Poole Housing Partnership Ltd (202113794)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113794

Poole Housing Partnership Ltd

27 February 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

1. The complaint concerns:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s application for a disability adaption to the property.
   2. The related complaint.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a secure tenant. The tenancy started on 8 July 2008.The resident lives at the property with her three children and partner.
3. The property is a three-bedroom house.
4. The landlord is an Arms Length Management Organisation, owned by the Council.
5. The landlord’s records indicate the resident has no known vulnerabilities however they reflect that her adult daughter and partner are both disabled and her two sons also have developmental disabilities. The resident’s daughter suffers from Dystonia, a permanent neurological disorder.

Summary of Events

6. The resident sent her completed alteration form to the landlord on 18 December 2020 in relation to a single story rear extension on account of her daughter’s medical condition which caused her difficulty in getting up and downstairs. The landlord subsequently advised her to contact her Occupational Therapist (O.T) to see if the Council’s Adult Social Care (ASC) could find funding for it.
7. This service has not been provided with the O.T recommendation from ASC, however, the landlord’s internal communication show the landlord was in contact with ASC from March 2021 to June 2021, in regards to an O.T assessment. The landlord has provided a letter from the resident’s daughter’s Consultant Neuro addressed to ASC’s O.T dated 21 June 2021 recommending ground floor accommodation for the resident’s daughter on account of her medical condition as this caused her to experience difficulty in using the stairs.
8. On 14 September 2021, a Disabled Adaption (DA) meeting took place between ASC and three members of staff from the landlord including its Disabled Adaptation Coordinator and Director of Housing to discuss the resident’s case concerning her request for a single storey extension. The landlord has provided the minutes of the meeting which show that the outcome of the meeting was that the resident’s application for adaption was declined and a recommendation was made for a move to another property.
9. After being notified of the outcome by the O.T on 15 September 2021, the resident emailed the landlord advising that she was unhappy about the prospect of “waiting for years” for another property. She said the O.T had mentioned an extension would likely cost £50,000, however, she did not agree it would cost this much as her partner is an ex-builder. She asked the landlord to re-consider its decision.
10. The landlord replied on the same date explaining her case was discussed at length with the O.T at the DA meeting on 14 September  2021 and said they were all were in agreement that a three bedroom property with a downstairs additional room that could be used as a bedroom or a three bedroom bungalow, would likely be the most suitable property. It explained it had these types of properties in the Council’s housing stock, so an extension would not be considered and the housing register would be the appropriate avenue to explore. It explained the O.T could provide a housing needs recommendation to support her housing application if necessary. She would be banded on the basis of her (family’s) medical and housing needs which could be used for shortlisting for properties that she bid on.
11. On 16 September 2021, the resident called and emailed the landlord to make a formal complaint regarding its refusal to carry out the requested adaptation to her property. The landlord’s note of the call indicated that the resident explained she disagreed with the decision made and did not wish for her family to be moved and did not want to be “left on a housing list for ten years”. She advised that she also had two other children that were autistic who struggled with change and different environments. She had also just got them settled into a specialised school close to her property. For these reasons, the resident would like the matter to be reconsidered as she did not feel her circumstances had been taken into account.
12. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same date and advised it would provide a response within ten working days.
13. On 27 September 2021, the landlord provided a stage one complaint response. Within its response, It confirmed that the O.T had reiterated her recommendation at the DA meeting that the resident and her family required ground floor living, or a large through floor lift to enable the client to lie down. However, the landlord said all options in line with its adaption policy were explored during the meeting, which specified that an extension could only be considered if there are no other alternative suitable options including other accommodation within the social housing sector.
14. It advised that a three bedroom house with two living rooms downstairs, or a three bedroom bungalow, would meet her and her family’s housing needs with subsequent adaptations. It explained as this could be met within the Council’s current housing stock,  there was no requirement for her case to be referred to the bespoke housing panel, who considered cases where it could not meet the housing needs.
15. The landlord acknowledged her concerns about the detrimental effect of a move on her children whom had autism and mental health conditions, however, it explained that whilst this was considered, it was decided that moving with support would still be a viable option.
16. Regarding her point about the estimate cost of the extension given by the O.T (£50,000), the landlord explained that the last single storey extension it commissioned four years previously had cost in the region of £50,000, and it anticipated that  the price had increased since then as the cost of materials had risen. The landlord said it understood she had told the O.T that she had a quote which was £20,000, however, it was difficult for it to comment on this without having seen the architect drawings, or what the quote included.
17. It reiterated that commissioning an extension on properties was always the last resort due to the high cost and the availability of more cost-effective alternative housing solutions would be explored. The cap for any extension work was £30,000 in line with Disabled Facility Grants (DFGs), therefore historically this had required top up funding. It  said it is also important that it was consistent and transparent with its approach and adhere to policy to be fair to all residents.
18. To summarise, the landlord said it had considered all the circumstances collectively with ASC that were available to them at the time and have followed the Disabled and Adaptations (AD) policy to ensure fairness and consistency.
19. On 27 September 2021, the resident called the landlord to advise she wished to escalate her complaint to stage two. The landlord’s note of the call reflect that the resident explained she was not happy with its stage one response because:
    1. She did not want to go onto the housing register as she believed the wait would be least ten years to get a move.
    2. She did not want to do a mutual exchange for the same reason and as it took them a very long time to exchange into the property, they were currently in.
    3. Her daughter is unwell and she did not think she would get any better and did not want to have to wait for years on the housing list and for the adaptations to be done.
    4. They had put a lot of work into their current property that they have lived in for 13 years.
20. The resident also advised that if they knew a property was available soon that they could move into then she would not be as worried. The landlord’s call note said it advised the resident that it would consider her stage two request, but if it was felt that the issues raised had already been taken into consideration in its stage one response, then it may refuse to consider further and that she could then escalate to us.
21. Following contact from the resident advising that she had not received a stage two response, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 11 November 2021, asking it to provide a stage two response to the resident’s complaint.
22. The landlord contacted this Service on 12 November 2021, advising that ultimately it was the Council’s decision as to whether the property could be extended, however, it would get an update from them and incorporate this into the stage two response. It was unable to provide a solution in the response and the Council had not made a decision on new evidence.
23. The landlord’s internal call notes show it called the resident on 15 November 2021, acknowledging her request from the Ombudsman to provide a stage two final response. It said her complaint had been moved to stage two and it would provide a response within 14 working days. The landlord confirmed this in writing to the resident on the same date.
24. The landlord provided a stage two final response to the resident on 8 December 2021. It confirmed its understanding of the complaint as being about its decision not agree to an extension on the property and her belief that the circumstances were considered and also regarding the approximate price of an extension, as informed by the O.T (£50,000).
25. The landlord repeated the stage one response verbatim and advised that whilst the resident had asked for it to reconsider its decision, as it had considered all the circumstances previously, and no new evidence had been provided for it to review or change, the original decision stood.
26. However it explained that if, once further multi agency meetings have taken place, and a different decision is considered, it would be happy to revisit her situation. But until then it was unable to change the outcome of her stage one complaint. It recommended that she speak with housing services at the Council to progress her application to the housing register, if she had not already done so.
27. On 2 February 2022, the resident told the Ombudsman that she had internal work completed whereby the coal shed has been merged with the downstairs toilet to make a ground floor shower room due to her daughter struggling to get upstairs.
28. The landlord’s internal communications show its contact with ASC continued into  2022, wherein a multi-agency meeting was discussed as well as a new referral in relation to the resident’s case. The outcome of this was that there was still no recommendation from ASC for any extension to the property.
29. In February 2023, in response the Ombudsman’s further information request, the landlord advised that there had been no subsequent evidence provided to support the view that a move would be too detrimental to the family, as such without such a recommendation from either ASC or children services, it could not consider an extension. However,  it said this position could change with any further assessments and material change in the family’s needs, it would consider this in the future in line with its policy and processes at that time.
30. Further, the landlord advised there were properties within the Council’s housing stock that could accommodate the family’s needs, therefore that the resident was still being advised to move to more appropriate accommodation.

Policies

31. The landlord’s DA policy states in regards to extensions, its policy states after a need is identified, staff can make a referral to the OT on behalf of the tenant or provide the tenant with information and advice about making a referral.
32. Its policy also states it will:
    1. Arrange a meeting with the relevant services including ASC’s O.T to explore other possible options. This could include identifying a mutual exchange (itself or other landlord) or application to the waiting list.
    2. If suitable alternative accommodation is a reasonable option, then please refer to Homechoice policy and procedures.
    3. If it is not, arrange to have its surveyor assess the property.
33. The landlord operates a two stage complaints process under which it is required to provide a stage one complaint response within 10 working days and stage two final response within 14 days.  Its complaint policy also states it reserves the right to turn down a request for a stage two review in circumstances where:
    1. the customer has not provided any new evidence to support their request.
    2. the points raised by the customer have already been considered in the previous investigation.
    3. the points raised by the customer would not lead to a change in the outcome of the  original investigation.

Assessment and findings

34. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider how the landlord handled the request by the resident for the proposed adaptation. We can therefore take a view as to whether the landlord’s refusal to undertake the adaptation works to the property was reasonable.
35. The resident’s daughter has a medical disorder which causes her significant difficulty in getting up and down stairs. On 18 December 2020, the resident sent a completed alteration form to the landlord requesting a single story rear extension on account of her daughter’s medical condition. In response, the landlord advised her to contact her O.T in regards to getting an assessment.
36. The alteration form completed by the resident related to obtaining the landlord’s consent for privately funded alterations. As it was clear the resident sought funding for this, the advice given by the landlord was appropriate as the landlord’s DA policy makes clear funding for adaptions must be made via an OT assessment.
37. The landlord’s policy also states that when it receives an O.T recommendation for an extension, it will arrange an DA meeting with the relevant service to explore other possible options. The exact date of when the landlord received the O.T recommendation for the resident and her family to have ground floor living, is unclear from the available evidence. However, the landlord’s internal communications show it was in communication with the ASC regarding the resident’s case during the six months leading up to the date of the DA meeting held with ASC on 14 September 2021. This suggests the landlord appropriately engaged with the Council’s ASC at this stage, as per its policy.
38. The minutes of the meeting indicate the landlord and ASC considered the cost of the extension, which it believed may exceed the  £30,000 funding cap, and if there were any alternative adaptions that could be made to the property. It noted that an internal lift had previously been ruled out as unsafe as the daughter had spasms and no other adaption was thought feasible based on the layout of the property. As well as discussing the needs of the resident’s daughter, the minutes refer to a need to assess the family’s wider needs due to other family members’ health conditions. However, they concluded that a three bedroomed house with an additional room downstairs and support provided to the family to move, would resolve their needs. Therefore, the outcome of the meeting was that because the landlord had suitable properties which would meet the needs of the resident and her family within the Council’s own housing stock, the request for an extension was declined.
39. It is understandable that the resident was unhappy with its decision. However, given the significant cost involved and because the landlord has finite resources and must budget for all residents it has responsibility for, its consideration of any top up costs is a reasonable factor to take into account when responding to an application for an extension. Furthermore, a key part of the landlord’s adaption policy for responding to such applications, requires it to consider the availability of alternative properties within its stock which already have the adaptation required or meet the needs of the applicant, as this is often a more cost-effective alternative housing solution. Therefore, by working with ASC and exploring all options in this regard, the landlord acted in accordance with its disabled and adaption policy.
40. In her subsequent communications and formal complaint raised with the landlord, the resident explained why she believed that a move would have a detrimental impact on other members of the family, in particular her two sons who were autistic and the youngest of which, she had just gotten into a local special needs school.
41. The evidence indicates that the landlord with ASC, had considered the needs of other family members in reaching a decision about the resident’s adaption request but concluded that moving with support was a viable option for the family.  In its stage one response, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the effect of a move on her two children with autism and mental health conditions but explained its position regarding the recommendation for her moving with support. In its stage two final response, the landlord acknowledged that the O.T was in communication with the resident about the impact on other  members of the family and it said if, once further multi agency meetings have taken place, and a different decision is reached, it would revisit her situation.
42. A need for a wider family assessment by the appropriate services had been discussed during a DA meeting on 14 September 2021, and the landlord told this Service at the time that ASC were in the process of considering further evidence in regards to the needs of other family members although advised that no decision had been reached. The landlord has provided evidence of its communications with ASC at this time which supports this.
43. It is recognised the decision to agree to funding of the extension is a joint decision with the Council’s ASC, however, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to liaise with them and any other relevant agencies to ensure a “joined up approach” in regards to the service provided to the resident.  In the resident’s case, the  landlord’s response to the resident showed a willingness to reconsider the decision in event further evidence or professional advice required this, which was reasonable in the circumstances.
44. In response to her concern about the waiting time for a move, the landlord highlighted the additional option of applying for a mutual exchange through its choice-based letting scheme. It said it would ensure the resident was banded sufficiently as the O.T would provide a housing needs recommendation to support her housing application so that she could obtain a move to a suitable property or one that could be adapted to meet the needs of her family.
45. A higher banding on the basis of her (family’s) medical and housing needs would allow the resident to bid on suitable properties and would be used for the shortlisting of any properties that she bid on. This may result in the resident obtaining a suitable move more quickly than the landlord identifying a property from within the Council’s own housing stock. This was a reasonable suggestion in the circumstances.
46. In regards to the resident’s point that the estimate cost of the extension given by the OT (£50,000) was inaccurate (as she had a quote for circa £20,000), the landlord explained in its responses the basis of this information given, which was reasonable.
47. Therefore, in summary, the landlord adhered to its disabled and adaption policy when assessing the resident’s application for an extension, explained the basis of its decision and reasonably sought to respond to additional points raised by resident’s during its complaints process.
48. The landlord’s internal communications provided to this Service indicate it was in contact with ASC and Children’s services in 2022, regarding the outcome of a multi-agency meeting which took place in early 2022 to assess if a move was too detrimental for the family. It is noted that the outcome of this was that there was still no recommendation from ASC for any extension to the property.
49. In February 2023, the landlord advised the Ombudsman that there has been no subsequent evidence provided to support the view that a move would be too detrimental to the family, therefore, as there were properties within the Council’s housing stock that could accommodate the family’s needs, its advice to the resident to move to more appropriate accommodation, still applied.

Complaint Handling

50. The resident asked the landlord for a stage two review of her complaint on 27 September 2021 and explained why she was dissatisfied with its stage one response. The landlord told the resident at the time that it may not accept her review request if it is felt that the issues raised had already been taken into consideration in its stage one response.  However, there is no evidence of it confirming in writing to the resident of its decision made in this regard.
51. Whilst its policy allows it refuse to escalate a complaint in certain circumstances, the landlord’s failure to notify the resident in writing as to the reasons for any refusal within a reasonable timeframe of her stage two request,  constitutes evidence of poor communication on the part of the landlord and stopped the resident escalating it to the Ombudsman and prolonged the complaints process.
52. After contact from the Ombudsman, the landlord provided the resident with a stage two review response on 8 December 2021, however, it did not acknowledge or apologise for the above mentioned issues, as such this is evidence of poor complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

53. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s application for a disability adaption to the property.
54. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when handling the resident’s related complaint.

Reasons

55. By meeting and engaging with ASC and exploring all options before recommending a supported move,  the landlord followed its disabled and adaption policy when responding to the resident’s request for an extension in order to meet the needs of her daughter.
56. The landlord refused to escalate the complaint to stage two however did not explain in writing to the resident the reasons for this which prevented her from escalating it to the Ombudsman. The landlord did subsequently provide a final response to the resident however it did not acknowledge its complaints handling failure nor did it provide redress for it.

Orders and recommendations

57. The Ombudsman orders that the landlord:
    1. Pay the resident £100 in compensation for failures whilst handling her complaint.
    2. Comply with the above order within four weeks.