• You are here:
• Home /
• Publications /
• Annual Reports /
• Annual Report of the Ombudsman 2003

Annual Report of the Ombudsman 2003

Chapter 2 - Ballinasloe Town Council - Disabled Persons Grant

This next complaint arose because Ballinasloe Town Council gave a commitment to pay a Disabled Persons Grant but subsequently indicated that it did not have the resources to meet its commitment. Following the active intervention of my Office a solution was found and the grant was paid.

An elderly couple, living in a two storey, three bedroomed Council house were approved for a Disabled Persons Grant by Galway County Council. The works involved the provision of a downstairs bedroom and shower at an estimated cost of €40,000. However, as the couple resided in the administrative area of Ballinasloe Town Council, the grant application had to be progressed through that Council. In June 2002, the Town Council wrote to the complainants' local public representatives and confirmed that it was in the process of having plans prepared for the approved works. However, on 14 October 2002, the Town Council told the couple that it was not in a position to undertake the proposed works. In doing do, the Council asked them if they wished to be transferred to a vacant bungalow. In response, the couple declined the transfer offer. Later the Council informed the couple that, instead of proceeding with the downstairs facilities, it was prepared to install a stair lift in their home.

The Town Council explained to my Office that, given that the complainants were living in a Council house, it would have to finance the entire cost of the proposed work. The Town Council was concerned that the maximum grant payable to it by Galway County Council was only €13,543.03 and the Town Council would have to finance the balance of the work (approximately €26,500) from its own resources. Accordingly, the Town Council informed the complainants that, due to costs, it was not in a position to fund the proposed extension and the complainants were again offered the tenancy of another bungalow.

My main concern with the Council's handling of the case was that in June 2002, it advised the couple, via their public representatives, that it was in the process of having plans prepared for the extension to their home. Having then reversed that decision the question of the couple's legitimate expectation came into play. Legitimate, or reasonable, expectation may arise either from an express promise given by a public body or from the existence of a regular practice which a client of a public body may reasonably expect to continue. The effect of the doctrine of legitimate expectation is to protect the client against an arbitrary change of position by a public body.

In relation to the Council's offer of a house transfer, I did not consider it reasonable for the Council to expect the elderly couple to relocate to another house, albeit a bungalow, at this stage of their lives. I also took into account the fact that they had been living in their current Council house for more than 22 years. They had a good rent payment history and, in fact, had carried out some improvements to their home, at their own expense, over the years. I was also conscious of the fact that, during their 22 years in the house, they had built up a social support network in the area.

In relation to the Council's offer to provide a stair-lift, my Office examined the Council's file and it appeared that the complainants were not anxious to accept this offer on the basis that the applicant claimed she suffered from vertigo. While, on the face of it and from an economic point of view, the Council's offer seemed reasonable, my Office noted that the suggestion of a stair-lift was not supported by any expert medical opinion confirming that such a solution might be suitable in the applicant's particular circumstances. In fact, there was no evidence on the file to suggest that the Council had sought a medical opinion. Accordingly, my Office felt that, if the Council saw the provision of a stair-lift as a solution, then that proposal should have been supported, and endorsed, by the Chief Medical Officer.

The Council told my Office that it had declined to undertake the works which were originally approved on the basis that it did not have the resources to make up the shortfall required, i.e. €26,500. I accept that this was a substantial amount of money. However, for all the reasons set out above, I did not accept the Council's alternative proposals. Accordingly, my Office drew the Council's attention to the possibility of submitting this project for financing under its Housing Capital Construction Programme. Under this Programme the proposed works would possibly qualify for 100% State grant assistance. In addition, this Programme allows for extensions, to relieve overcrowding, to Council owned houses up to a value of €70,000.

Having reviewed the case, the Council agreed to proceed with the preparation of plans for the provision of a downstairs bedroom and bathroom for the couple.

Back to contents