Ombudsman calls on council to review lawfulness of charging policy for those challenging housing decisions

Maidstone Borough Council operated an improper charging policy for those wishing to challenge a housing decision, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has claimed.

MIchael King has questioned the lawfulness of the policy and urged Maidstone to review it.

This arose during an investigation into a complaint by man with disabilities, who said the council wanted to charge him £75 to appeal against its decision on joining its housing register.

The man, a wheelchair user, said his home was unsuitable and he wanted to join the register to bid on an accessible property.

Maidstone rejected this and when he asked the council to review the decision, it said there would be a £75 charge under a policy that imposed this for those wishing to challenge a medical assessment by way of a second assessment unless there was a significant change in the medical condition.

Ombudsman Michael King said Maidstone had no power to make the charge, and the man did not want to challenge the assessment, but rather the council's decision based on the assessment.

The investigation also criticised the council for reducing the period in which review requests were allowed form 21 days to 14, which he said failed to account for those unable or unwilling to use the internet.

Mr King said: "If the council routinely asks people to pay a fee on any decision where there has been an assessment by an independent medical advisor, people are potentially losing their right to ask for a review at no cost. Many people in the area may have been discouraged from asking for a review by the outlay.”

He said the council should review its allocation policy and the lawfulness of its provision for charging, check its records to see if other people have been similarly affected, and pay refunds where this happened.

It should additionally review decisions where applicants did not proceed with their review request after they were told about the charge.

Maidstone had apologised and reviewed the case at no cost, finding the man had not missed out on successfully bidding for properties in the period concerned.

The Ombudsman recommended Maidstone pay the man £250 for the distress caused.

A Maidstone statement said: “Maidstone Borough Council has implemented the action recommended by the Ombudsman including an apology to the complainant and providing additional training for staff.

“The council must now consider the report and tell the Ombudsman what it proposes to do.”

Mark Smulian