• You are here:
• Home /
• Publications /
• Annual Reports /
• Annual Report of the Ombudsman 2007

Annual Report of the Ombudsman 2007

Chapter 3 : Selected Cases

CIVIL SERVICE

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

Dispute About Rural Environment Protection Scheme Payments

A man complained that he and his son had been treated unfairly by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in relation to their Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS) applications.

The father was a successful participant in the first REPS. He then joined REPS 2000, received his first payment in January 2002 and his second in June 2003. He returned the application for payment for the third year with the sections which are normally completed when requesting payment crossed out and “Section B” completed. This section is headed “To be completed by participants who do not wish to continue participating in the scheme.” He recorded here that he intended to join the early retirement scheme in April 2004 and his son would then be leasing his lands and joining REPS.

It was not until August 2004 that the REPS section rang the applicant’s advisor to say that as a new plan had not been received before the anniversary date of January 2004 the plan was terminated and the first two years payments, amounting to €13,313 would have to be refunded.

The case subsequently went to appeal and the Appeals Officer upheld the Department’s decision. In his decision he took account of Section 2 3.1 of the REPS which provides;

“Participants must notify the Department within six weeks of any reduction in the area farmed and where such change of area necessitates an amended or new plan, same must be submitted before the following anniversary date”.

The Appeals Officer concluded that, in order to avoid a penalty, the new plan would have to have been submitted prior to January 2004 but as the farmer’s son did not submit a new application until October 2004, this was too far after the anniversary date to be admitted as a continuation of his father’s plan by the Department.

When I examined the case I did not think that the Appeals Officer’s decision was consistent with the fact that the original REPS applicant (the father) had continued to farm the land, of which he remained the owner, until June 2004. The Department was aware that he continued to farm after the end of the second payment year as he submitted an ewe premium application early in 2004 and was obliged to retain the ewes until April 2004. The Department was also aware that the land was not transferred to his son until June 2004. In these circumstances, it seemed to me that it would not have been correct for the son to submit a plan for land which was not in his possession in January 2004, which the Department said was “the anniversary date” of his father’s REPS plan. There was no “reduction in the area farmed” or change of ownership until June 2004. I was of the opinion that the farmer’s advance notification of the changes to take place in 2004 was appropriate and that the requirements of Section 2 3.3(a) of the scheme were also met. This section permits transferred land to be included in another REPS plan without reimbursement of aid already paid. I referred the case to the Director of the Agriculture Appeals Office, who has the power to revise an Appeals Officer’s decision if it is incorrect in law or in fact and asked that he review the decision in the light of my concerns. I also drew his attention to the fact that the REPS plan submitted by the farmer’s son as a plan in its own right (i.e. not a continuation of his father’s plan), was suspended by the Department on the grounds that the Department wished to await the outcome of my examination of the complaint. I was concerned that this made the review of the case all the more urgent as, clearly, the passage of time without any decision/payments is in itself damaging to the applicant. I subsequently discovered that the father’s application for the retirement pension was also suspended during this time.

It was, however, some eight months later that my Office received a response from the Acting Director of the Agriculture Appeals Office, which had undergone some loss of staff and reorganization in the meantime. The Acting Director considered the question of when the original REPS applicant ceased REPS farming and noted that the Department considered his “anniversary date” to be 1 January 2004 while the farmer’s agricultural advisor had put it as 1 January 2005. He noted in his decision that the transition from REPS farming to participation in the Early Retirement Scheme can be a complex and time-consuming matter.

He also stated that it was his interpretation of the facts that 16 June 2004 was the date the father ceased REPS farming, noting there was no evidence that he did not continue to farm in accordance with his plan. He said that it was his view that the relevant anniversary date was the first anniversary date after the date the lands were transferred, i.e. 1 January 2005. He said that the son’s plan which was submitted in October 2004 was not submitted after an inordinate delay considering the changing circumstances and in the context of a five year plan.

The Acting Director revised the earlier decision by the Appeals Officer in the case and wrote to the Department to recommend that the father be allowed to retain the monies received. My Office was subsequently in contact with the Department to confirm that the arrears of the early retirement pension which had been withheld were sent to the father and his son’s REPS application was accepted, with effect from 1 January 2005, so an arrears payment was made to him from that date.

The Acting Director of the Agriculture Appeals Office reviewed the case fairly and made a decision which resulted in payments being made to the father and son. However, it must be noted that that the family were without payments, either from REPS or the Early Retirement Scheme, through no fault of their own, for three years, which must have caused them much distress and financial hardship.

Office of the Revenue Commissioners

Communication Difficulties Regarding Tax Liabilities

A taxpayer complained to my Office about the manner in which the Revenue had dealt with his proposed arrangements to discharge taxes owed. The man, who had long-standing debts, complained that the Revenue had agreed to allow him certain flexibility in regard to how and when the debts could be cleared, but had then started civil proceedings to collect the money, in breach of normal procedures and in breach of the arrangements agreed with him.

The man had a tax bill owing for several years. His financial situation was complicated by the fact that he was going through marital separation and found himself unable to meet his debts until such time as the family home could be sold. On foot of an order from the Family Law Circuit Court, the family home was put on the market, an offer accepted, and a target date for completion was set. The taxpayer claimed that the Revenue was aware of the position and had agreed that they would await his return from holidays in order to have his tax affairs regularised. However, in his absence on holidays, the Revenue issued a seven day demand and, before that period had elapsed, started civil enforcement procedures. The taxpayer discharged the tax owing within days of the completion of the house sale, on his return from holidays, but was still faced with enforcement proceedings for the interest arising on the overdue tax. In addition, in the course of the proceedings he discovered that he could have had an option to appeal his case to the Appeal Commissioners, but he had not been informed of this and the time frame for lodging such an appeal (within 30 days of the assessment) had elapsed.

Following the complaint to my Office, I took the matter up with the Revenue Commissioners who then carried out an internal review of the complaint within the relevant District. Having reviewed the facts, it was accepted that the debts were due, the interest was properly due on the overdue tax and the Revenue had been entitled, according to normal procedures and the law, to take action to recover the full debt. However, the Revenue also noted that they had been incorrect in starting procedures to enforce the debts in the context of commitments that had been given to the taxpayer. The Revenue agreed, in addition, that a letter that had issued to the taxpayer in relation to civil proceedings was ambiguous and could have led the taxpayer to understand that the interest was no longer to be collected. In view of this, and the fact that the taxpayer had pleaded inability to pay, Revenue agreed that the interest, amounting to €5,445, was now irrecoverable.

Department of Social and Family Affairs

Non-Nationals Refused Child Benefit

A man approached my Office about a decision of the Department of Social and Family Affairs to refuse his application for Child Benefit. The man and his wife came to Ireland in 2002. Their son was born in Ireland in July 2002. Following his birth, his parents applied for and were granted an Irish passport on his behalf. The parents themselves were in the position where they had no official status in the State at the time of their son’s birth. They had, however, applied for residency through the mechanisms operated by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

In February 2003, following a ruling on the status of “Irish born children” by the Supreme Court, the applications process was revised. Further delays ensued as a result of the referendum on the 27th Amendment to the Constitution, which was followed by amendments to the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 2004. Revised arrangements for the consideration of applications for permission to remain in the State made by non-national parents of Irish born children were announced by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in January 2005. The child’s parents were eventually granted a “Certificate of Residency” by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform in April 2005. Their application for Child Benefit was eventually awarded with effect from May 2005, the month following the issue of their “Certificates of Residency”.

 

The complaint centred around the issue that their original application was refused on the grounds that they could not show a “Certificate of Residency” in March 2003, and that they should have been entitled to payment of Child Benefit with effect from August 2002. In examining the complaint, I scrutinized the Social Welfare legislation that was in force at the time of the original application for Child Benefit. Section 192 of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 1993, provided that a child shall be a “qualified child for the purposes of child benefit if - (a) he is under the age of 16 years, or... (c) he is ordinarily resident in the State...”. The child was born in the State in July 2002 and was issued with an Irish passport in August 2002 and therefore satisfied the provisions of this Section. Section 193 of the same Act provided that “a person with whom a qualified child normally resides shall be qualified for child benefit in respect of that child”. Subsection (2)(a) of the same Section provided that “the Minister may make rules for determining with whom a qualified child shall be regarded as normally residing”.

I wrote to the Department on the basis that there was no link, in the relevant legislation, between the requirement of the “qualified person” (i.e. the parent of the child) to have a Certificate of Residency and the entitlement of the qualified child to receive Child Benefit. In this case, the child was an Irish citizen, as proven by the issue of the passport to him in August 2002. The child was normally resident with his parents.

As the decision on the award of Child Benefit was made prior to the introduction of the Habitual Residency Condition, through the provisions of the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2004, I reasoned that the child should have been entitled to payment of Child Benefit from August 2002. I also concluded that the couple were put at a disadvantage as a result of the circumstances which unavoidably delayed their applications for a Certificate of Residency from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I am pleased to say that the Department re-examined the claim and decided, having reviewed the particular circumstances of the case, that the parents were entitled to Child Benefit from August 2002. This resulted in the payment of over €4,100 in Child Benefit for the period August 2002 to April 2005.

Department of Social and Family Affairs

Pre-1953 State Pension Application Disallowed

A special reduced pre-1953 State Pension (Contributory) was introduced under the Social Welfare Acts which became effective in May 2000. In order to qualify for this pension, applicants who did not qualify for a standard contributory pension, were required to have at least 260 contributions paid either before 1953 or both before and after 1953. This pension is payable at half the maximum standard rate of contributory pension.

An 89 year old man contacted my Office to complain that his application for the pre-1953 pension had been disallowed. He indicated that he had been in insurable employment in the 1930s and 1940s and that he should have had sufficient contributions in order to qualify for the pension. My staff examined the Department’s file on the case and it emerged that his application was disallowed as, according to the Department’s records, there were only 109 reckonable insurance contributions paid on his behalf. The man appealed the rejection of his application to the Social Welfare Appeals Office but his appeal was discontinued as he failed to provide the Appeals Officer with relevant information regarding his case. The case was then referred back to the Department’s Pension Services Office (PSO). However, on making enquiries with the PSO, it emerged that the file had been mislaid. Following a further search it was quickly located and forwarded to my Office.

Following an examination of the file, I confirmed that the man had provided the Department with details of his employment history relating to a specific period where no contributions had been recorded on his insurance record. However, it was apparent that no follow up action had been taken on foot of this information. In this regard, I wrote to the Department and following a detailed examination, which was carried out by a Social Welfare Inspector, it was decided to award the man replacement contributions as it was established, beyond reasonable doubt, that he had been in insurable employment for the period stated. This gave him the appropriate amount of contributions required to qualify for the pension. His application was subsequently approved and he received a weekly pension of €114.70 plus appropriate arrears in excess of €25,000. When my Office brought this case to the attention of the Department it took swift action to rectify matters and it has to be commended for that.

HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE

Health Service Executive: South

Nursing Home Subvention Refused

A 90 year old woman, whose only source of income was her Non-Contributory Old Age Pension, was refused a Nursing Home Subvention by the Health Service Executive (HSE), South.

The reason for refusing the subvention was that, in assessing the woman’s notional weekly income, the HSE applied a 5% notional income to the value of her principal private residence and a farm which she had transferred to her son within the previous five years. Using this formula the HSE arrived at a notional weekly income of €293.63 and this, coupled with the complainant’s Non-Contributory Old Age Pension of €172.40 per week, brought her over the income limit for Nursing Home Subvention purposes.

In this regard, Article 13 of the Second Schedule of the Nursing Homes (Subvention) Regulations, 1993 provides that:

“A health board may impute an annual income equivalent to 5 per cent of the estimated market value of the principal residence of the person, if it was not occupied immediately prior to or at the time of the application by a spouse, a son or daughter aged less than twenty one years or in full time education...”.

In addition, Article 19 of the Second Schedule of the Nursing Homes (Subvention) Regulations, 1993 provides that if an applicant has transferred the ownership of a farm in the five years prior to the application, the HSE may take into account any payment on transfer and/or any continuing income from the earnings of the farm.

It was clear that the woman had transferred her farm to her son about three years previously. However, from my examination of the farm accounts, I noted the farm was showing a loss. Accordingly, I felt that, in this particular case, Article 19 of the Second Schedule of the regulations was relevant. This gave the HSE the discretion to take into account any income, and by extension, any loss, from the farm holding.

In relation to the woman’s private residence, I accepted that the Nursing Home Regulations provide that the HSE may impute an annual income based on the estimated market value of the principal residence of the applicant. However, given that this is a discretionary decision, I felt that the HSE had some latitude with regard to each individual’s circumstances. Therefore, I had to consider whether, in this particular case, the HSE was using its discretionary powers in a reasonable manner. Furthermore, I noted that, the complainant was on the HSE’s waiting list for a public bed. However, when probed, the HSE was not able to say when she might be offered such a bed.

Accordingly, given that the HSE was not in a position to offer nursing home care to the woman, I asked it, in calculating her entitlement to Nursing Home Subvention, to consider dealing with the farm element in accordance with Article 19 of the Second Schedule of the Regulations and also to consider its discretionary powers under Article 13 of the Regulations in relation to the applicant’s private residence.

The HSE immediately reviewed the case and, having considered my suggestions, it agreed to pay a subvention of €190.80 per week towards the cost of the complainant’s private nursing home care. In addition, the HSE paid her approximately €5,000 which covered the period from when she first applied for the Nursing Home Subvention.

Finally, the HSE agreed to include the complainant on its waiting list for the payment of an enhanced subvention. I was happy with the HSE’s quick response and I would like to acknowledge its common sense approach to an issue which can often cause unnecessary stress and anxiety to some of our more elderly and potentially vulnerable members of the public.

Health Service Executive: Dublin Mid-Leinster

Motorised Transport Grant Refused

A woman, who suffered from constant back pain as a result of nerve damage, contacted my Office following the refusal of her application for a Motorised Transport Grant by the Health Service Executive (HSE): Dublin Mid-Leinster. The Motorised Transport Grant is a means tested grant for people with disabilities aged between 17 and 66, to assist with their mobility, and is payable towards the purchase of a vehicle where this is essential to help that person retain employment. The scheme also provides for the payment of the grant, in exceptional ircumstances, to a person with a severe disability, who lives in very isolated circumstances, and whose disability prevents him/her from using public transport.

The woman was in need of transport to enable her to attend medical appointments. Her medical circumstances meant that she could not sit or stand for any length of time, and she could not use public transport. Her home was situated one mile from the public bus stop, but she could not make the journey to her gate, let alone to the bus stop. Her application was refused on the grounds that she did not work, and she did not live in a very isolated area being within one mile of public transport. Taking into account the nature of this woman’s medical condition, and the fact that she required transportation on a regular basis to attend hospital and other medical appointments, I felt that there were strong grounds to request a review of her case. The initial medical assessment which had been carried out by an Area Medical Officer had been positively disposed towards granting the application, but the final decision rested with the Senior Area Medical Officer, who held the view that the complainant did not live in an isolated area. I made the point to the HSE that the complainant was isolated by virtue of her disability, given that she could not walk the distance to the bus stop, and could not actually use the bus service. The case was subsequently re-examined by an Appeals Officer who agreed that the woman was entitled to avail of the grant, given the circumstances of her case.

Public Respite Bed Refused

I received a complaint from the son of an elderly woman who had been admitted to Tullamore General Hospital, through the Casualty Department, suffering from a chest infection. The woman, who had previously suffered a stroke and had Parkinson’s Disease, was normally cared for at home by her family. Her Consultant recommended that she avail of a period of convalescence prior to her returning home.

When the family sought to have their mother placed in the Birr Community Nursing Unit for two weeks convalescent care, they were refused by the Admissions and Discharges Committee (this Committee manages admissions and discharges to the Unit, and has responsibility for assessing all clients for residential care provided by the HSE). The Committee had considered the views of the multidisciplinary team, including those of the physiotherapist and occupational therapist, and recommended that the woman be discharged home with the support of the Community Rehabilitation Team. The family was unhappy with this decision, and complained to my Office that they were forced to obtain convalescent care for their mother in a private nursing home, even though she was a medical card holder, and there were two public respite beds available at that time. They were also concerned that there was no appeals mechanism in place to deal with their complaint, and they felt that they had no voice in relation to the provision of care for their mother.

As a consequence of my examination of this complaint, I contacted the HSE and suggested it consider:

§  Adopting a more flexible approach with regard to the occupancy of the respite beds in Birr, given the demand for these beds at any given time, and the difficulties in obtaining private nursing home accommodation for patients who might require respite care following discharge from the general hospital;

§  Giving relatives or family members an option to attend during the multidisciplinary assessments of patients;

§  Giving applicants for respite or rehabilitation care an invitation to submit their request in writing for consideration by the Admissions and Discharges Committee so that the main carers can have a formal input into the multidisciplinary assessment system;

§  Conveying the Committee’s decision either orally or in writing to the applicant with an outline as to how that decision was reached;

§  Establishing an appeals mechanism so that applicants who are refused can appeal this decision to a person who has not been involved in the original decision-making process - this would create a more transparent system.

In its response, the HSE acknowledged that public respite beds were available in Birr at the time the woman sought convalescence, and it agreed to refund the complainant the costs incurred for private nursing care, (€462), not covered by nursing home subvention. It also recognised the importance of having a family member present during the assessment of an elderly patient, and stated that while this might not always be possible at the time of certain assessments, consultation would take place regularly either by phone or in person with family members or relatives.The HSE also recognised the benefits of encouraging family members to put in writing the underlying reasons for requesting respite or convalescence care, which could then be put before the Admissions and Discharges Committee for consideration. It also accepted that decisions made by the Committee should be conveyed to the family outlining the basis for the decision reached. Finally, the HSE agreed that an appeals structure should be put in place which would allow applicants whose request had been refused, an opportunity to have their application examined by a person not involved in the original process.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES

Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council

Disabled Persons Grant Refused

In dealing with housing matters, in particular applications for grant assistance towards the cost of adaptations to cater for an elderly or disabled person, local authorities make their decisions based on the rules of the relevant schemes. This case illustrates the difficulties that can arise when the matter for decision is somewhat out of the ordinary.

Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council (DLRC) approved an application for a Disabled Persons Grant of €6,300 in respect of a curved stair lift to enable the complainant’s mother live at home following a diagnosis of terminal cancer. As the staircase in the house was curved, the stair lift had to be made to suit the house and this delayed its installation. In the meantime, the health of the complainant’s mother deteriorated and she passed away. The complainant notified the Council and the company providing the stair lift that her mother had died and that the stair lift was no longer required. The company, however, had incurred costs of €3,000 in making the stair lift and sought payment from the complainant but the Council said it would not pay the complainant because the stair lift had not been installed. As the Council would not change its decision she complained to me.

In explaining its decision to my Office, the Council quoted clause 7 of the relevant regulations which states: “The making of a grant will be subject to the work being carried out to the satisfaction of the Council and in compliance with the Building Regulations.” It claimed that the scheme did not permit payment of the grant where the work had not been carried out. In further contacts with the various parties it emerged that a similar situation had arisen in another local authority which had paid a grant although the stair lift had not been installed. When the second local authority had confirmed that it had, in fact, paid the grant in similar circumstances on the grounds that it had been approved in good faith, I asked DLRC to review its position on the matter. The Council agreed and stated that it wished to alleviate any hardship on the complainant and if the complainant believed she was contractually committed to paying the company providing the stair lift, the Council would look favourably on recouping her expenditure. The complainant paid the company concerned and sent the receipt to the Council for reimbursement. I considered this was a satisfactory outcome although a great deal of work needed to be done by my staff to persuade DLRC of the merits of the complainant’s case.

Louth County Council

Essential Repairs Grant Refused

A complaint was made to my Office in relation to an application to Louth County Council under the Essential Repairs Grant (ERG) scheme for repairs to a roof. The Council refused the application on the grounds that the scheme was available to those over the age of 65 only. In its initial response to my Office, the Council referred to a circular issued by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government concerning the scheme. The circular stated that the scheme is directed primarily at providing grant aid to elderly people living in poor housing conditions and that the grant is intended to facilitate having those conditions improved sufficiently to allow such people to remain in their homes for their lifetime and to prevent them having to move to a different area to be re-housed by the local authority. The Council also stated that the decision to deem “elderly” as 65 or over, was based on the fact that the allocation of social housing to the elderly is restricted to those who are 65 and over. The Council also noted that the complainant had not made an application for social housing which she was eligible to do if her accommodation was unsuitable for habitation.

My Office pointed out to the Council that the Essential Repairs Grant (ERG) was provided for under the terms of the Housing (Disabled Persons & Essential Repairs Grants) Regulations, 2001 - SI 607 of 2001 - which states as follows:

“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, whilst 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 noted that the Regulations did not provide for an age limit in respect of the ERG. It was also noted that the Department’s Circular, while stating that the scheme was directed “primarily” at providing grant aid to the elderly, did not exclude payment of the grant to someone who, while not elderly, would otherwise qualify for the grant. It appeared to my Office that, under the Regulations, the Council had a discretion to pay the grant to someone under the age of 65 who would otherwise qualify for the grant.

I take the view that where public bodies have discretionary powers, they should be exercised in a reasonable manner having regard to the principles of good administration and all the circumstances of a case. I accept that, in situations where public bodies have limited resources and excess demand, it may be reasonable that there should be some basic predetermined selection criteria. Having regard to the fact that the ERG scheme was directed primarily at the provision of grant aid to elderly people living in poor housing conditions, I did not consider it unreasonable that the Council would include age as a criterion to be taken into account in deciding an application for the grant. However, having regard to the Regulations, I took the view that for the Council to adopt a general rule of refusing an ERG application solely on the grounds of age may have been too narrow a focus to adopt.

My Office wrote to the Council requesting it to review its approach to the application in this case. The Council subsequently informed my Office that it had reviewed the matter and had decided to pay the grant to the complainant.

It should be noted that the grant in this case was under the Housing (Disabled Persons & Essential Repairs Grants) Regulations which have since been revoked. However, the substantive issue which emerged in the case may arise in other situations.

Sligo Borough Council

Dispute about Tenant Purchase Application

A seventy year old man complained that Sligo Borough Council treated him unfairly in relation to his efforts to purchase his house under the 1997 Tenant Purchase Scheme (TPS). He claimed that having received an offer from the Council in 1998 to purchase his house, he subsequently accepted the offer but, later, the Council claimed it had no record of his agreement to purchase. The complainant was adamant that he signed a consent form and claimed the Council had lost it.

The Council stated that according to its records, the complainant did not take up the offer. Having examined its file, my Office wrote to the Council and requested a review of the matter because there was evidence that:

§  There had been contact between the complainant and a Council official (Official X) subsequent to the offer having been made;

§  The Council’s own records were not as comprehensive as they might have been in relation to the application;

§  His request for a review of the valuation did not appear to have been acted upon;

§  Files were missing;

§  The Council had acknowledged confusion about the application in a letter to a public representative;

§  The Council might not have conducted an exhaustive search for the document the complainant said he signed;

In its reply, the Council stated that after valuation by the auctioneers, the complainant was issued with a standard letter offer price. Official X recalled discussing the price with the complainant and indicating to him that the house could be re-valued to take account of the works which had been carried out to the house. At that time, a general Tenant Purchase File (TPF) was held in the Housing Section. This file contained requests for valuations etc. which were held until a tenant indicated his/her intention to proceed with purchase. Official X was almost certain that correspondence relating to the complainant was placed on this file, however, this file had been mislaid inadvertently

It seemed to me, therefore, that the Council’s statements of reliance on its records to disprove the claim of the complainant, was undermined by the revelation of the existence of records relating to individual cases on a general TPF which was missing. The position seemed to be as follows

§  A letter of offer issued in December 1998;

§  Sometime later the complainant discussed the letter with Official X of the Council and the matter of a further valuation was raised by him. The complainant also said he signed the consent to purchase;

§  No review of the valuation was done at the time it was requested;

§  The The Council had a general TPF in operation at the time which contained documents relating to individual cases, including that of the complainant. This file was missing;

Against this background, I requested the Council to review the position it had adopted and suggested that a visit by staff from my Office might be useful in the context of the review.

The Council advised me that following a review of the case and a more recent thorough search of all housing records, correspondence relating to the complainant’s tenant purchase application had been located. This correspondence, it appeared, was filed incorrectly in 1998. This happened during a major refurbishment programme carried out between 1998 and 2000 which necessitated the relocation of the Housing Function, staff and records. The Council apologized for any inconvenience caused to my Office in the investigation of the matter and assured me that the complainant’s tenant purchase application would be honoured promptly by the Council. The Council wrote to the complainant and advised him he would be assisted by the Council in purchasing his house at the agreed 1998 price of €32,505. He subsequently contacted the Council and asked that the rent paid by him in the meantime be deducted from the sale price together with an allowance for works carried out to the house. The Council considered his request and agreed to reduce the price by €10,255 giving a new purchase price of €22,250. The complainant was very satisfied with the outcome.

Back to contents