A Caerphilly County Borough woman who has been waiting more than 15 years for a council house has been given £500 – but not a home.
The anonymous woman claims to have been on the housing list since 1988, meaning she has been seeking social housing for more than a quarter of a century.
But the council only have a record of her from 1999.
In upholding a complaint against Caerphilly County Borough Council, the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales said the council’s “failings amounted to maladministration” as a result of “poor record keeping”.
The applicant, who suffers from epilepsy, has been in receipt of carer’s allowance for 17 years and wants a house on the same street as her mother, who she cares for full-time.
She claimed at times her private accommodation was in disrepair and she has feared being made homeless.
The Ombudsman said that in 2002 her housing application was wrongly cancelled and that the council “failed to uphold its homelessness duties”.
At a meeting of the council’s Standards Committee on November 24, senior housing officers were asked by councillors how this had been allowed to happen.
Public Sector Housing Manager Graham North said there were 4,500 residents on the housing list and admitted paper documents were “routinely destroyed”.
When asked if this case was a one off, he said: “It might have happened once or twice as we weren’t keeping records in the same way we are now.
“What the Ombudsman was saying was our record keeping didn’t show certainty and we have to accept that. It failed.”
A spokesperson for the housing charity Shelter Cymru said the case “is unfortunately a symptom both of the long-term under investment in affordable housing and the insecurity experienced by many tenants in the private rented sector”.
The Ombudsman called on the council’s chief executive to apologise for the failings and for the authority to pay out £500.
They also recommended the council provide further training and guidance for staff in relation to record management and homelessness duties.
A spokesperson for Caerphilly County Borough Council stressed the complaint only came about because the applicant wants a house on a specific street.
They said: “Members of the council’s Standards Committee met on Monday November 24 to receive a report regarding a complaint made to the Public Services Ombudsman in respect of a housing application.
“Members of the council’s Standards Committee accepted the contents of the report and approved the recommendations made by the Ombudsman.
“The applicant still remains on the council’s housing list, primarily as a result of the fact that she has requested a property in a very specific location.
“Currently there are 4,596 active applicants registered on the council’s housing waiting list.
“Data for 2013/14 indicates that the average waiting time for rehousing is 651 days, however this figure does not accurately reflect variations in property location, type or size.”
A spokesperson for the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales said: “Caerphilly County Borough Council remains within the various timescales set for complying with the recommendations and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the council is progressing these satisfactorily.
“In relation to the £500 redress, it should be emphasised that the Ombudsman is not a compensatory body.
“The Ombudsman is satisfied that the sum of £500 is appropriate in the circumstances to recognise the failings and uncertainty in relation to events.”
The council is undertaking a review of its housing procedure and a new lettings policy will be introduced next year.
The matter was referred to the Policy and Resources Scrutiny Committee who will follow the progress of the new policy.
It sounds bad, but what has she been doing since 2002? She can’t have kept in regular touch with the council, or she would have realised there was a problem much sooner. She has also imposed a massive restriction on her housing choice by sticking to one street. You could wait a lifetime for a house, as they might all be bought under right to buy, or those than cant afford to do that are not likely to move out to a more expensive privately rented accommodation. If her situation was as dire as she describes why wasn’t she constantly hounding the council? She would never gone off the radar had she done that, but instead her need is so great she leaves it for 12 years?
I suspect the council’s poor record keeping is to blame to represtn the true situation at the time, so they could not provide an adequate defence to her allegations.
I would like to state that its 26 years and not 15 as stated, and I have been caring for my mum with no help from anyone all these years, if it was up to one certain polititian he would have put my mum in a care home (cheeky git), I am pleased to say that we pick up the keys to our new home tomorrow on my Birthday so its the best present ever, its just a matter of getting some carpets and furniture and we can move in and I can continue to be there to care and support my mum.
Hi Diane, Happy Birthday. If you would like to chat about what’s happened and the happy ending further please feel free to get in touch. gareth@caerphillyobserver.co.uk
It is so easy to assume to know other people’s circumstances. however I have been there every step of the way for this person and short of letters after letter phone calls after phone calls filled with falls promises and reassurances from the council that they will look into it. only to fall foul of a system that continued to fail this person. So I suggest u think before commenting next time. It was actually 26 years waiting to be housed for this person but the records before 1999 the council conveniently lost.
Answer the following:
1. Why should the taxpayer provide a home for her?
2. Why should the taxpayer pay her a carers allowance?
3. Why does she not work more hours to be able to afford a professional carer?
4. Why does she not work more hours to take out a mortgage on her own house with enough space for her mum?
5. Where has she been living since this ‘crisis’ started? With her mum, I assume. Why does she not continue to live with her mum?
6. Why does she deserve anything at all?
7. Why should the council look into it?
Why are you such a horrible git . And what rights have you got to interfere in other people’s lives that don’t even concern you in the first place DEAN . You people make me laugh aii this lady is a very good carer and she does a brilliant job so if I was you I would be very careful in what you are saying .
Urgh! Where has she been living all of this time? In private accommodation or with her mum I assume. She should continue to live with her mum. The woman already receives carers allowance and now wants a home. If she wants a home she should get a job and buy one. Put the carers allowance into professional care subsidised by a potential salary. The woman is irrational, inefficient, and making and economic loss. Something for nothing attitude again.
Yes very true, there seems to be a great number of family members who are paid a carers allowance to look after another family member – a nice little earner that one. Surely if your mother, father, son or daughter requires care it is the duty of a family member to give that care and not be paid by the state to do it. If that person requires a high level of care then they should be in a care home. Yes I image each case is different and very challenging and there are most likely a large percentage of genuine carers who need financial support but like the welfare system there are probably some who are milking it for all it’s worth, yes it’s the something for nothing Labour attitude.
An economic loss?? Not very bright r we? A family carer gets 32 pounds a week to care for a family member, to put a family member into care even run by the state it will cost the tax payer a minimum of £600 ya obviously a presumptuous idiot like the majority who like to comment but surely u have degree of mathematical understanding? ??
You have done a very simple analysis (failed at it too) of the accounting cost. You have not even mentioned the economic cost. The economic cost includes the opportunity cost as part of the total costs (put it into Google to find out what it is). In this case the woman’s opportunity cost would be the potential money she could be earning in a proper, full-time job instead of relying on the carers allowance. The woman should work more hours, her salary used pay for a professional carer, and the carers benefit not claimed. The taxpayer will not need to pay any costs at all. As the taxpayer will have no out-of-pocket costs, the woman is still making an accounting loss.
If the woman was working she could pay for a professional to care for her mum providing an overall higher level of care. WIN! The woman could take out her mortgage on a house with enough space to house her mother as well. The house will be better quality than social housing. WIN! The taxpayer will not need to pay anything. The rules on carers allowance could be tightened saving us money. WIN! If she works society is better off.