R Janet Adams v The Commission for Local Administration in England The London Borough of Lambeth (Interested Party) The Public Law Project (Intervener)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Bean |
| Judgment Date | 11 November 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] EWHC 2972 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/15082/2009 |
| Date | 11 November 2011 |
[2011] EWHC 2972 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Bean
Case No: CO/15082/2009
and
and
Tim Buley (instructed by Pierce Glynn) for the Claimant
James Maurici (instructed by DAC Beachcroft) for the Defendant
Ranjit Bhose (instructed by Mark Hynes, Director of Law and Democracy) for the Interested Party
The Public Law Project intervened by way of written submissions.
Hearing dates: 1–2 November 2011
The Defendant commission was established by the Local Government Act 1974. Its members are the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and a number of Local Commissioners for England. Just as the Parliamentary Commissioner, whose office dates back to 1967, is universally known as the Ombudsman, so the Local Commissioners under the 1974 Act are known as Local Government Ombudsmen (or collectively as the Local Government Ombudsman), as are the staff authorised to carry out their functions and make decisions on their behalf pursuant to paragraph 13 of Schedule 4 to the 1974 Act.
The Claimant Janet Adams and her younger sister Joan live together in the London Borough of Lambeth. Joan has a number of very serious physical health problems and requires help with both mobility and personal care. She also has long-term depression. Janet is the primary carer for Joan but herself has a number of significant health problems. Neither can work and they survive on a very low income.
Until July 2009 the two sisters lived in private rented accommodation. This was unsuitable for their needs. In 2005, with assistance from a local advice centre, they applied to the Council for urgent re-housing under the Council's Allocation Scheme. This was classified as a "group F referral". The request met with no success prior to December 2007 when the advice centre closed. They were referred to their current solicitors, Pierce Glynn.
The Council agreed to give the sisters priority for referral under group F, but this did not advance matters in practice because very few two bedroom homes were allocated to Group F. In the period from October to December 2008 Pierce Glynn wrote a number of detailed letters of complaint to the Council but did not obtain a response.
By letter of 4 February 2009 Pierce Glynn, on behalf of the Claimant, made a complaint of maladministration against the Council to the Defendant. The case was allocated to an investigator, Ms Jane Beck, to whom I shall refer as "the Ombudsman" or "the LGO". After an initial acknowledgment by letter of 9 February she replied in detail setting out a summary of her understanding of the complaint on 27 February, confirming that she would investigate it. After some correspondence both with Pierce Glynn and with the Council, the LGO wrote on 21 May 2009 to the Council. Having set out the details of the complaint made by Pierce Glynn she went on:
"My present view is that it is likely there had been maladministration by the Council which has caused injustice to Joan and Janet Adams. A central part of the complaint is that they need to move from their present unsuitable accommodation and there has been a delay by social services in making a 'Group F' referral to housing…
The Ombudsman always welcomes attempts to settle complaints locally. He is likely to consider that it would be reasonable to pay compensation to the Complainants in this case including a time and trouble element. The Ombudsman may also recommend that the Council should pay their reasonable legal costs associated with pursuing their complaint. But their most immediate need is for them to move to suitable affordable accommodation. If they were able to secure suitable accommodation, that would be a major step in putting things right. One way of achieving this might be to move their application into Group B [emergencies]. Please let me know whether the Council would agree to do this or to take some other step that would assist Joan and Janet Adams to secure suitable accommodation quickly. I would be grateful if you would reply to this letter and comment on my suggestion for a partial resolution in the next three weeks. If a partial resolution cannot be agreed at this stage, I would like to make arrangements to view the Council's files and to interview the key people directly involved with the complaint…"
This carefully argued letter, from which I have given only short extracts, achieved an almost instantaneous result. By letter of 29 May 2009 Lambeth's Corporate Complaints Manager confirmed that the Council had authorised the case for housing in Group B and agreed that the sisters would be offered a Council property, 112 Granville Road. The letter concluded by accepting that a compensation payment would be appropriate for the sisters' "time and trouble", and asked the LGO to advise what figure was considered suitable. The Claimant and her sister moved to the new property on 8 June 2009.
By letter of 12 June 2009 to Pierce Glynn the Ombudsman set out her provisional view that there had been maladministration by the Council which had caused injustice to the Claimant and her sister. In particular, she accepted the complaint of delay by the Council for over two years in making a Group F referral and awarding Group F priority. At one point in the letter she wrote:
"I consider that it would be reasonable to expect the Council to pay compensation to Joan and Janet Adams in this case including a time and trouble element and their reasonable legal costs associated with pursuing their complaint."
Pierce Glynn replied on 23 June 2009. They passed on their client's thanks to the LGO on realising "that it was as a result of your intervention that they have finally been offered some suitable accommodation". They made a number of detailed points about the provisional findings on the complaint. The LGO replied on 2 July 2009 and wrote that "it would be helpful if you would let me know whether Joan and Janet Adams have incurred legal costs as a result of pursuing their complaint with the Council and the Ombudsman."
On the same date the LGO wrote to the Council saying that, as she saw it, the remaining issues were a review of the Council's relevant housing allocation procedures, and compensation for the complainants' time and trouble and the reasonable legal costs they had incurred in pursuing their complaint. She asked to be told whether the Council would agree to review its procedures in accordance with her suggestions within 3 months of her decision on the complaint. As to compensation, she asked whether the Council would be prepared to offer a payment of £2000 to recognise the injustice to Joan and Janet Adams which she had identified and pay any reasonable legal costs. She did not copy this letter to Pierce Glynn.
On 14 July 2009 Pierce Glynn replied to the Ombudsman's letter to them of 2 nd July 2009. The letter began (encouragingly) "your letter addresses all of our client's outstanding concerns." The remainder of the letter concerns legal costs. Pierce Glynn informed the LGO that "as Joan and Janet have been assisted under the Legal Help Scheme they have not themselves incurred any legal costs. However, the remuneration we receive under the Legal Help Scheme is very limited. As a result, unless Lambeth are required to pay our reasonable costs, all of the work we will have done in assisting Joan and Janet with this complaint will have been at a loss". After referring to one previous case (in 2005) in which another Local Government Ombudsman, Mr Redmond, had recommended that the local authority concerned, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, should pay the complainant's reasonable legal costs even though the solicitors involved were acting under the Legal Help Scheme, they continued:—
"Whilst we accept that some complaints to the Ombudsman may be appropriately pursued without legal representation, the issues raised by this complaint were exceptionally factually and legally complex. That complexity, combined with Joan's and Janet's very significant health problems, meant that Joan and Janet would have found it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to pursue these complaints without assistance… In these circumstances we suggest that Lambeth should bear responsibility for Joan and Janet's reasonable legal costs, rather than expecting the Legal Services Commission (whose budget is currently under exceptional pressure) to pay part of those costs, and to expect this firm to write off the remainder."
Ms Beck responded on 28 July 2009 asking for an estimate of costs and for an indication of what contribution, if any, the Legal Services Commission ("LSC") had made to them. She added that "the Ombudsman will only recommend that the Council should meet a complainant's legal costs in exceptional circumstances and the facts in each individual case will be carefully considered."
Pierce Glynn replied on 28 July saying that the LSC had not so far made any contribution, and that if the Council were to agree to pay their reasonable costs in the case they, the firm, would not submit a claim to the LSC for payment. They enclosed two alternative schedules of costs. Schedule A, showing costs calculated at market rates, used a figure of £180 per hour (in accordance with the Costs Office Guidelines) for a solicitor of six years post-qualification experience in an outer London firm....
To continue reading
Request your trial