• You are here:
• Home /
• Reports /
• Annual Reports /
• Annual Report of the Ombudsman 2007

Annual Report of the Ombudsman 2007

Chapter 3 - Selected Cases - Local Authorities

Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council

Disabled Persons Grant Refused

In dealing with housing matters, in particular applications for grant assistance towards the cost of adaptations to cater for an elderly or disabled person, local authorities make their decisions based on the rules of the relevant schemes. This case illustrates the difficulties that can arise when the matter for decision is somewhat out of the ordinary.

Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council (DLRC) approved an application for a Disabled Persons Grant of €6,300 in respect of a curved stair lift to enable the complainant’s mother live at home following a diagnosis of terminal cancer. As the staircase in the house was curved, the stair lift had to be made to suit the house and this delayed its installation. In the meantime, the health of the complainant’s mother deteriorated and she passed away. The complainant notified the Council and the company providing the stair lift that her mother had died and that the stair lift was no longer required. The company, however, had incurred costs of €3,000 in making the stair lift and sought payment from the complainant but the Council said it would not pay the complainant because the stair lift had not been installed. As the Council would not change its decision she complained to me.

In explaining its decision to my Office, the Council quoted clause 7 of the relevant regulations which states: “The making of a grant will be subject to the work being carried out to the satisfaction of the Council and in compliance with the Building Regulations.” It claimed that the scheme did not permit payment of the grant where the work had not been carried out. In further contacts with the various parties it emerged that a similar situation had arisen in another local authority which had paid a grant although the stair lift had not been installed. When the second local authority had confirmed that it had, in fact, paid the grant in similar circumstances on the grounds that it had been approved in good faith, I asked DLRC to review its position on the matter. The Council agreed and stated that it wished to alleviate any hardship on the complainant and if the complainant believed she was contractually committed to paying the company providing the stair lift, the Council would look favourably on recouping her expenditure. The complainant paid the company concerned and sent the receipt to the Council for reimbursement. I considered this was a satisfactory outcome although a great deal of work needed to be done by my staff to persuade DLRC of the merits of the complainant’s case.

Louth County Council

Essential Repairs Grant Refused

A complaint was made to my Office in relation to an application to Louth County Council under the Essential Repairs Grant (ERG) scheme for repairs to a roof. The Council refused the application on the grounds that the scheme was available to those over the age of 65 only. In its initial response to my Office, the Council referred to a circular issued by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government concerning the scheme. The circular stated that the scheme is directed primarily at providing grant aid to elderly people living in poor housing conditions and that the grant is intended to facilitate having those conditions improved sufficiently to allow such people to remain in their homes for their lifetime and to prevent them having to move to a different area to be re-housed by the local authority. The Council also stated that the decision to deem “elderly” as 65 or over, was based on the fact that the allocation of social housing to the elderly is restricted to those who are 65 and over. The Council also noted that the complainant had not made an application for social housing which she was eligible to do if her accommodation was unsuitable for habitation.

My Office pointed out to the Council that the Essential Repairs Grant (ERG) was provided for under the terms of the Housing (Disabled Persons & Essential Repairs Grants) Regulations, 2001 - SI 607 of 2001 - which states as follows:

“A housing authority may pay a grant to a person carrying out essential repairs to a house where, in the opinion of the authority, the repairs, whilst less than those appropriate to render the house fit in every respect, constitute repairs it considers are reasonably necessary to prolong the useful life of the house”.

My Office noted that the Regulations did not provide for an age limit in respect of the ERG. It was also noted that the Department’s Circular, while stating that the scheme was directed “primarily” at providing grant aid to the elderly, did not exclude payment of the grant to someone who, while not elderly, would otherwise qualify for the grant. It appeared to my Office that, under the Regulations, the Council had a discretion to pay the grant to someone under the age of 65 who would otherwise qualify for the grant.

I take the view that where public bodies have discretionary powers, they should be exercised in a reasonable manner having regard to the principles of good administration and all the circumstances of a case. I accept that, in situations where public bodies have limited resources and excess demand, it may be reasonable that there should be some basic predetermined selection criteria. Having regard to the fact that the ERG scheme was directed primarily at the provision of grant aid to elderly people living in poor housing conditions, I did not consider it unreasonable that the Council would include age as a criterion to be taken into account in deciding an application for the grant. However, having regard to the Regulations, I took the view that for the Council to adopt a general rule of refusing an ERG application solely on the grounds of age may have been too narrow a focus to adopt.

My Office wrote to the Council requesting it to review its approach to the application in this case. The Council subsequently informed my Office that it had reviewed the matter and had decided to pay the grant to the complainant.

It should be noted that the grant in this case was under the Housing (Disabled Persons & Essential Repairs Grants) Regulations which have since been revoked. However, the substantive issue which emerged in the case may arise in other situations.

Sligo Borough Council

Dispute about Tenant Purchase Application

A seventy year old man complained that Sligo Borough Council treated him unfairly in relation to his efforts to purchase his house under the 1997 Tenant Purchase Scheme (TPS). He claimed that having received an offer from the Council in 1998 to purchase his house, he subsequently accepted the offer but, later, the Council claimed it had no record of his agreement to purchase. The complainant was adamant that he signed a consent form and claimed the Council had lost it.

The Council stated that according to its records, the complainant did not take up the offer. Having examined its file, my Office wrote to the Council and requested a review of the matter because there was evidence that:

§  There had been contact between the complainant and a Council official (Official X) subsequent to the offer having been made;

§  The Council’s own records were not as comprehensive as they might have been in relation to the application;

§  His request for a review of the valuation did not appear to have been acted upon;

§  Files were missing;

§  The Council had acknowledged confusion about the application in a letter to a public representative;

§  The Council might not have conducted an exhaustive search for the document the complainant said he signed;

In its reply, the Council stated that after valuation by the auctioneers, the complainant was issued with a standard letter offer price. Official X recalled discussing the price with the complainant and indicating to him that the house could be re-valued to take account of the works which had been carried out to the house. At that time, a general Tenant Purchase File (TPF) was held in the Housing Section. This file contained requests for valuations etc. which were held until a tenant indicated his/her intention to proceed with purchase. Official X was almost certain that correspondence relating to the complainant was placed on this file, however, this file had been mislaid inadvertently

It seemed to me, therefore, that the Council’s statements of reliance on its records to disprove the claim of the complainant, was undermined by the revelation of the existence of records relating to individual cases on a general TPF which was missing. The position seemed to be as follows

§  A letter of offer issued in December 1998;

§  Sometime later the complainant discussed the letter with Official X of the Council and the matter of a further valuation was raised by him. The complainant also said he signed the consent to purchase;

§  No review of the valuation was done at the time it was requested;

§  The The Council had a general TPF in operation at the time which contained documents relating to individual cases, including that of the complainant. This file was missing;

Against this background, I requested the Council to review the position it had adopted and suggested that a visit by staff from my Office might be useful in the context of the review.

The Council advised me that following a review of the case and a more recent thorough search of all housing records, correspondence relating to the complainant’s tenant purchase application had been located. This correspondence, it appeared, was filed incorrectly in 1998. This happened during a major refurbishment programme carried out between 1998 and 2000 which necessitated the relocation of the Housing Function, staff and records. The Council apologized for any inconvenience caused to my Office in the investigation of the matter and assured me that the complainant’s tenant purchase application would be honoured promptly by the Council. The Council wrote to the complainant and advised him he would be assisted by the Council in purchasing his house at the agreed 1998 price of €32,505. He subsequently contacted the Council and asked that the rent paid by him in the meantime be deducted from the sale price together with an allowance for works carried out to the house. The Council considered his request and agreed to reduce the price by €10,255 giving a new purchase price of €22,250. The complainant was very satisfied with the outcome.

Back to contents