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

Annual Report of the Ombudsman 2003

Chapter 3 - Mayo County Council - Essential Repairs Grant Refused

Mayo County Council

Essential Repairs Grant Refused

An elderly woman applied to Mayo County Council for an Essential Repairs Grant (ERG) in February 1996. The Council approved specific works, at an estimated cost of £5,000 (€6,350) and a grant, in the sum of £1,800 (€2,285), was approved in respect of the agreed works. However, when the Council's Engineer inspected the work on completion, he reported that extensive renovations had been carried out to the property, including the provision of dormer windows. The estimated cost of the completed works was £24,000 (€30,500). The Council Engineer reported that this was far in excess of the original approved works and that, having regard to the terms of the Council's ERG Scheme, the Council was unwilling to pay the original approved grant, in the sum of €2,285.

Article 5(1) of the Housing (Disabled Persons and Essential Repairs Grants) Regulations, 2001, provides that

"a housing authority may pay a grant to a person carrying out essential repairs to a house where in the opinion of the authority, the repairs, while less than those appropriate to render the house fit in every respect, constitute repairs it considers are reasonably necessary to prolong the useful life of the house."

My Office tended to the view that, given the complainant's particular circumstances, there were good reasons for her undertaking the extensive repairs which were above and beyond the works originally approved. In saying this, my Office had to accept that these additional works, given they were undertaken without the prior knowledge and inspection of the Council, did not qualify for grant assistance under the terms of this particular grant scheme.

It was my Office's view that, if the works which had originally been approved had been completed, then the complainant should be entitled to the original grant, as approved, in respect of the specific approved works. Accordingly, my Office asked the Council to review its handling of the case. The Council reviewed the case but, unfortunately, declined to make any grant payment to the complainant in respect of the approved works which she had undertaken.

Not satisfied with its response, my Office approached the Council again and drew its attention to the fact that, shortly after the complainant commenced the approved works, a storm came while the roof was off the house and, as a result, she felt she needed to undertake extensive repairs to the house. My Office asked the Council whether, having regard to the particular circumstances of this case, namely the occurrence of a storm when the roof was off the house, it had considered the principle of force majeure.

This principle, which is a feature of European law, relates to circumstances which are outside the control of an individual and where the consequences cannot be avoided. The principle enables flexibility in the application of rules with a view to avoiding the creation of an inequity. My Office took the view that, in this particular case, the principle of force majeure applied and this appeared to be a matter the Council had not taken into account in coming to its original decision. Again, my Office asked the Council to reconsider its position having regard to the specific details of this case and, again, the Council refused to reconsider the case.

At this stage, given the experience with this particular case and others, my Office requested the Council to review its ERG Scheme having regard to the current governing Regulations. In response, the Council agreed to undertake a comprehensive review and this review is ongoing. My Office again suggested that this case be revisited in the context of the ongoing review. As a result, the Council finally agreed to pay a grant in the sum of €2,285, in respect of the approved works which had been undertaken by the complainant.

Back to contents