Runnymede Borough Council (202102366)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102366

Runnymede Borough Council

14 March 2022

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. This complaint is about the landlord’s decision to refuse the resident’s request for a stairlift in her property.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the property which is a two-bedroom house.
3. The resident has a health condition which causes mobility issues, making it difficult to use the stairs, she has also suffered multiple strokes. The resident also has carers who attend her home three times a day to offer assistance with food and her personal care.
4. The resident made an application for a stairlift to be fitted as an adaptation to her property. As part of the application, an Occupational Therapist report (OT report), was undertaken which the landlord received in February 2020. The report confirmed that the resident has difficulty accessing the stairs and is finding mobility difficult due to her having severe arthritis. The report concluded that installing a stairlift could be a solution to this.
5. A letter was sent from the resident’s GP dated 21 May 2020, requesting that a stairlift was fitted to the property.
6. The landlord’s records show that it had internal discussions during July 2020, regarding whether installing a stairlift would be the best solution. This included correspondence with the Occupational Therapist and Social Services, to get an understanding of the resident’s needs.
7. Later in July 2020, the landlord decided to decline the request for a stairlift and offered the resident the option of potentially moving into Independent Resident Living accommodation. It said this was based on the fact that it faces high demand on its housing stock and the resident was in a two-bedroom property which was under-occupied. It said its policy was not to carry out major adaptations on under-occupied properties where there were other suitable alternatives. Based on the resident’s health, it said that there may be other accommodation which was more suitable for her needs.
8. During the period between July and October 2020, the landlord had contact with the resident’s representatives by phone, letter and email and discussed its decision with them. The resident’s representatives disagreed with the landlord’s decision. They said that resident needed a stairlift and should not be required to move as this would greatly impact on her mental health.
9. On 27 August 2020, the landlord spoke with the resident about the possibility of moving. Its notes show that the resident expressed that she was capable of living independently and was unwilling to move from her property.
10. On 30 October 2020, the resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s decision to refuse her request for a stairlift.
11. In the landlord’s stage one response to the complaint, it stated that:

1. The resident was under-occupying her home and there was no noted medical reason why the resident would need to have a second bedroom.
2. Whilst the OT report suggested a stairlift as an option, the landlord retained the responsibility to decide how to manage its housing stock.
3. Its Adaptations policy states that it is not reasonable to carry out adaptions on an under-occupied property.
4. The OT assessment said that the resident suffered from depression which was caused by external factors outside of the current complaint. This was being managed with the help of the resident’s GP.
5. It considered that assisting the resident to move house would be a more reasonable solution to her needs.

12. When the resident escalated the complaint the landlord confirmed in its final response that it agreed with its original decision. In addition, it explained that the resident would be deemed a priority for a one bedroom property. It said that there were various options for this within the resident’s locality.
13. The resident referred the complaint to this Service as she was unhappy with the landlord’s decision not to install a stairlift.

Assessment and findings

14. The landlord has an adaptations policy which states the following:

1. The Occupational Therapist assessments will be considered by the Council who decides what is reasonable in relation to its need to make housing available to a wide range of people in housing need, over the long term. (Section 4.3)
2. Adaptations may be declined in favour of rehousing where…the property is under- occupied under the bedroom allocation in the prevailing Allocation Scheme. (Section 4.4)
3. Requests for major adaptations could be rejected in the following circumstances…under-occupying by one or more bedrooms. ( Section 4.8)
4. The council will not install stairlifts in under occupied-properties. (Section 4.8)

15. After the landlord received the OT report, its records show that it had internal discussions about whether adaptations should be made to the resident’s home. It asked for input from Social Services and the Occupational Therapist regarding its decision. It looked at the concerns raised around the resident’s mental health but found that the condition she was suffering did not relate to the issues with her housing. It decided that alternative accommodation may be a better solution taking into account the residents needs and its own policies around adaptations. It was appropriate that the landlord considered the resident’s circumstances and its own relevant policies in its decision making.
16. The landlord relied on its Aids and Adaptations policy in responding to the original request and the complaint raised by the resident. Of particular relevance to this complaint are requirements within the policy for the landlord to consider:

1. The needs of current and future tenants and their families.
2. The level of a tenant’s disability and whether there were other alternative properties with adequate adaptations as required by the resident, or properties where such adaptations could more easily be made.

17. In its initial response the landlord explained that the resident was under-occupying her property. It noted that there was no evidence that the physical or mental health challenges the resident was facing would prevent her from being able to move home. It said that moving home would a better long term solution. In its final response the landlord gave further clarification on the reasons for declining the resident’s applications. It also explained that it had properties in the local area for which the resident would be eligible as a priority.
18. The landlord explained that it could assist the resident with moving to an alternative property. By doing so the landlord demonstrated that in rejecting the application it had still considered what would be appropriate for the resident’s needs and made an offer of assistance accordingly. In taking these steps the landlord was acting in accordance with its policy. It is understandable, from the resident’s point of view, that she would like a stairlift fitted to her current home and believes this is necessary. However, the actions taken by the landlord show that it has complied with its policy by attempting to meet the needs of the resident in an alternative property.
19. In summary, in considering the resident’s application for adaptations to her home the landlord recognised the individual circumstances of the resident. It considered the possibility of fitting a stairlift, and whether, in the long term, this would be likely to meet the resident’s current and future needs. It also weighed this against its duty to make the best use of its housing stock to meet the demands and needs for housing in its area. It has explained clearly its rationale for rejecting the resident’s request and has presented her with alternative housing solutions to meet her needs. The landlord has therefore considered the resident’s request appropriately and in accordance with its adaptations policy.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the decision to refuse the resident’s request for a stairlift in her property.