• You are here:
• Home /
• Publications /
• Annual Reports /
• Annual Report of the Ombudsman 2004

Annual Report of the Ombudsman 2004

Chapter 2 - Western Health Board - Housing Aid for the Elderly Scheme

In situations where elderly vulnerable people are seeking basic entitlements it is important that public bodies respond with the urgency that the situation demands and where administrative difficulties arise a flexible and understanding approach should be adopted by the public body. I took this stance in dealing with the following complaint against the Western Health Board.

I received a complaint from a man on behalf of his mother concerning a decision of the Western Health Board to refuse her application for assistance under the Housing Aid for the Elderly Scheme. This is a scheme through which assistance is provided to elderly persons who live alone in unfit or insanitary accommodation. The complainant’s mother was 82 years of age, suffered physical disability, and was unable to use the bath. She was assessed at the local Health Board Centre and the provision of a shower unit was approved.

An application for funding was made early in 2001 but this was refused initially on the basis that the applicant was deemed, incorrectly, not to be the owner of the house. When this matter was clarified, the Board reactivated the application and the work was carried out and paid for by her family. An invoice was then sent to the Board but the application for a grant was refused because an estimate for the work had not been submitted before it commenced.

I examined the Board’s file dealing with the application. I noted that both the application form itself and an acknowledgement which issued advised that work should not commence prior to receipt of written approval from the Board. The file also showed that the processing of the application was suspended between 1 March 2001 and 19 June 2001 on the mistaken assumption that the complainant’s son owned the house. It was not clear to me why ownership of the house was an issue as the requirements of the scheme were that an applicant should be living alone in accommodation deemed unfit by the Board and she complied with these requirements. However, the effect of the suspension of the application was to prolong the period during which she had to endure her unfit housing conditions.

The fact that the complainant’s mother’s circumstances needed urgent rectification was borne out by a report, by the Board’s inspector, on the file which said that she was; “aged 81 years, living alone... extremely disabled due to severe arthritis and is unable to use existing bath.” The inspector recommended the completion of the works as a priority.

The Board confirmed in writing to the complainant that specific works were necessary and it asked for an itemised quotation for the work so that the level of assistance to be granted could be determined. However, a quotation was not submitted and the complainant went ahead with the improvement works which were fully paid for by family members. When an invoice was later submitted by the complainant in respect of the completed works grant payment was refused.

From my reading of the Board’s file it seemed to me that in light of the contents of the letter confirming that the works were necessary and the fact that almost six months had elapsed since the initial application had been made, it was not unreasonable for the complainant to have concluded that the letter was an indication that a grant had been approved and that the purpose of the quotation was solely to enable the Board to determine the actual amount of the approved grant to be paid. In this context, I felt that the decision to proceed with the approved works following receipt of the letter was not inappropriate or contrary to the terms of the scheme particularly as the complainant’s mother had been living in unfit housing conditions over an extended period.

I asked the Board to undertake a further review of the decision not to provide grant assistance. The Board subsequently advised me that it had decided to approve a grant of €3,217 in respect of the works completed.

Back to contents