THIS ombudsman report highlighted in this weeks Garden Court's Housing Law bulletin well worth a read. It made me laugh in so many places and I am going to list just a few highlights. I was surprised and pleased that Cardiff County Council so openly admitted their shortcomings to the Ombudsman (obviously sad that it had to take the Ombudsman to get it out of them).
33. At interview, the Operational Manager was unable to give my investigator the current definition of homelessness saying that it had been a long time since he had looked at the legislation. When asked to expand on the statements in the formal response as to the overriding priority being given to homelessness prevention, the Operational Manager moved away from this position saying that he had not wished to convey an impression that considerations about homelessness prevention would over-ride the assessment process as a matter of course but went on to say that local authorities in Wales have a performance indicator to reduce homelessness applications, this being a consideration in future grant awards and it is appropriate that the options of advice and prevention should be a first response.
43. He also said that there had been a major change of approach within the department some eighteen months before he left and he recalled attending a training session which was aimed at reducing the number of cases accepted as homeless by the authority and that advice was given to staff on how to do this based on experiences in authorities in England. He had some concerns about this approach and had also raised the problem of the lack of training at appropriate meetings.
46. Housing Adviser 1 left the Council before Mr F had been issued with the possession order and he said that sometimes clients were not offered temporary accommodation until the last day before their court order expired. He did not regard the handling of this case as being unusual in any way.
As a Housing Adviser I see this sort of Local Authority behaviour all the time and it's nice to see little victories such as this. Wouldn't surprise me if the Government just did away with the Ombudsman ;)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
To true.
Trouble is the Ombudsman can take so blasted long and clients often lack the will.
Proves again why access to CLS providers are so important so that clients can get help with such complaints.
Good to see you getting a mental healh wiki up to :) very handy.
I know what you mean about the delay. I could not help wonder if a Judicial Review might not have resolved the problems earlier on. No disrespect to those involved intended. I am sure there were good reasons.
I am glad you like the wiki. I have added you as writer. Please let me know if you would like any other areas covered. I am not sure which to try next.
William's point is the counter argument to my post on this advocating getting a JR application pronto.
It is tricky - the client's interets is best served via a JR application for a hopefully quicker resolution, but policy and management issues rarely come out in that context - although they can, I'd say. But supporting clients in pursuing a complaint to the Ombudsman is difficult, because the time and effort involved is difficult for clients in pressing situations. And even then, I suspect most Councils do a better job of presenting their (in)actions to the Ombudsman that Cardiff, so the report may not be so devastating...
I think William was agreeing that an early JR would have helped Nearly.
Just the way I read 'could not have' so I could be wrong hehe.
Oh William was saying an early JR might have helped, certainly, but the problem is that a JR won't necessarily, or at all, bring out the borader practices and policy in the same way as an Ombudsman investigation. A succesful JR taken to full hearing MAY do so, but no guarantees.
But an early JR mitigates the sheer wasted time and official obfuscation/incompetence, so that a subsequent Ombudsman investigation wouldn't get to look at the full problem. They are not quite either/or, but practically not far off. Client's interest is usually in the quicker, but less revealing resolution.
Aye I've always found JR's are a better way of resolving their specific problem but won't help as much as an Ombudsman decision in stopping it happening to other clients. Not that Ombudsman decisions are THAT great!
What I was saying was that a Judicial Review would have solved the problem more quickly but would not have led to the very valuable exposure of the details of the maladministration which we get from an Ombudsman report. Obviously solving the problem has to come first so I would always go for the JR myself.
It does raise two further questions:-
1. Am I right in thinking that once something has been the subject of proceedings the Ombudsman can't investigate? So once there has been a JR there is no option of going to the Ombudsman for public exposure of the maladministration and compensation?
2. Can the Ombudsman expedite its investigation so that it could turn the initial part of the complaint round in a matter of hours? If they could do this we would get the best of both worlds,we would get the problem solved and proper examination of how it arose. Plus the Administrative Court would be freed up from dealing with minor (legal) issues arising from junior council staff being stupid which settle very quickly after the Legal Department realise what is going on. The tax payer would be saved millions every year from the legal costs on both sides which would not be incurred.
I think and I'm probably wrong that the Ombudsman can still investigate the complaint in that why was JR needed. Did the client suffer any injustice pre the result of the JR (as in having to sleep rough when they should have been accommodated).
Clients don't seem that willing to pursue complaints though after they've been helped albeit eventually!
As to question 2 I'm probably far far more likely to be wrong but I don't believe the Ombudsman will get involved when there is a legal remedy to your complaint that you haven't tried.
Hopefully Nearly can correct me :)
Can the ombudsman investigate where there have been other proceedings? No. But where a JR threat/application has ended because the LA has taken steps to remove the grounds, then there are no proceedings - I think. there has been no formal settlement, after all. So an Ombudsman investigation may be possible, but if the JR threat has been successful, it is unlikely that there will be a significant pattern for the Ombudsman to find. That is what I meant be nearly mutually exclusive, but depends on facts and history.
Expedited ombudsman's complaints? Dream on. the Omudsman has their own structure and timetable - it is about maladministration, not unlawfulness of decision, so on a very different time scale. The Ombudsman would have to be given a whole different remit by government. Plus, I'm not sure about taking unlawful acts out of the judicial remit, to be honest.
I have always suspected that local authorities have been pursuing unofficial policies to deny homeleness applicants their rights under the law. This report shows that this is exactly what has been going on.
Council staff with job titles such as Homelessness Prevention Officer should hopefully now be recognised as being a Homelessness Application Prevention Officer. Equally, the job title Housing Options Adviser should be recognised as Housing Options Other Than Those Which You are Legally Entitled To Advisor.
I think that everyone who deals with this sort of thing should encourage clients to pursue complaints to the Ombudsman. It seems to be the only way to hold local authority management to public account for the work practices they preside over.
County Court Appeals and Judicial Reviews focus on the details of the grievance of the applicant rather than on the details of how they came to be aggrieved.
Well today I was told by our head prevention officer that even if a client comes in with a letter from a solicitor/advice agency stating the client wishes to make a Part VII application, they don't have to take it as they have been delegated by senior management to investigate cases prior to making an application. I did point out that this was illegal but was told thats how it was!
Post a Comment