Essex County Council failed family whose disabled son died – watchdog
The council have been ordered to pay the family £500
Last updated 18th Nov 2022
Tendring Council has apologised to a family who did not receive enough housing support for their disabled son who later died from a life-limiting condition.
The Local Government Ombudsman has now demanded that the council learn from its mistakes including arranging a briefing for its housing staff reminding them of the various choices they may have available when contacted by households on the housing register “expressing dissatisfaction”.
The ombudsman also has ordered Tendring to pay compensation totalling £500 in recognition that it did not respond more comprehensively when it reviewed the housing conditions.
The council had been told by an Essex County Council occupational therapist that the home was unsuitable given the son needed his own room downstairs.
His father, named by the ombudsman as Mr C, had also complained about a rat infestation at the home. Both Mr C and the mother, Ms D, have suffered with their mental health. They have both been diagnosed with panic and anxiety disorder. Mr C also suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder.
After the couple separated in April 2018 Mr C moved to a private rented flat. Mr C said both he and Ms D suffered sprained ankles and Mr C also suffered wrist and back pain as a result of carrying their son named as Child E up and down stairs from his upstairs bedroom.
Child E also struggled to access the garden because of a step down from the rear of the property. He was at frequent risks of falls when doing so.
Tendring received a report from Mr C about the rat infestation in June 2017 and three months later, in September 2017, the council made an offer of accommodation to the family. This was rejected after the Occupational Therapist, who advised them this property was also unsuitable for E’s needs.
The Council says that after this time no suitable property became available for rent. Ms D’s MP wrote to the council in July 2020 warning the council that E’s health had recently worsened. It said Mr C continued to believe the council had ‘done nothing’ to improve the family’s housing situation. In its reply the Council offered to review the family’s housing priority given E’s worsened health. It asked Ms D to consider widening areas of choice for accommodation. However Child E died soon afterwards, in August 2020.
The ombudsman has noted there is little evidence the council was being made explicitly aware of their concerns by the parents – there are no written requests direct from Ms D or Mr C asking it to review Ms D’s housing priority between 2018 and 2020. There are no notes on its housing records suggesting any such requests were made in person or by telephone. There is nothing to suggest the county council who supported E with a social work service made any representations on behalf of the family. However there was one opportunity to address the needs when the MP wrote to the council.
The ombudsman said: “I consider the Council should have done more, because while the MP’s correspondence was short on detail it knew already of the limitations of Ms D’s property and E’s disability. So, the Council knew E was growing older and it stands to reason that his needs and the demands placed on his parents as his carers may also have grown as a result.
I would not fault the Council had it failed to point out one or two of these matters. And it is not the case that we would expect it to always carry out a review of priority or invite a consideration of homelessness when it receives an expression of dissatisfaction with housing from a MP. But on the facts of this case, I make a finding of fault for its response to the June 2019 contact.
“I note the Council offered a more constructive response when the MP contacted it again in July 2020, when the MP had provided more detail. It gave a commitment to review the family’s housing priority. But unfortunately, this came too late to be of help, with E passing away soon afterwards.”
However he said it did not automatically stand to ground that Ms D and E remained in an unsuitable property for longer than needs be – the council may have concluded the property was not unreasonable to live in, an application may have resulted in an offer of support to move within the private sector and even if the council accepted a duty to make an offer of accommodation that could only have come from the same limited pool of properties.
The ombudsman added in their report: “I cannot conclude that Ms D and E remained in an unsuitable property for longer than need have been the case. Her injustice is therefore limited to the distress that will arise from the Council missing the opportunity to undertake some reconsideration of her housing need in June 2019. Mr C will also have experienced some distress from this.”
During its investigation of this complaint, the council agreed to make a hardship payment of nearly £1,000 to settle any council tax debts accrued by Ms C and Mr D which they incurred before April 2018 when they separated and Mr C moved into a flat nearby
Thy have nonetheless accrued additional council tax debts – Ms D’s of £4,540 and Mr C’s of £635. The ombudsman has criticised the way the council demanded Mr C’s debts given his mental health.
The ombudsman also has ordered Tendring to pay Mr C £200 compensation and his wife Ms C £300 n recognition that the Council did not respond more comprehensively when it reviewed E’s housing conditions in June 2019.
The ombudsman added: “The council has agreed to learn wider lessons from this complaint. Within 40 working days of a decision on this complaint it will arrange a briefing for its housing staff reminding them of the various choices they may have available when contacted by households on the housing register expressing dissatisfaction but who have not explicitly requested a review (for example, when Councillors or MPs make representations on constituents’ behalf). This can include the Council offering a review; considering the potential relevance of homeless legislation or seeking more information to decide if either of these choices might be appropriate.”
Councillor Paul Honeywood, Tendring District Council Cabinet Member for Housing, said: “I would like to again say sorry to the family who made this complaint for the opportunity we missed to review their housing situation and for a breach of our agreed procedures by our contractor recovering council tax arrears; and also offer my condolences on the death of their son. This follows a formal letter of apology.
“The ombudsman’s investigation highlights there was a missed opportunity for a review of this family’s case in 2019, and goes on to report there is no indication that the outcomes would have been any different in respect of finding suitable accommodation for this family.
“Even so, it is only right that we have taken the wider learning from this case and used it to brief our staff on recognising when cases may require further review without an explicit request to do so. In addition, as part of our ongoing Housing Strategy we continue to expand our own housing stock and look at the wider context to see how we can increase the level of accommodation suitable for households with additional needs.
“Our contractor has also been reminded of our procedures in respect of recovery of council tax arrears.”