maladministration."

Mrs S has difficulty climbing stairs and needs help with bathing because of her disabilities. She and her daughter, who is also disabled, applied for a joint council tenancy, and they were allocated a property on the basis of their combined needs.

Mrs S complained that this tenancy was unsuitable because adaptations to meet her needs as a disabled person were not carried out, and that the Council failed to deal with her complaints about this. She did not occupy the house, and the Council took legal action against her for rent arrears.

Mrs S's son made numerous and fruitless efforts at reasoning with the Council.

The Ombudsman considered that the Council should have cleaned the property and removed a broken stair lift before leasing the property. The Council should also have considered whether it was suitable to offer the property without the necessary adaptations being ready in time in light of the medical reasons for offering the property in the first place.

The Ombudsman found fault in the Council's:

failure in communication between the several departments responsible for letting, repairs, rent collection and social services;
failure to understand why the tenants had not moved in, and subsequent Court action against them for rent arrears, which was irrational since the tenants were entitled to full Housing Benefit;
failure to follow its own policies in dealing with rent arrears; and
failure to keep proper records of how the house repairs and the tenancy situation were dealt with.

Even after the difficulties with making the house suitable to live in were resolved, the tenants struggled for over two years to repay rent arrears and court costs, which they feel should not have arisen.

In addition, they lost the opportunity to buy their home after two years, under the Right to Buy scheme, because of changes in legislation, which took place during the periods when the tenancy had been altered.

The Ombudsman said there were doubts about the Council's application of this legislation to the periods of tenancy. In her view there should have been a continuous joint tenancy from the initial offer date.

The Ombudsman felt that the failure to establish the joint tenancy correctly in 2003 and the refusal to backdate the joint tenancy when it was admitted that a mistake had been made was maladministration causing significant injustice to Mrs S and her family.

The Ombudsman recommended that the Council should:

reinstate the original tenancy start date of October 2003 on its records. This should then be the date used for calculation of a Right to Buy discount and for the application of the date of eligibility for exercising the Right to Buy;
remove from the relevant accounts any rent or Council Tax arrears outstanding as a result of the maladministration, and refund any credit due;
pay £3,000 compensation to the complainant.

Local Government Ombudsman Report 05/C/4684

Section: Housing & Estate Management

Property Unsuitable for Disabled Tenants

Housing Monthly Diary

Issue: March 2007 Reporting on Jan-Feb 2007

Quick Links

Welcome to the Legal Update

Archive Issues Reporting Periods