Reading Borough Council (202108870)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108870

Reading Borough Council

28 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of adaptations to the property.

Background and summary of events

The resident has held a secure tenancy at the property since February 1993. The property is a one-bedroom flat situated on the first floor of a maisonette.
The resident has confirmed they have several vulnerabilities, including Multiple Sclerosis (MS), a disabling neurological disease. The landlord was made aware of the resident’s condition in 2006.

Summary of events

On 20 May 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord requesting several works to the property and queried what grants they had to assist with the work. The resident considered the works they requested as adaptations. These works included the following:
1. The replacement of the bath with a shower.
2. Electrical works.
3. Replumbing of all water pipes and heating pipes.
4. Painting, decorative, and structural works.
5. Swapping the location of the bathroom and the kitchen.
The landlord made enquiries with the Occupation Therapist (OT) team, who confirmed that apart from the work requested to change the bath to a shower, none of the work requested would be covered under the disabled adaptations budget. The OT advised that during a visit to the property in March 2020, the resident was provided with aids to use the bath and could manage independently. The OT explained that as a result, the resident would not qualify for a low-level access shower. The OT also noted that such a shower could not be installed in the property, as it was not on the ground floor. The team confirmed that there were no concerns with the resident using bath aids provided but it was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities including their health issues.
In July 2020, the OT wrote to the landlord again and stated that the resident requested assistance with various works with the property. They said that the property required some clearance before any works could be carried out as it was cluttered. They also mentioned that the stairs in the property were steep and a serious fall hazard.
In response, the landlord recommended that the resident move to a ground floor property to meet their health needs. It noted that if required in the future, a stairlift could not be fit in the property as the stairs were steep. It was also concerned that a stairlift would not meet the resident’s long term need if there was a possibility that they became a wheelchair user in the future. It suggested that its housing team support with the clearance of the property and the OT agreed to speak with the resident about the recommendation for a move.
In August 2020, the landlord raised the following repairs it said had been reported by the resident:
1. Plastering work to the bedroom wall, ceiling, the stairwell, and kitchen.
2. Removal of the living room ceiling tiles as they were a health and safety risk.
3. A quotation for the installation of additional plug sockets in the bedroom, kitchen and living room
4. The investigation of the soil pipe.
5. A survey to see whether a garden tap could be installed and if so, whether this would be a recharge and the cost of this.
6. The investigation of the alcove, which the resident described as ‘obstructive’.
7. The investigation of the hallway cupboard door the resident reported hit the smoke alarm and light fitting when opened.
8. An investigation of the location of a hallway socket the resident reported was difficult to reach.
9. The investigation into whether a radiator could be installed in the entrance way, as the resident reported this was damp.
When the repairs were raised, the landlord also made a referral to the social inclusion team to support the resident with the clearance of the property.
The social inclusion team contacted the resident on 13 August 2020. The resident explained to them that they wanted to hear from the OT about the work they requested as adaptations before arranging the clearance. The social inclusion team went back to the OT following the call and asked for a discussion to agree a way forward.
On 3 September 2020, the landlord received another letter from the resident chasing a response to their requests for adaptations and a complaint about the social inclusion officer who contacted them in August 2020. In this letter, they explained that they decided to stay in the property but wanted the works carried out and wanted assistance with the clearance and decorations in the property. The resident wanted to know what the landlord would pay for and what grant funding would pay for.
The landlord held a meeting with the OT team on 8 September 2020 and it was agreed that the OT team would discuss the recommendation of rehousing with the resident.
On 16 September 2020, the landlord received another letter from the resident chasing a response. It arranged a survey of the property to establish the repairs required. It found that:
1. Plastering works were required and that decorations could be covered under an Old Age Pensioner (OAP) decoration.
2. The living room ceiling tiles needed to be removed as they were a health and safety risk.
3. A crack in the kitchen needed checking and plastering.
4. Quotes were required for the additional plug socket installation in the rooms requested.
5. The soil pipe needed investigating.
6. A garden tap could not be installed as the property was on the first floor.
7. The hallway cupboard door needed investigating.
During the survey it was noted that there was no room in the property to access the areas where repairs or investigations were required, as there was clutter in the property.
In October 2020, the landlord offered to attend again to see whether there was room in the property to address the issues which needed action. The resident explained that they could not manage having repairs done at that time and had asked the landlord to stop. The resident agreed with the landlord, that they would get in touch once they felt better.
The landlord then received a formal complaint from the resident, dated 5 October 2020. The resident complained that they had not received a response to their request for the works in the property. The landlord issued its stage one response to the complaint on 5 November 2020, and:
1. Acknowledged that it failed to respond to the letters the resident had sent and apologised. It noted that going forward, it would take steps to ensure that residents are provided with a timely response.
2. It confirmed that it was unable to consent for a level access shower to be installed and the reason. It also explained the OT’s observation of the stairs and said that it was unable to provide a stairlift if there was a need for this in the future. It explained that for those reasons, it highly recommended that the resident moves to a different property.
3. Explained that it understood that repair works were outstanding to the property and that the resident had asked for the works to stop due to health reasons.
4. It said that areas in the property need to be cleared to enable the works to go ahead and acknowledged that the resident felt unable to do this. But, explained that the ceiling tiles specifically, where a health and safety issue and needed to be removed. It confirmed that it could offer the resident support to clear the area so that this work could be carried out and provided the resident with contact details if they wished to accept the offer of support.
The landlord reports that on 3 December 2020, it received notification that the resident had responded. This Service does not have copies of the points raised but the landlord said that the resident appeared to make new complaints and did not seem to understand its position. It proposed a meeting with the resident to help the resident understand its stance and sent the resident a letter requesting a meeting. It advised that until the meeting took place, the stage 2 response was on hold.
The resident did not contact the landlord again about the complaint until May 2021, when they escalated a second complaint, they raised about the social inclusion officer who contacted them in August 2020.
The parties discussed the complaint in June 2021 and the resident explained that once they had clarification on the works to be completed in the property, they could plan the clearance. The resident advised that they did not need support with doing this. The landlord agreed to send the resident its previous response to the complaint, as the resident advised that they had not received a response to their request for adaptations.
The landlord provided a final response to the resident on 6 July 2021. It encouraged the resident to arrange and plan for the essential work to take place and reiterated that it could offer support with this if they required.
The parties were in contact about the complaint after the response and the landlord confirmed that it could provide details of the work to the resident so that they could make the necessary arrangements. The resident advised that they would think about it and get back to the landlord.
The resident referred the complaint to this Service on 2 August 2021 as they did not believe that the landlord had responded to their requests for the works they requested as adaptations and had not confirmed what grants they could obtain to assist with getting the work done.

Assessment and findings

The landlord has an adaptations policy which states the following:
1. Tenants can contact its housing team or social care service to request an assessment of need to assess whether adaptations are necessary and appropriate.
2. It will only consider adaptations if an Occupational Therapist has assessed the household situation and recommended that the works are both necessary and appropriate, given the nature of the disability.
3. Tenants may organise their own adaptations privately and at their own expense, subject to agreement from the council. In all cases, tenants must obtain written agreement from the Council before carrying out any alterations or adaptations to their property. The Council have a right to refuse permission if the work would interfere with any maintenance on the property, may cause a potential health and safety risk or would breach any regulatory requirements, or affect other tenants.
4. The circumstances in which adaptation work is not reasonable or practical to do, applicants will be requested to consider transferring to a property more suitable.
When the landlord received the resident’s correspondence in May 2020, it was appropriate that it made enquiries with the OT team in the first instance to establish what adaptations, if any, the resident required.
The OT confirmed what works of those the resident requested, that would fall under the adaptations budget and why the resident did not qualify for this adaptation work.
In July 2020, the OT highlighted concern with the condition of the property and what action needed to be taken before any work to the property could go ahead. The OT also raised with the landlord, the concern about the stairs.
The landlord took the feedback from the OT into consideration. Based on its understanding of the resident’s medical condition and the likelihood of the resident requiring adaptations in the future, it recommended that alternative accommodation to a ground floor property was a suitable resolution.
Its policy explains that it can request that residents transfer to a more suitable property if it is not reasonable or practical to adapt the property. Its recommendation was in line with its policy as it had determined that it could not install the low-level shower or, a stairlift, if one were required later to the property.
Initially, the landlord took reasonable steps to establish the best course of action to address the concerns raised about the resident’s ability to cope in the property. There is evidence that it agreed to have a discussion with the resident about the recommendation for a move however, there is no evidence that the landlord communicated its position in respect of the requested work or, the grants for this work, to the resident between May and October 2020.
In the six months between May and October 2020, the landlord took steps to address the works the resident had requested in the property and raised repairs to investigate further. It raised the relevant repair orders in August 2020 and made the referral so that the resident could get the support with the clearance with the property. This was proactive as the OT had highlighted the need for the clearance of the property before any works could go ahead and the landlord acted on this.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s formal complaint in November 2020, was the first response the landlord provided where it clarified that it had not agreed adaptations to the bath. In this response it also noted the OT’s point about the stairs and justified its recommendation that the resident apply for a move to another property. It acknowledged that it had not responded to the correspondence the resident had sent and apologised for this. It confirmed that in future, it would seek to provide responses to residents within a timely fashion which was appropriate.
In respect of the remainder of the works raised for the property, it confirmed its willingness to do these repairs, however, the landlord did not explain what specific works these were and that they were not considered adaptations. It acknowledged that the resident had asked for the works to be placed on hold, due to their health and highlighted what support it could offer the resident so that the works could go ahead.
Throughout the responses to the resident, the landlord did not clarify the position to the resident’s query about whether it would pay for the works or, whether any grant would fund any of the work.
This was a shortcoming, the resident believed that all the works they had requested were adaptations. Therefore, the landlord was expected to provide clarification on the status of the works, whether there were adaptations and confirmation of what works had been raised as repairs.
The landlord had established following its visit in September 2020, that some of the work the resident requested would not be carried out. Specifically, it confirmed that the garden tap could not be installed, and that the alcove was not in need of any work as this was part of the building structure. There is no indication that it informed the resident of this when it provided its response.
As a result of the landlord’s failure to clarify its position regarding the works and who would pay for this to the resident from the outset, the resident continued to chase it for a response on the matter.
After the resident escalated the complaint in December 2020, the landlord recognised that they may not have understood its position. It requested a meeting with the resident as this was an opportunity for it make things clear. It placed the stage 2 on hold until this meeting took place. Its complaints policy explains that at stage 2, the investigating officer will meet with the resident, record this in writing and following this, submit a response within 30 working days. Its request for the meeting was in line with its policy.
The policy does not detail what course of action the landlord is expected to take in instances where a meeting cannot take place, but in keeping with good practice, it is expected that the landlord does not unreasonably delay responding to a complaint on the basis that the resident did not contact it to arrange a meeting. In this case, the landlord failed to provide any response to the stage 2 complaint after it was raised. After the letter it sent on 11 December 2020, it made no further effort to follow up with the resident or provide the resident with a conclusion to the complaint with the information it had available.
Residents are also expected to pursue complaints with a landlord member within a reasonable timeframe. There is no evidence that the resident raised the complaint again until May 2021, as part of an escalation request for a separate complaint they had raised about the social inclusion officer.
Once the parties were able to discuss the complaint in June 2021, the landlord recognised that the resident was seeking details of the works it had agreed. It understood that the resident wanted clarification on the works and offered this but did not provide it to the resident within its response.
The resident had been explicit throughout correspondence they sent that they wanted to know what work was being carried out, who would undertake the works and the length of time the works would have taken to complete. They notified the landlord that if they had this information they could then plan and arrange for the property to be cleared. The landlord notified the resident that the property would need to be cleared. Although, it failed to clearly set out what work or investigations it intended to carry out, aside from the removal of the living room ceiling tiles, when advising the resident of this.
The landlord made reasonable efforts to establish with the OT, whether the resident required adaptations in the first instance. Based on the information, it received from the OT, it made a balanced decision and recommended that the resident apply for re housing, in line with its adaptations policy. The resident has however, indicated in the correspondence it sent to the resident in September 2020, that they are not willing to move from the property.
The landlord took steps to address the work the resident requested in the property however, it failed to clarify to the resident what specific work it would be completing, that the work was not considered adaptations, who would fund the work and whether the resident had any entitlement to grants as resident had asked.
When it responded to the complaint, the landlord recognised that it had not responded to the resident’s queries, and it offered apologies for this. The provision of the stage two response was unreasonably delayed by seven months, as the landlord did not take steps to resolve the stage two complaint after it did not hear back from the resident when they requested a meeting in December 2020.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of adaptations in the property.

Reasons

The landlord did confirm to the resident that the adaptation work they requested to the bathroom specifically, would not be possible and recommended that the resident move. In addition to this, it took steps to act on the remainder of works that the resident requested throughout the property.
When it responded to the complaint, it acknowledged and apologised for not providing the resident with a response at an earlier opportunity.
The landlord however, failed to clarify to the resident that the works they requested other than the bathroom, would not be considered as adaptations and would be dealt with as repairs. It also did not respond to the resident’s query about the funding for the works they requested. It agreed that it would be carrying out work to the property, however, did not provide details of the work it would complete, despite the resident making it aware that they were seeking this so that they could prepare for the work.

Orders

Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is to:
Write to the resident, with a copy to this Service and:
1. Confirm the specific works it intends to complete to the property and those works it will not complete, with its reasons.
2. Provide an estimated timeframe for how long the works are expected to take.
3. Detail what action it requires the resident to take to prepare the property so that the works can be carried out and reiterate any support that it can offer with this.
4. Clarify its position regarding the resident’s requests for grant funding for any of the work it is not willing to complete as part of the responsive repairs.
Pay the resident £150 compensation for the delay in it providing a response to the stage two complaint.