Rykneld Homes Limited (202216532)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216532

Rykneld Homes Limited

9 June 2023

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 landlords handing of reasonable adjustments and general site management during external improvement works to the resident’s property.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord by way of a mutual exchange. The tenancy started on 22 May 2017. The property is a three bedroom house.
The resident lives with her partner and two children. The resident’s son has a diagnosis of autistic spectrum disorder. He is highly sensitive to loud noise and changes to his normal routine and environment. Autism is defined as a disability under the Equality Act 2010.
The landlord works with contractors to carry out the improvements to its properties. For clarity, this report will refer to the landlord’s contractors as “contractors”. It should however be noted that even when using contractors, the landlord retains its obligations and responsibilities as a landlord.

Policies, procedures and legal obligations

The Equality Act 2010 provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. Under the Act, the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled.
The Social Housing Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard requires registered providers to “treat all tenants with fairness and respect” and “demonstrate that they understand the different needs of tenants, including in relation to the equality strands and tenants with additional support needs”, with a specific expectation that providers will “demonstrate how they respond to those needs in the way they provide services and communicate with tenants”.
The landlord’s equality and diversity policy says that the landlord’s approach to customer care is based on the following:
1. Developing and delivering a variety of complementary methods of access, including face to face, outreach, telephone and electronic-enabled mechanisms such as email, the internet, text messaging and social media.
2. Making sure people know what is available and how to gain access.
3. Understanding and responding to the different needs of different tenants and customers, using profiling and Equality Impact Assessments (EIA) to inform our approach.
The Work at Height Regulations (2005) say that scaffolding should be inspected by its users:
1. Following installation and before the first use.
2. At least every seven days thereafter.
3. Following significant alteration.
4. Following adverse weather or any event that is likely to affect its strength or stability.
The contractor’s customer information booklet says that they will work closely with the landlord and:
1. Arrange for a dedicated Liaison Officer to work on this project and answer any questions about the work being carried out.
2. Keep you informed on how the home improvement programme is progressing.
3. Make sure that we explain each stage clearly. If any options are available, we will provide any information you need in order to make an informed choice.
4. Give you sufficient notice so that you know when we are going to carry out any work on your home.
5. Maintain a high professional standard whilst works are undertaken in and around your home.
6. Provide prompt responses to any concerns or queries.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. Stage one complaints are responded to within 10 working days, and stage two complaints are responded to within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation and claims policy states that when complaints include a claim for compensation, it will always consider what actions could provide a suitable remedy. It will also consider practical solutions which may be suggested by the complainant. Remedies can be categorised as follows:
1. Apology.
2. Provide requested service.
3. Review working procedure.
4. Review Policy.
5. Staff training or guidance.
6. Staff disciplinary action.
7. Financial redress, compensation or refund.

Summary of events

The landlord contacted the resident on 10 November 2021 to inform her that it would be undertaking substantial energy efficiency and external improvement works to her home. The landlord said that the work would include a survey, significant structural repairs, including replacement brickwork, windows and a new roof. This was to be followed by the installation of external wall insulation.
On 10 December 2021, the landlord visited the resident and completed a customer profile prior to the commencement of the works. The resident said that a lot of time was spent discussing her son’s autism and how this affected him. The resident said that she informed the landlord that her son was extremely sensitive to noise, which could cause him to have severe meltdowns, resulting in aggressive behaviour, harm to himself, others and property. The resident asked the landlord to carry out the noisy work whilst her son was at school. The landlord noted on the profile form that the resident’s son had autism and that he would be at school between 7:45am and 2:40pm each day. The resident agreed to inform the landlord of any changes to her son’s routine, such as school holidays.
Work started at the resident’s property on 27 January 2022. On 28 February 2022, the landlord visited the resident as the resident had reported that there was a long wire hanging across the front door, which was hazardous for the children when entering or exiting the house. The landlord noted that the family were unable to use the front door. The landlord contacted the contractor and asked them to remove or secure the wire.
On 23 March 2022, the resident sent an email to the landlord as she was unhappy with the state of her property. She asked the landlord whether the family were supposed to use the back door to enter and exit the property. She told the landlord that the back door was difficult to lock and that when her son got home from school, he would panic that he could not get in the house, as he only had a front door key. He had to clamber over the mess under the chute. The resident also said that she had originally given authorisation for the contractor to place a skip on the front garden, however she had not given permission for the contractor to use her garden for site storage. She said that there had been materials on the garden for weeks and the amount of material had increased without the resident’s permission.
On 5 April 2022 at 6:00pm, the resident had tried to use her hot water to run a bath. The boiler had cut out, so she rang the emergency office number and asked for an engineer to attend. The problem could not be resolved, so the resident remained without heating and hot water overnight.
The resident contacted the landlord the following day and said that she was not happy about the lack of communication and that the issue with the boiler needed to be resolved that day. The resident also said that the telephone wire that had been dangling dangerously outside the front door on and off throughout the work had not been put behind the insulation as promised. The back door had moved so much that it would barely close or lock. Every time it was closed, plaster would fall off which had caused a hole above the back door. This had allowed dirt, dust and rubble to enter the property.
The resident sent the landlord a further email on 7 April 2022 due to continuing issues with the contractors and the improvement work. She said:
1. The communication with the landlord had been extremely poor over the past month.
2. Her property had been left in an unacceptable condition. Contractor vehicles had blocked access to the driveway. Tools and materials had been left around the property. There was no safe way of getting in or out of the house. The back fence panel and a post had been removed leaving the garden exposed and unsafe for the dog.
3. The contractor had not adhered to the request for no noisy work after 3pm. The site manager said that he was not aware of the request. Contractors had turned up unannounced to gain access to the property when they had been asked to give notice.
4. On one occasion, the gas boiler had been left switched off. The contractors working at the weekend had caused a huge amount of stress on the family. Her son was extremely overwhelmed with the disruption to the house and not being able to safely get into the house when he came back from school.
5. The roofers had dropped debris from the roof, which had almost hit her daughter. There had been no consideration for the garden as although permission was given for the skip, permission had not been given for the other materials. The contractors had damaged the flowers in the garden by placing materials on top of them or trampling over them.
On 11 April 2022, the resident sent the landlord an email. She told the landlord that on 7 April 2022 she had walked around the area and looked at the other properties that were having the same work completed. She said that all the other properties, that were under construction, had been left spotlessly clean and tidy at the end of the working day. She noted that there was no rubbish lying around, the walkways were clear, and the paths had been brushed clean. Yet her own property was still a complete and utter mess even after complaints had been made to the landlord.
The resident highlighted the fact that there were children living in her property, one of which was disabled. She said that other children also lived on the street and they could easily access her property, which had not been fenced off. She said that both her and her partner had to regularly enter or exit the property in the dark, which was unsafe. She said that she had to clean up the side of the property on a daily basis so that the family dog could go outside without hurting herself on the discarded screws, fixings and splinters.
The landlord immediately made enquiries with its contractors. The contractors responded to the landlord on the same day. They said:
1. The reason they could not do a thorough clean up on the resident’s property was because they had to wait to move the scaffolding to access the multitude of debris that had built up throughout the course of the structural work. As soon as they were able to move the scaffolding around the base of the property, they made sure that the whole property was cleaned down thoroughly.
2. The three stages of the insulation process could be messy work and took place over a series of days. The debris was cleared as the messy work was complete. The site manager thought that the operatives did not put that much effort into clearing away on the Friday as they had to be off site around 3:00pm, and they had requested to work on the Saturday to get the plot completed but the request had been denied by the resident.
3. The site manager said that he would personally walk around the property that evening to make sure the plot was left in a respectful state.
The resident contacted the landlord again by email on 19 April 2022 following a further issue. She said:
1. That morning at around 8:35am the site manager had knocked on the front door at the same time as the online food order had arrived at the back door. He said that the gas engineer would be able to do the pipe work and would also check if a leak was still an issue.
2. She felt extremely overwhelmed with being spoken to as soon as she opened the door and was trying to get her shopping in. She said that she understood the contractors needed to get the work done but appointments were meant to be booked and agreed in advance.
3. She felt that the gas engineer was a little rude, as he knocked on her door at 8.50am when she had just got out of the shower. He tried to push the door open and said, “Can my lad come in to turn the boiler off?”. She asked him to give her ten minutes and when she informed the engineer that he could come in, he said “yay finally”, which was unacceptable.
4. She felt very pressured as her son, who was not very well, was still in bed. He did not cope well with sudden routine change and was not prepared to have to move from his bedroom. No appointment had been made and the contractor had just presumed that this would be acceptable, even though it was the half term holidays.
5. She did not appreciate the fact that they were at the end of the project and there were still concerns with communication.
The resident emailed the landlord on 25 May 2022 to confirm the outstanding work at her property that had already been reported to the site manager. She said:
1. The corner of the back doorstephad crumbled away during the work.
2. The panel on the new gate had moved out of place.
3. When it had rained, the rain had come down the side of the house and dripped water onto the back step which had made it extremely slippery.
4. The back of the house, at the bottom, did not look finished. She had been told that it was complete, however there were broken bits of plastic covering underneath, which did not look right.
The resident forwarded the landlord pictures of her front garden on 13 June 2022 as the landlord seemed to be under the impression that the resident had a walkway under the scaffolding to the front door, which was incorrect. The resident told the landlord that all the materials for two properties were in her garden, including the scaffolding access for her neighbour’s property. The resident pointed out that there were two children living in her property, when her neighbour’s property was safe and tidy and they had no children. The resident reiterated that the front garden was difficult enough for a non-disabled person to navigate, and therefore, the impact for her disabled son was significant.
An email from the contractor to the landlord on 16 June 2022, sent in response to the resident’s concerns, said that the pictures provided by the resident showed work in progress. The contractor said that the scaffolding was built in a way that allowed the resident to safely enter and exit the house. The set up of the scaffolding, skip and barrow run had seemed the best and most suitable option at the time. The contractor also said that they did not think it was fair or right that the resident kept bringing her disabled son into what had happened on site. The contractor said that if the impact on the resident’s son would be so significant, then this should have been noted, raised and then reiterated to the site manager before any work was carried out and prior to the contractor arriving on site. The site manager had not been aware of the situation until part way through the structural process and had they been made aware, then provisions could have been made.
The resident submitted a stage one complaint to the landlord on 19 June 2022. The resident said:
1. In January 2022,the induction for the improvement works took place. It was informative and all her questions were answered. A lot of time was spent discussing her son’s autism diagnosis, and the impact the work could have on him due to his extreme sensitivity to noise. It was made very clear that extreme noise could cause him to have severe meltdowns which would likely result in aggressive behaviour, harm to himself, others and property.
2. This was a huge worry for the family as they knew that they would have difficult times with their son due to the noise, unfamiliar faces, change of routine and the visual structure of their home. She requested that the noisy work was carried out whilst her son was at school and finished before her son returned home around 2:45pm.She also informed the landlord that the family did not want work carried out at the weekends.
3. She wanted the landlord to explain why reasonable adjustments were not put in place for a disabled child when this had been discussed and agreed at the induction. She felt that the landlord had discriminated against the family based on her son’s disability.
4. She said that the information provided by the landlord and the contractor was misleading as they were not kept informed of the progress of the work or given notice of appointments for contractors to attend their home. Work had started earlier than planned and the site manager had knocked on the door, without any notice, saying that the contractors were outside waiting to start. The contractors did not provide a safe entrance or exit, they did not protect her home or treat her home with respect.
5. The family had been left without essential services overnight. The family felt that their home was treated as though it was unoccupied. They had given the landlord a comprehensive list of their grievances, however there had been a complete disregard for the family throughout the work and the impact on the family had been catastrophic, and the stress it had caused had been unimaginable. Her son’s mental health had deteriorated rapidly, to the point where he had to seek medical attention. The health and safety, lack of communication, and failure to take their needs into consideration had been wholly unacceptable.
6. The resident provided the landlord with a copy of a letter from Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services which confirmed that he had been negatively impacted by the work done on the family home and it was believed that the building work (including loud noises and working when he was home from school, when he would normally expect quiet) had been a contributing factor in the recent decline in his mental health, which meant that he was unable to sit his GCSEs at school.
The landlord visited the resident on 21 June 2022 to discuss the complaint. The resident confirmed that she felt that the standard of customer service throughout the works had been unacceptable. Although the landlord was aware of her son’s autism and the impact the works would likely have on him, the landlord did not make reasonable adjustments to its processes to accommodate her son’s needs. Although the work was now complete, the impact on her son had been so significant that he had missed sitting his GCSEs and no longer wanted to leave the house. Her son was undergoing counselling and she had taken five weeks off work to care for him. The resident said that she wanted the landlord to address all the points of her complaint and issue a formal apology with assurances that changes would be made to the procedure to ensure that other families did not experience the same issues.
In an email conversation on 29 June 2022 between the landlord and its contractors, the resident was referred to as “awkward” for rearranging appointments on short notice.
The landlord sent a stage one complaint response to the resident on 4 July 2022. It said:
1. Work times agreed during the induction process: the school times were noted and it had confirmed that reasonable adjustments would be made wherever possible, in consideration of the additional needs. It did advise that it could not guarantee that this would be possible on every occasion, due to the nature and time constraints of the work. It had evidence that the resident was consulted regarding work times and specific appointments and it had evidence that works were stopped when requested, whilst ensuring that any disruption would not cause any detrimental effects to the property. Agreed works had been cancelled with minimal notice at the resident’s request, which had significantly impacted the progression and productivity of the works. It said it was sorry that the works had had a detrimental impact on her son, however it had evidence that it had tried to make reasonable adjustments where it had been possible to do so. Therefore, this element of the complaint was not upheld.
2. Consultation over start of works: any potential start date given at the induction was provisional as it was determined by the progression of the wider programme and operative availability. The resident had agreed that works could start when the site manager knocked on the door on 27 January 2022. Should she have given any indication that she did not agree to the works commencing, they would not have started until an agreement had been reached. Therefore, this element of the complaint was not upheld.
3. Information in the induction booklet: it was sorry that the resident felt that the contractor did not do everything they could to minimise disruption to the resident and her family throughout the duration of the works, and that her home was not treated with respect or protected from dust or mess. Some disruption and inconvenience could not be avoided and it was impossible to eliminate dust or mess entirely, and every effort should have been made to keep this to a minimum. The standard working hours were 8:00am to 5:00pm Monday to Friday. Customers were notified if the contractor needed to work outside those hours. The booklet did say that they would aim to complete noisy work after 9:00am, but this would not apply where the nature of the work required this to be completed outside of these hours.
4. Lack of communication and notice to remove belongings: it had explained in November 2021 that belongings would only need to be moved during the window installation and notice of this was given. It had evidence that the site manager was proactive and made regular visits to customers. However, it had partially upheld this element of the complaint as the storage of materials could have been managed better, including the site clear up at the end of the day. It apologised for any inconvenience caused and made assurances that this had been raised with the contractor so that it would not happen again.
5. Essential services overnight: the resident had been left with no heating or hot water from 6:00pm on a day in April 2022. The boiler flue protection had come loose in high winds which had obstructed the flue and caused the boiler safety cut off to activate. It apologised for the inconvenience but as the issue was not a direct result of the works, it could not have been foreseen or prevented. Therefore, this element of the complaint was not upheld.
6. Out of Hours emergency contact: the booklet should not have given the details of its out of hours service. It had requested that these details were removed to prevent this from happening again. Therefore, this element of the complaint had been upheld.
7. Scaffolding and safe entrance and exit: safe egress via the front door was maintained during the works. The only time that there was a restriction was when materials were delivered to carry out the roofing works the following day. This was addressed as soon as it was reported and the materials were moved. Therefore, this element of the complaint was not upheld.
8. Issue with rear door: the access was restricted for an unreasonable amount of time as the frame had moved and caused difficulty when opening and closing it. The issue was raised for several months but not corrected. It agreed that this was not corrected in a timely manner and it apologised for any inconvenience caused. This element of the complaint was upheld.
9. Accident and incident reporting: the resident had reported an incident of debris falling from the scaffold. This was recorded in the site accident book as a near miss. This element of the complaint was part upheld as it was satisfied that the appropriate health and safety advice was given to the resident prior to the commencement of works.
On 15 July 2022, the resident contacted the landlord by telephone, as she was unhappy with the landlord’s stage one response and requested that her complaint was escalated to stage two. On 27 July 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident and requested that she provide written grounds for considering the complaint at stage two.
On 11 August 2022, the resident confirmed her escalation request in writing. She said:
1. She wanted to know why, if her son’s school times were noted, they were not adhered to. She was not told to contact the site manager with any issues or concerns. The family understood that, as the landlord had been informed of her son’s disability at the induction, it should have informed its contractors. On an occasion when she had spoken to the site manager, he stated that he was not aware of her son’s disability or the working hours she had requested.
2. Missed and cancelled appointments: some of the appointments were made without agreement, so they had to be cancelled due to work commitments. An appointment had to be cancelled when her son was ill in bed, as the boiler was situated in his bedroom. On the occasion when the work was stopped, it was because of an ambulance outside her home as her son had attempted to take his own life. She did not feel that the landlord understood the true impact of the work on her son. She did not feel that the landlord fully appreciated that any form of change or disruption to his life or surroundings could cause the amount of distress it had on him or the family. The entire building works had caused such a huge level of distress and financial loss of earnings, due to her son needing care and support at home following his attempt to take his own life.
3. Working hours: she was not notified when the contractors would be working outside of the standard hours.
4. Left without essential services: on 5 April 2022 she was not aware that the family would be left with no hot water or heating overnight. The landlord attended that evening but could not rectify the problem. It was not until the next day that a gas engineer attended and fixed the issue.
5. Scaffolding: during the scaffolding work, there was no safe entrance or exit due to the skip chute restricting access. There was no walkway and the back door could not be used for several months. The family had to regularly climb over items to gain access to the front garden to enter and exit the property.
6. On 22 February 2022, there was no safe way of exiting the house due to scaffolding posts across the front door. The positioning of the skip and site materials made it easier for the contractors and not the residents. The property was never tidied up at the end of the working day, like the other properties on the project.
7. Health and safety hazards: numerous health and safety issues were brought to the landlord’s attention, including blades left unattended, medication left on scaffolding, scaffolding spikes not covered and the ladder guard rarely used. These concerns had not been addressed.
8. Complaints and uncompleted work: the landlord had been informed of uncompleted work such as a broken back step, leaking canopy, broken pavers from scaffolding, broken mower from scaffolding clips left in grass and damaged rendering. As a busy working mum with two children, she did not have the time to, or want to, keep writing to stress why she was highly dissatisfied.
The landlord visited the resident on 8 September 2022 to discuss the stage two escalation request. The resident agreed to the landlord’s request to extend the deadline for the response. It was agreed that the response would be provided by the end of week commencing 12 September 2022.
In an internal email dated 13 September 2022, the landlord confirmed that it only verbally outlined the details of the resident’s son’s autism with the contractors and requested that they “try to keep noisy works during school hours”.
The landlord sent the resident its stage two response on 13 September 2022. The landlord said:
1. It was clear from the customer profile form completed prior to the work that the information regarding her sons’ autism was provided. This should have been explored further to fully understand the potential impact of works on the family. It did not believe that this was considered sufficiently in the planning of the works.
2. It had been provided with copies of text contact between the resident and the contractor with regards to start times/days etc. This showed that she was provided with the opportunity to say if an appointment was not convenient and appointments were changed to accommodate the resident. However, it accepted that communication and planning could have been better. It, therefore, partially upheld that part of the complaint although it would need further evidence to consider compensation for loss of earnings.
3. The contractor had blocked up the boiler flue to ensure it was not damaged during the works, which should have been unblocked at the end of the working day. When the out of hours service attended this should have been unblocked to make the boiler operational again. This part of the complaint was upheld.
4. It did not believe that the planning and installation of the scaffold, placement of skip and chute was good enough to provide the resident with clear access at all times.
5. The site management was not of the appropriate standard and the resident should have received a formal response to the issues raised during the works. This part of the complaint was upheld.
6. The broken back step would be replaced, the leaking canopy would be resealed, broken pavers would be replaced and the cracks in the render would be repaired and finished appropriately. Compensation for the broken mower would be provided upon receipt of proof of purchase and model number, etc. This part of the complaint was upheld.
7. It apologised for the resident’s experience during the works. It said that there had been several learning points for both the landlord and the contractor.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as this is a legal matter which is better suited to a court to decide. However, this report has considered whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s concerns and her request for reasonable adjustments during the building works. The resident may wish to seek independent advice with regards to any legal recourse she may have in relation to these matters.
The resident has also expressed concerns regarding the impact the situation has had on her son’s mental health. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. Claims for personal injury must be decided by a court, who can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. However, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident and her family.
Given the known vulnerability of the resident’s son, the landlord would be expected to demonstrate that it had taken steps to ensure that it understood the needs of the resident’s son and to demonstrate that it had responded to those needs in the way it provided its services in line with its obligations under both the Equality Act 2010 and the Social Housing Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard. Under the Equality Act 2010, the landlord also had a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments, such as changes to its processes for the management of its improvement works.
The landlord was made aware of the resident’s son’s autism at the visit on the 10 December 2021, where this was discussed in detail. The evidence shows that the landlord did nothing more than note this information on a customer profile form, and verbally inform the contractor, requesting that they “try to keep noisy works during school hours”. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments was unreasonable and inadequate and shows a significant lack of understanding of both its legal obligations and its own equality and diversity policy.
The landlord’s equality and diversity policy states that it will use profiling and equality impact assessments to inform its approach to understanding and responding to the different needs of customers. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord completed an equality impact assessment on this occasion or considered reasonable adjustments to its processes in line with its policy and its obligations. This is a significant failure on the part of the landlord.
The landlord’s failure to fully inform the contractor of the resident’s son’s vulnerabilities, and the likely impact of the work on him, had a bearing on the general behaviour of its contractors. The evidence shows that, although not all of the contractor’s purported failures could be attributed to the fact that they were unaware of the required reasonable adjustments, a significant proportion of the failures were as a direct consequence.
The email from the contractor to the landlord on 11 April 2022 says that the likely reason for the operatives “not putting much effort into clearing away on the Friday” was because “they had to be off the property around 3:00pm, and they had requested to work on the Saturday to get the plot completed but the request had been denied by the resident.” This suggests that the lack of understanding on the part of the contractors, as to the reasons for the time constraints, resulted in the resident’s property being left in an unacceptable condition.
The email conversation between the landlord and its contractors on 29 June 2022 further supports this conclusion when the contractor referred to the resident as “awkward” as she had changed or cancelled several appointments. This was unreasonable and unfair, and although this was said between the landlord and contractor, it is further evidence of the attitude and lack of understanding that contributed to the overall failings.
Further, in an email from the contractor to the landlord on 16 June 2022, the contractor acknowledged the landlord’s failure and the consequences of that failure. The site manager said, “if the impact on the resident’s son would be so significant, then this should have been noted, raised and then reiterated to the site manager before any work was carried out and prior to the contractor arriving on site”. The contractor also said that had it been made clear to them in the early stages of the development, then perhaps provisions could have been made for the resident like they had done for another household on the same project.
This evidence confirms that the contractors had implemented some sort of adjustment to its processes whilst working on a different property, which the landlord should have been aware of. Therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude that, had the contractors had the correct information at the start of the work at the resident’s property, they could have acted accordingly.
The site was evidently set up to make matters easier for the contractors, rather than for the resident and her family. In the email between the contractors and the landlord on 16 June 2022, the contractor said that perhaps it would have been a better idea to have the barrow run running off the neighbouring property. However, the contractor pointed out that this would have made the barrow run at least three times longer than the one made on the resident’s garden, and due to issues on site with scaffolders, the shortest option had seemed the best and most sensible option. This is further evidence that, had the contractors been aware of the resident’s situation, and although it may have had some impact on the operation of the site for the contractors themselves, adjustments could have been made to reduce the impact on the resident and her family.
The landlord’s general management of the site was inadequate. Ultimately, the landlord had overall responsibility to ensure that the site was safe for its residents. The family were essentially living on a building site with numerous hazards to circumvent on a daily basis. This Service has not seen any evidence of regular site inspections carried out by the landlord or evidence that the scaffolding was inspected in line with the Work at Height Regulations (2005).
Regular inspections by the landlord and the contractor should have picked up any issues or concerns with the site layout before the resident had cause to raise concerns. The inadequate access to the front door and the hazards associated with the storage of site materials should have been obvious to the landlord’s staff working on the project. Particularly so, as even though the contractor was not aware of the resident’s son’s autism, the landlord was.
The landlord missed several opportunities to put things right at an early stage in the improvement works following the residents reports of issues with the site and the contractors. The resident informed the landlord on several occasions that the state of her property was poor and that the family could not get in or out safely. The landlord’s response was inadequate, there was no urgency given to the situation and it was over reliant on the contractor when the overall responsibility lay with the landlord. It is understandable that the resident felt that her property was not given the same respect by the landlord and its contractors as the other properties undergoing the same work.
Given the evidence provided, it would be difficult to conclude that the contractor adhered to the promises contained within the customer information booklet with regards to the resident. The lack of organisation with regard to the communication between the landlord and the resident would have only added to the resident’s frustration, distress and inconvenience.
The evidence shows that the communication between the contractors, the landlord and the resident was generally poor. There was no evidence of a communication plan in place with the resident to make appointments and to keep a track of the various trades visiting the property. The landlord has provided several screen shots of text messages between the landlord and the resident, which it believes provides evidence of good communication.
However, the text messages only support the conclusion that communication was poor. At times, the messages were inappropriate and unprofessional. On occasion, the messages were sent at short notice and were sometimes unanswered by both the resident and the landlord. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to manage its communication with the resident in a more structured format. Text messages were inadequate to manage the needs of the resident in terms of reasonable notice for appointments.
The landlord’s stage one complaint response showed a lack of understanding of the resident’s concerns. It failed to take any responsibility for the issues raised and was defensive in nature. It showed a lack of empathy and its responses lay heavily on the perceived evidence of the text messages between the landlord and the resident and the information provided by the contractor. The landlord should have been able to respond to the stage one complaint using its own evidence of site inspections and customer liaison.
The landlord did admit to failings within its stage two response. It accepted that the resident’s son’s autism, and the potential impact of the works on the family, should have been explored further and that this was not considered sufficiently when planning the works. However, it failed to show a full understanding of this failure by attempting to evidence that it did provide sufficient opportunities to the resident to change unsuitable appointments by text message, and therefore only partially upholding that element of the complaint.
The landlord did accept that the planning and installation of the scaffold, skip and chute was inadequate and that the site management was not of the appropriate standard and it apologised for the resident’s overall experience. It did not, however, provide reasonable redress as it failed to offer any compensation to the resident, which was unreasonable in the circumstances.
In summary, the landlord’s overall approach as to its general site management and how it responded to the needs of the resident’s son and its duties under the Equality Act 2010, was inadequate, unfair and unreasonable. The landlord failed to follow its own policy, failed to comply with its legal obligations and failed to recognise this through its complaints process and provide reasonable redress. The landlord’s failure to fully inform the contractors of the resident’s son’s autism also led to further, significant failures by the contractor.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handing of reasonable adjustments and general site management during external improvement works to the resident’s property.

Reasons

There was a failure by the landlord to demonstrate that it had taken steps to ensure that it understood the needs of the resident and her family and to demonstrate that it had responded to those needs in the way it provided its services. There was also a failure by the landlord to ensure that its contractors were fully aware of the resident’s son’s vulnerabilities and the potential impact of the work. These failures adversely impacted the resident and her family.
The landlord’s general site management was inadequate. It failed to recognise the unsuitability of the site set up and did not take any action to rectify the issues. The landlord missed opportunities to put things right at an early stage.
Despite the resident’s concerns being considered through a two stage complaints process, the landlord failed to fully recognise and acknowledge its failings and provide reasonable redress.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks from the date of the report, the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident compensation of £800 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of reasonable adjustments and general site management during external improvement works to the resident’s property.
2. Apologise to the resident for the failures highlighted in this report.
Within eight weeks from the date of the report, the landlord must:
1. Review its equality and diversity policy and procedures and implement a vulnerable person’s policy to ensure that staff understand the landlord’s legal obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and the Social Housing Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard.
2. Carry out staff training to ensure that its staff are competent to carry out a detailed equality impact assessment and consider reasonable adjustments to processes.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance within the timescales set out above.