LGO criticises council for delays that left disabled woman "at risk and effectively housebound"

The Local Government Ombudsman has accused a London council of causing considerable injustice after its failings left a disabled woman “at risk and effectively housebound”.

An investigation by the LGO, Dr Jane Martin, found that Ealing took two and a half years to respond to the woman’s request for help.

In a report the Ombudsman said the complainant, a council tenant with three school-age children, had been forced to live in very unsatisfactory conditions for far longer than she should.

The LGO’s investigation found that access to the block where the complainant – a permanent wheelchair user – lived was by a security door, and the controls were too high for her to reach. This meant she was effectively housebound.

The Ombudsman’s enquiries found that Ealing had been told by a hospital in November 2008 of the difficulties the woman faced.

The council was reminded of this on a number of occasions. The fire brigade also alerted the authority to the fact that the woman was at risk in the event of a fire.

When Ealing eventually assessed her needs, it gave her the second-highest level of priority for a transfer on medical grounds. It also provided home care support and assistance with making bids for alternative properties.

But the Ombudsman still found that the council had been guilty of maladministration. This was because it:

• “did not carry out any works to the door entry system despite telling a councillor that these had been done;
• did not formally consider a suggestion that it modify the front door to the block; and
• did not refer the case to its Social Welfare Panel until September 2011 (after my office had requested it do so) even though it had identified this as a possibility two-and-a-half years earlier.”

Ealing has since awarded the complainant the highest level of priority, backdated to May 2010.

However, Dr Martin has recommended that the authority further backdates the award to May 2009 when the possibility of a referral to the Social Welfare Panel was first raised.

She also recommended that Ealing pay the complainant £2,000 “to reflect the delay in her moving to suitable alternative accommodation”.