Complaint:

A complaint was brought to the OCO by a father on behalf of his children, who said that a Local Authority refused to grant tenancy of a local authority house that had been specially adapted for his child with special needs. The father was the sole legal guardian for the children. In the father’s complaint he also expressed concern that as his application for tenancy had not been granted, he and his children have been unable to reside together. In his view the Local Authority were questioning the legal authority of the custody order granted by the District Court.

Investigation

In considering the complaint the Ombudsman for Children is obliged to have regard to the best interests of the child concerned. She is obliged to consider whether the child has or may have been adversely affected by the action and whether the action was contrary to fair or sound administration.

During the investigation the OCO established the following information.

The parents had been tenants of a local authority dwelling and had transferred to single story accommodation some years later following a request for accommodation that was more suitable for their child with special needs. The family financed a number of renovations to the property to make it more accessible for the child with special needs. Following parental separation the father moved out of the family home. The father subsequently applied for and was granted sole custody of the children. However, the children remained living with the mother. Following the death of the mother, the children remained living in the local authority dwelling in the care of extended family members whom had previously been involved in their care.

Following the mother’s death the father had applied for tenancy of the local authority dwelling. The Local Authority indicated to the father that they did not intend granting tenancy of the dwelling to the father until he produced evidence that he has ‘full time physical care and control of the children’.

Information provided to the OCO indicated that the father is the legal custodian of the children and sole legal guardian. No evidence was provided to indicate that there were any other ongoing legal proceedings in respect of the children.

During the investigation the OCO ascertained that the Local Authority considered that the custody order granted to the father was an old order and that the father should return to court to get an updated order.

Findings

The Ombudsman for Children upheld the view that the actions of the Local Authority had adversely affected the child and that the actions constituted maladministration. By questioning the validity of the court order and requesting that the father provide evidence of caring for the children it appears to this Office that the Local Authority has acted outside

its authority. Furthermore the ongoing lack of a decision in relation to the tenancy of the home has left the individual child concerned and siblings in an uncertain position in terms of the stability and future of their family home.

Recommendations

The OCO recommended that the Local Authority immediately resolve the children’s housing situation.

It also suggested that the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government needed to review polices and procedures regarding transfer of tenancies in order to ensure that adequate guidance is available for Local Authorities vis a vis their authority in this regard.

Response

The Local Authority said it did not accept the findings of the investigation, specifically that it acted outside its authority. However it did confirm its acceptance of the recommendations and intention to act on these.

The Local Authority have now resolved the matter of tenancy.

Any local authority acting beyond its remit where it affects children so significantly remains a concern that the OCO intends to progress with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in 2009.

Posted in: Investigations Housing