Lincolnshire Housing Partnership Limited (202118675)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118675

Lincolnshire Housing Partnership Limited

28 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 landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s claim that the property did not meet her disability needs when let to her.
2. Handling of the resident’s request for adaptation works and repairs.
3. Complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a three-bedroom house, which was a new build disability adapted property and had a through floor lift and wet room.
The resident is disabled and a wheelchair user. The landlord has this recorded on its system. The resident’s daughter is also disabled and has learning difficulties.
The landlord’s lettings policy sets out how it advertises properties and selects applicants to become residents. The landlord advertises its properties via the local authority’s choice-based lettings scheme; the local authority assesses eligibility and priority including for existing residents looking to transfer. The policy says that adapted properties will be advertised with details of these adaptations, and preference will be given to applicants who will benefit from the adaptations to meet their needs. The landlord will work with the local authority and an occupational therapist (OT) to ensure the property is suitable. All properties will also meet the landlord’s letting’s standard.
The tenancy agreement and the landlord’s repairs policy set out its responsibility for maintaining the structure and exterior of the property, including walls, roofs, windows, external doors, pathways and boundaries, fixtures and fittings for water, gas, electricity, heating, and sanitation. This is in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Repairs will be categorised and completed within the following timeframes:
1. Immediate repairs, such as a gas leak or uncontrollable water leak, will be made safe within four hours and any follow-on works booked.
2. Emergency repairs, such as loss of heating or hot water, or a broken window, will be made safe within four hours and any follow-on works booked.
3. Routine repairs will be completed at a mutually convenient time but within 20 working days.
4. Major repairs will be completed as soon as possible but within 60 working days.
The landlord has an aids and adaptations policy which sets out how it will deliver minor and major adaptation requests. Minor adaptations which are small scale and cost less than £1,000 will be delivered by the landlord; for example, installing grab rails or lever taps. For major adaptations, such as structural changes or installing a wet room, the resident will be referred to the local authority to make an application for a disabled facilities grant (DFG), through the local authority’s OT department. The policy says that the landlord will only be responsible for maintaining minor adaptations, or any adaptations present in the property when it is let.
The landlord’s complaints policy and procedure define a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by [the landlord], its staff or those acting on [its] behalf” and that the word ‘complaint’ does not need to be used.
The landlord has a two stage complaints process. Stage one complaints will be acknowledged by letter within three working days and the landlord will call the resident within two working days of the letter being sent. The landlord will respond to the complaint by letter within ten working days, however if an extension of ten working days is needed the landlord will write to the resident. If the resident is not satisfied with the outcome, they can request escalation to stage two. The landlord will review the complaint and decide if escalation is reasonable. If escalated the landlord will acknowledge escalation within three working days by letter. The landlord will provide a final written response within 20 working days. The policy states that the landlord will provide information on how to access this Service when it acknowledges complaints and makes a final response.
The landlord’s compensation policy and procedure sets out that residents can make a request for compensation, or that compensation can be awarded as part of a complaint response. It defines statutory and goodwill compensation; the latter being awarded where service standards are not met through the action or inaction of the landlord. Compensation can be awarded for:
1. Loss of facilities, where a percentage refund of the rent will be considered.
2. Failure to keep appointments.
3. Financial loss or damage to possessions due to the landlord’s action or inaction.
4. As the outcome of a complaint “in recognition of a service failure which has caused any exceptional worry, distress or inconvenience.”
The procedure gives guidance on compensation percentages for loss of facilities and says that service failure complaints compensation will be determined on a case-by-case basis.
The resident’s desired outcomes are to receive an apology and compensation from the landlord, and to be rehoused into a suitable alternative property.

Summary of events

The property was built in 2018 by a developer and the landlord acquired the property. The resident’s tenancy started in April 2019. The resident accepted the property after making an application to move through the council’s choice-based lettings scheme and was the first tenant of the property.
On 29 April 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident to arrange a settling in visit for 15 May 2019. The visit took place and issues were reported to the developer. The resident also reported that some electrical wires in her living room had been cut and thought this happened when her lift was installed. She also reported an issue with the wet room floor to the landlord.
Between 9 October 2019 and 15 July 2021, the landlord noted that:
1. The resident reported that her lift was not working on 9 October 2019, however, it did not state when it was repaired.
2. The landlord visited the property on 26 February 2020 for a tenancy visit and no issues were raised.
3. A repair was completed to the rear door hinges on 13 March 2020.
4. Locks to door were renewed and doors ease and adjusted on 23 June 2020 with further works on 30 September 2020.
5. On 15 July 2021 the resident reported that her lift was not working, however, does not state when it was repaired.
The resident emailed the landlord on 15 July 2021 to report that tree leaves and debris was falling into her back garden. The landlord, resident and developer exchanged further emails over who was responsible for maintenance of trees on 22 July 2021.
On 26 July 2021 the landlord noted that the resident contacted the landlord again as her lift was still not working.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord via its online form on 27 July 2021 (the first complaint). Her complaint was that:
1. The property was not fully adapted to her needs and that she should not have moved into it.
2. She was told her garden would be made more accessible for her but that this had not happened.
3. She had been having ongoing issues with her through floor lift.
The landlord acknowledged the first complaint by letter on 28 July 2021 and then exchanged internal emails. In its emails it said:
1. It had not received any adaptations requests from an OT and that it should contact the resident to advise her to speak to the OT.
2. That it was surprised by the complaint as the property met the resident’s needs as set out in her OT report attached to her housing application, and that she was initially very happy with the property.
On 3 August 2021 the landlord called the resident to discuss her complaint. It then sent an internal email setting out what was discussed. The issues raised by the resident were:
1. She felt the property was not suitable and felt misled when told it was a fully adapted property. She was on the waiting list for an OT visit.
2. She said that she was promised by the landlord that it would install paving slabs to her back garden to make it more accessible.
3. That fencing to the front garden was not complete.
4. A tree overhung her garden and was not being maintained by the landlord or the developer; the tree was not on the landlord’s land.
5. The kitchen sink was too low for her husband to comfortably be able to use and she wanted an adjustable one. The landlord said this would be for an OT to recommend.
6. The fire alarms on the ceiling were not ideal for a wheelchair user. The resident has since told this Service that her complaint was that the alarms were not working.
7. That the position of the lift in the living room up to a bedroom was not how she was told it would be. That the lift had been faulty from when she moved in and was not working now, with her wheelchair stuck upstairs and having to sleep downstairs.
8. There was no proper ramp for the rear doors but some wood. The doors also swing and hit her as there was no proper catch.
The landlord noted that the lift was reported as not working again on 3 August 2021.
On 12 August 2021 the landlord provided its response to the first complaint. The landlord partially upheld the complaint. It said:
1. At the time of letting the property was suitable based on the resident’s OT report submitted in support of her application. The resident was happy at the time and was included in a press article. This part of the complaint was not upheld.
2. There was no evidence on its system that it had promised to add more paving slabs to the garden. The property was designed by the developer to allow access around and that there was room for this but for the resident’s garden furniture. The resident could make an application to make an improvement herself or discuss this with her OT.
3. The fencing boundary was part of the scheme of the developer and not the landlord’s responsibility.
4. The kitchen sink was adjustable, and the kitchen was designed for a wheelchair user. Any changes would be contrary to the approved plans, but the resident could speak to her OT about this.
5. Smoke alarms were installed to regulation and were in the best position.
6. That arrangements had been made for the lift to be repaired and inspected. However, the lift was not under its usual inspection list, but it had been added to the landlord’s list to maintain. The landlord acknowledged that the lift was vital for the resident and that inconvenience and distress had been caused. It apologised and offered £200 in compensation.
7. That it would inspect the door threshold and doors to see if any improvements could be made.
The Landlord also included details on how to escalate the complaint.
On 13 August 2021 the lift manufacturer inspected the lift and repaired the fault; it recommended new parts. The resident reported the lift again on 16 August 2021 and it was repaired. The lift was inspected on 20 August 2021 and passed.
On 21 August 2021 the resident reported that the shower seat had fallen off the wall while she was using it, and tiles behind were broken. The landlord’s contractor attended but decided that a follow-on appointment was needed.
The resident emailed the landlord the same day to reject the compensation offered. She said that she had made the complaint to get things changed and that the compensation did not do that.
On 23 August 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to say that the issue with the trees had not been resolved. She also asked who signed the house off as adapted. She said that an OT was visiting her the following day. She also said that the lift had broken, she had been in hospital and that her shower seat had broken while she was using it. She felt that her previous complaints had been ignored.
The landlord replied to say it would chase the tree issue and that the house had been signed off by the council and that an OT would not have been involved. It also said it was glad an OT was going to visit to assist the resident. It also said that it did not have any recorded complaints from the resident since she moved in until the one made on 27 July 2021. The landlord, in a separate email, said that it had been told the tree had a preservation order and so it would need to seek permission from the council before it could do any works.
The resident sent a further email that day, saying that she was told that she would have extra paving slabs and that her lift was not installed where she was told it would be. She also said that the lift had no warranty for two years, and there were issues with her wet room. The landlord replied that it was the developer who had said it would add the paving slabs, not the landlord, and the lift position was agreed by the developer and the council. It said it was best for the OT to assess the wet room, but it would chase up the repairs already requested.
The landlord’s records show that its contractor attended on 23 August 2021 for works to the wet room but there was a no access.
The resident and landlord exchanged further emails on 25 August 2021. In these emails:
1. The resident asked if she should be taking her complaints to the council and the landlord explained that it was best for her to speak to the OT about her issues.
2. The resident asked about her wet room and the landlord confirmed that repairs to her shower seat, tiles, and flooring were needed. It said it had passed this to a contractor for a quote.
3. The resident asked a long list of questions, and the landlord answered these or said it would find out and reply. Specifically, these were about the property and involvement of an OT and repairs to her lift.
On 6 September 2021 the landlord emailed the resident in response to her emails to acknowledge them as a formal complaint (the second complaint). It also sent an acknowledgement letter to the resident.
New batteries were fitted for the lift on 10 September 2021. The resident emailed the landlord on 14 September 2021 to ask if all the works to the lift had now been completed and it was safe to use. She also reported the flooring was damaged and asked about future callout response times. The landlord replied on 23 September 2021, following a member of the landlord’s staff’s period of leave. It said the lift had been deemed safe and working and that it would report the flooring issue. It also said that its contractors would attend to any callouts but that sometimes the manufacturer was needed, and it could not give a timeframe for its response as the landlord did not have a contract with the manufacturer.
The landlord inspected the property on 14 September 2021 with the OT and produced a report on 17 September 2021. The report was separated into different sections:
1. In relation to the wet room recommendations were:
  1. Consider installing a new toilet to be used with a commode chair.
  2. Remove shower seat and replace broken tiling.
  3. Remove flooring, re-level subfloor to assist with drainage, refloor and seal.
2. In relation to the kitchen no recommendations were made however absence of tiling noted.
3. In relation to the rear doors:
  1. Repair of left and replacement of right door needed; door restrictors had not been set correctly.
4. In relation to the threshold:
  1. The height is greater than 20mm and so prevents a powered wheelchair being driven over. Some wood was present although a hazard.
  2. A specialist ramp should be provided.
5. In relation to the garden:
  1. Paved area gave sufficient space for a wheelchair.
  2. There were eight or nine trees overhanging the garden.
On 20 September 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident to request a ten working day extension to the second complaint response deadline. It said this was to allow it time to consider the recommendations made in the inspection report.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 September 2021 to say that she was complaining about her whole house and not individual faults. She said that she did not agree with the landlord’s response to the first complaint and especially about the garden. This Service does not know whether the landlord replied to this email and has not seen a response.
The landlord provided its stage one response to the second complaint on 4 October 2021. In its response it said the complaint was partially upheld however did not say if or when it was at fault. It said that:
1. After the resident reported issues with the wet room it had inspected with the OT and had a plan of works; a contractor was going to visit on 6 October 2021 to provide a quote. It said that it understood the resident wanted to remain in the property during the works, but also offered to arrange a hotel if she changed her mind.
2. The worktop heights were discussed during the inspection but agreed to keep them as they were.
3. Repairs to and replacement of the rear doors was needed, and thresholds needed to be referred to the contractor.
4. The landlord and OT inspected the smoke alarms but found no issues with where they were located.
5. Confirmed the previous emails in relation to the lift, that it was safe to use and how repairs were handled. It said that it had a contractor who was contracted to repair the lift, but at times the manufacturer may be required. As the landlord did not have a contract with the manufacturer it could not guarantee its response times.
6. The property was inspected by building control, warranty provider, and contractors and signed off before the landlord acquired the property. The landlord confirmed the property was defect free when it acquired it.
7. There was no agreement made by the landlord to pave the whole of the garden, but the resident was able to apply to make an improvement if she wished.
8. The trees which overhang the garden belong to the developer, which has been contacted. It reminded the resident that there was a tree preservation order in place, and it could take some time to get the necessary permissions.
9. Gave details on how to escalate the complaint.
The resident emailed the landlord the same day to say that she was not satisfied with the response and wanted to escalate her complaint. She said that the property was not suitable or safe. She also said that the lift breakdowns had caused her to suffer from ‘drop foot’ (an injury making it difficult to lift or move a foot) and had been injured when the shower seat fell off the wall while she was using it.
In internal emails sent on 5 October 2021 the landlord discussed the escalation request and decided to escalate the complaint. It then sent an email and letter to acknowledge the escalation. In further internal emails the landlord agreed to go ahead with the works as recommended in its report. It also considered an email it received from the OT.
The landlord’s notes state that the resident also reported her lift as not working on 5 October 2021. The following day the landlord’s contractor attended and said that the manufacturer would need to complete the repair. The resident emailed the landlord and the landlord replied to explain the outcome of the visit and that the fault appeared unrelated to the previous faults.
On 8 October 2021 the resident sent the landlord a long email detailing all her issues and concerns in relation to her home. She also sent an email about her lift still being broken. In internal emails the landlord checked for an update but was still chasing the manufacturer.
The resident and the landlord exchanged further emails between 9 October 2021 and 11 October 2021. In these emails:
1. The resident asked how she could find out about any new adapted properties in a different area. She reiterated her concerns about the property. She also said that there was antisocial behaviour on the street and the police regularly attend. She also said there were children playing outside and cars parked on the street, and that the area was not suitable for a disabled person.
2. The landlord provided details for the council’s choice-based lettings scheme and contact details.
3. The resident emailed following a call with the landlord. In her email she declined an offer of hotel accommodation while the lift was repaired. She also said that while she was offered her property in 2019, her OT assessment was carried out in 2016 and said the landlord had incorrect information. She said that she reported the issues with her wet room floor to the developer when she first moved in.
On 14 October 2021 contractors on behalf of the manufacturer attended the property and repaired the lift. On the same day the landlord arranged for its contractor to attend to install a back-up stair lift, which it did the following day. The resident reported the lift as not working again on 24 October 2021; the landlord’s contractor attended but did not find a fault and found it to be working.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 October 2021 to report her rear doors as needing repair, and other unrelated repairs. The landlord’s records also show that the lift was reported as not working.
The landlord produced an internal complaint investigation report dated 28 October 2021. On 2 November 2021 it provided its stage two response. In its response it:
1. Said that the complaint was upheld and apologised for inconvenience caused due to its failure to:
  1. Respond to repair requests.
  2. Take ownership of repairs.
  3. Have a “responsive or appropriately satisfactory relationship with lift contractors” in relation to the resident’s lift.
  4. Follow up on defects.
2. Confirmed that there was a plan of works, however that changing her rear doors or paving her whole garden were not included, but that additional paving would be added.
3. Set out recent repairs to the lift and the installation of a stair lift, however that the resident said she was advised not to use this by the OT, and offered to remove it. It further said that it was looking into a way to improve the provision for lift breakdown callouts.
4. Said that work had been booked in for the wet room, however the contractor told the landlord that it did not want to complete the works due to a negative press article. The landlord had instructed a new contractor and would contact the resident to make further arrangements.
5. Said that other issues raised were being investigated.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

On 2 November 2021 the resident’s MP’s office emailed the landlord. It referred to previous emails not seen by this Service and asked for an update. The landlord replied initially the same day, then called the MP’s office and followed up with an email on 4 November 2021. In the email it provided a copy of its stage two complaint response.
On 3 November 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to say that she would like the stair lift to remain as a backup.
Between 5 November 2021 and 11 November 2021, the resident and landlord exchanged further emails. In these emails:
1. The resident raised that the stage two response did not cover:
  1. Where her lift was located and whether it could be moved.
  2. That her smoke alarms were not safely accessible and had not been working for half a year.
  3. Personal injury because of the lift not working and from when the shower seat fell off the wall.
2. The landlord said that it would pass the resident’s queries to senior management.
3. The resident asked several questions and the landlord replied to these.
4. The landlord explained how its complaints process worked and that it would follow up on the outcomes it gave in its stage two response.
On 11 November 2021 the resident contacted this Service.
The landlord received a quote for automatic doors for the property on 19 November 2021.
The resident reported her lift as not working on 29 November 2021 and it was repaired. She reported it again on 7 December 2021 and it was repaired the same day. Between 7 December 2021 and 9 December 2021, the landlord emailed its lift contractor and asked for it to arrange for the manufacturer to inspect the lift and consider if any parts needed to be changed.
In an internal email on 23 November 2021 the landlord confirmed that works started at the property the previous day. In a further email sent on 3 December 2021 the landlord said that the works were progressing well.
On 7 December 2021 the landlord emailed the resident about the ongoing works. In its email it explained why the work was taking longer than anticipated. It also explained that the resident would be able to apply for a DFG if she wanted to have automatic doors installed to her property and that her OT would be able to help with this. The resident replied regarding an issue with tiling, said that she would speak to her OT about the doors, said that her lift had stopped working again and that she wanted the trees sorted out. She also said that she thought the landlord was disrespectful and ignorant.
The landlord’s records show that the manufacturer repaired and inspected the lift on 10 December 2021.
On 15 December 2021 the resident and landlord exchanged further emails about the works. In the emails the landlord answered questions asked by the resident. Specifically, the landlord:
1. Explained the assistance it had given the resident in relation to the works and that these were the outcome of her complaint. It explained that the resident had completed the complaints process.
2. Agreed to remove the stair lift at the resident’s request.
3. Explained that if the resident wanted to make a personal injury claim she could put this in writing and it would be referred to the landlord’s insurance department, as this would be outside of the complaints process.
4. Confirmed how repairs callouts for the lift work and that it was looking into whether it could improve this by contracting with the manufacturer directly.
5. Agreed to pause the works over the Christmas period at the resident’s request.
The landlord emailed the resident on 12 January 2022 following a call, to arrange a meeting at her property on 19 January 2022. Several members of staff from the landlord and the OT were to be present. This Service has not been provided with evidence of the outcome of this meeting, however the resident has confirmed that the wet room works were completed.
The landlord’s reports show that the lift was inspected and passed on 23 February 2022 and a new floor was fitted on 9 March 2022.
Between 29 March 2022 and 1 April 2022, the resident and landlord exchanged further emails. In these emails:
1. The resident raised again her issues with the rear doors and trees. She said her OT had told her to apply for a DFG, but she believed that the landlord would still not install the new doors.
2. The landlord said that the DFG was needed due to the cost of the new doors. It also said that its contractor had applied for permission to the council to cut back the trees. It confirmed it was pursuing a maintenance contract with the lift manufacturer.
3. The resident raised the issue of ramps being used at her rear door. The landlord replied that it was working with the OT to make the property more accessible.
On 4 April 2022 the OT emailed the landlord to say that she had visited the resident. During the visit a ramp was tried however the resident said it did not help with access. She also decided not to make a DFG application as this would not solve the threshold issue. The landlord replied to say that the resident had removed ramps already provided. It also said that the property met building regulations for wheelchair accessibility, and that it was impossible to achieve full level access.
The landlord’s records show that the lift was reported as not working on 22 April 2022 and was repaired that day. On 6 May 2022 the landlord obtained a warranty contract with the lift manufacturer which included servicing and callout repairs.
The landlord and OT wrote to the resident on 17 May 2022 in a joint letter following a call. The letter said:
1. In relation to difficulty in closing windows due to no restrictors, the letter explained that the windows are designed as escape routes and could not be modified as they met building and fire regulations.
2. The landlord’s contractor had applied for permission to cut back the trees. The resident has told this Service that the trees were cut back, however this did not prevent leaves and debris falling into her garden.
3. No further works would be done to alter the design of the kitchen which should not be altered further.
4. There was now a warranty contract in place for the lift with the manufacturer.
5. The resident had declined to make a DFG application for new rear doors. The current threshold met building regulations for wheelchair access.
6. That the resident had mentioned moving and it provided information on how to register with the local authority.
7. That there was no ongoing OT intervention needed and the referral would be closed.
The resident has told this Service that at the date of this report she is still waiting for repairs or replacement of her rear doors. She also said that she now sleeps downstairs as she is concerned that the lift will break with her wheelchair upstairs and that she will have to wait many days for it to be repaired.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. This Service will apply these principles when considering its decisions. However, some matters fall outside of what the Ombudsman can make a determination on.
Within the resident’s second complaint and in further emails with the landlord the resident raised the issue of personal injury, which she said she suffered because of the lift breakdowns and from falling when her shower seat fell off the wall. It is beyond the scope of this investigation to consider how or why these injuries were caused. This is because under Paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure. The resident has told this Service had she has since sought assistance from a solicitor.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s claim that the property did not meet her disability needs when let to her

The resident raised in her first complaint that she did not believe the property was suitable for a disabled person. She said that it was not safe as it did not meet her needs despite having been advertised as an adapted property. The Ombudsman recognises that the resident’s complaint relates to the suitability of the property for her and her family, which may be a different matter to whether the property was an adapted wheelchair accessible property.
In its response to the first complaint, and in further emails sent to the resident, the landlord set out how the property was built and how it had acquired it. It explained that the property was signed off by the council as meeting building control and regulations for a wheelchair adapted property. The Ombudsman has been provided with copies of the sign-off documents and certificates for the property including building control, developer’s handover certificate, and an insurance warranty certificate which states that a surveyor had “carried out a satisfactory final inspection”.
The landlord also confirmed that the property met the resident’s needs as assessed and detailed in her OT report, which was submitted with her application to move. While this report was written in 2016, it would have been for the resident to request a review if she felt her needs had changed; the landlord would not have been involved in this process prior to the resident moving in. The Ombudsman has been provided with this report and from the evidence provided the property appears on paper to meet the requirements as set out in the report.
The landlord’s sign-up paperwork for the property lists the resident’s disability and medical conditions and states that the property is suitable for her needs; the resident signed this form. The landlord followed its lettings policy in how it advertised and let the property.
Having moved in, when the resident raised issues she was having with the property, and said that she was going to involve an OT the landlord welcomed this. In relation to several issues raised by the resident the landlord suggested the OT may be able to assist with this and demonstrated that it was willing to work with an OT on any adaptation needed, in line with its aids and adaptations policy. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adaptation works and repairs

Within her two complaints and follow up conversations with the landlord, the resident raised several issues around outstanding repairs and requests for adaptations. This report will address these in turn.
The resident said that she was promised that additional paving would be provided in her back garden to make it more accessible, but this had not been completed. In its first complaint response on 12 August 2021, the landlord said there was no record of this and that the garden had been designed for access by the developer. Initially the landlord said that it would not add additional paving, but following the stage two complaint the landlord did provide additional paving as a goodwill gesture, and this was a positive and solution focused response.
The resident raised the issue of trees overhanging and leaves and other debris falling into her garden before she made her first complaint on 27 July 2021. The evidence shows that the landlord tried to find out who was responsible for the trees as they were not on its land. The resident then included this issue within her first complaint; however, the landlord did not respond to this issue. The landlord did respond to the resident’s email about this issue in August 2021 and as part of its response to the second complaint on 4 October 2021. The resident has confirmed to this Service that the trees have now been cut back.
The resident raised that her kitchen sink was too low for her husband to be able to comfortably use. She said that the property should be usable for all her family. The landlord in its response on 12 August 2021 was correct to suggest that the resident speak to her OT about this, and after doing so it was agreed the sink would remain as per the approved plans. The resident has told this Service that the landlord has subsequently given her permission to install a dishwasher, which was a positive response to the issue.
As part of the first complaint on 27 July 2021 the landlord considered the resident’s concerns that her smoke alarms were not in the correct position for a wheelchair user. It said that these were in the correct position based on regulations. As part of its response to the second complaint on 4 October 2021 it said that it had inspected with the OT and confirmed the same. However, the resident has told this Service that her complaint was that the smoke alarms were not working. Having reviewed the evidence there is no record of this being the case. The landlord acted correctly in checking the regulations and with the OT on the location of the alarms.
When she moved into the property in 2019 the resident reported issues with her wet room floor, and that electrical wires had been cut meaning she had a loss of power to plug sockets in her living room. Following her settling in visit on 15 May 2019 the records say issues were reported to the developer. However, the landlord failed to follow up on these defects or take ownership of resolving them. The resident raised these issues again in August 2021 and the landlord raised a second stage one complaint. It arranged an inspection with its surveyor and the OT and produced a report with works to be completed, including works to the wet room, then confirmed it was obtaining a quote in its stage one response. In its stage two response on 2 November 2021, the landlord accepted that it had failed to respond follow up and take ownership of defects and repairs. While the landlord did apologise, and book in the works needed, it did not make any offer of compensation for its failures and did not provide reasonable redress. This was a failing which caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The resident raised as part of her first complaint on 27 July 2021 that it was difficult to use her rear doors into her garden because of the threshold and the doors themselves. The door threshold was raised and not level; initially some wood was placed to act as a type of ramp. The resident also said that the doors were difficult to close as they opened too far and would also swing and hit her as there was no catch. The landlord acted appropriately by saying in its response on 12 August 2021 that it would inspect to see if any improvements could be made. The landlord and OT inspected the property on 14 September 2021 and produced a report. The report:
1. Recommended adjustment of one and replacement of the other door and said that the damage had occurred due to the door restrictors having not been set correctly.
2. Recommended ramps be provided to aid the resident in traveling over the threshold in her powered wheelchair.
The landlord acted appropriately in inspecting the property with an OT. It also confirmed in its response to the second stage one complaint on 4 October 2021 that repairs to, and replacement of, the doors were needed. Internal emails show the landlord agreed to complete the works set out in the report and temporary ramps were fitted. Following a call with the resident, the landlord noted that she had suggested sliding doors would be more suitable for her. In its stage two response on 2 November 2021 the landlord said that it would not be changing the doors.
Following the end of the complaints process a quote was obtained for self-opening and closing doors, and the landlord suggested the resident apply for a DFG which was in line with its aids and adaptations policy. However, after reviewing all the evidence the landlord does not appear to have carried out the repairs and replacements set out in its inspection report, which it said it would do. The resident has also confirmed to this Service that the doors remain in disrepair. This was a failing which has caused further distress and inconvenience for the resident.
The resident raised as part of her first complaint on 27 July 2021 that she was having ongoing issues with her lift. The records show that she reported her lift as not working in October 2019 and July 2021; the resident said that she had reported it many times however there are no further records of this before the first complaint. In its response on 12 August 2021, the landlord upheld this part of the complaint. It accepted that it had made a mistake and apologised for this. It had assumed the lift to be under warranty, which for reasons unknown it was not, and had not added to its list of lifts for inspection. As an adaptation present when the property was let, under its policy it was responsible for the lift’s maintenance. It said that it had added the lift to its list, and the manufacturer was attending the following day to inspect and repair. In recognition of the distress caused, the landlord offered compensation of £200. The landlord’s actions were solution focused and showed it wanted to put things right.
Following a further breakdown, the resident emailed the landlord, and the landlord considered the lift as part of its response to the second complaint on 4 October 2021. It explained that it had a lift contractor which could attend callouts and repair the lift but that when the manufacturer was needed the landlord could not give a timeframe. Following further breakdowns, the landlord fitted a stair lift as a backup for the resident which showed the landlord considered the inconvenience and distress the repeated breakdowns was causing the resident. It is not clear whether the resident used the stair lift. There are conflicting emails from the resident on whether she wanted it to remain or not until she told the landlord the OT had said not to use it. However, this did not address the issue of the times when the resident’s wheelchair was left stranded upstairs following a lift breakdown.
In its stage two response on 2 November 2021, the landlord said that the complaint was upheld, apologised, and said that it had failed to have a “responsive or appropriately satisfactory relationship with lift contractors”. It is not clear what the landlord meant by this, however, it said it was looking into a way to improve its response to lift breakdowns, which was positive. In December 2021 the landlord, in internal emails, said that it was looking into trying to get a contract with the manufacturers for repairs and inspections, but that this was not standard practice. The landlord did agree a warranty contract with the manufacturer in May 2022 and this Service has been provided with a copy of this document. The resident has told the Ombudsman that she remains dissatisfied as the cover provided is not 24 hour and repairs are not completed as quickly as she would like.
The Ombudsman recognises that the resident has endured stress, inconvenience and worry due to the number of lift breakdowns which have occurred, and the length of time taken to repair the lift on several occasions. However, the evidence shows that the landlord did have a contractor in place to respond to callouts and initially it had no control over the manufacturer’s response times. It then went above and beyond its standard practice to obtain a warranty directly from the manufacturer, which was solution focused. Considering what is fair and reasonable it is difficult to see what further steps the landlord could have taken to resolve the issue. In relation to its initial failure to add the lift to its inspection list, but considering the resident’s evidence that she had still been able to report repairs, the landlord offered reasonable redress within its response to the first complaint.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adaptation works and repairs. An order has been made that the landlord pay compensation of £800, to include the £200 the landlord has already offered, to reflect the impact this had on the resident in distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord acknowledged the first complaint made on 27 July 2021, within its timeframe set out in its complaints policy, and provided details on how to contact this Service. It then replied within 12 working days, on 12 August 2021, which was slightly over its time frame of 10 working days. The response accepted where there was service failure, apologised and offered compensation. It also suggested positive ways to move forward to resolve issues and was solution focused. The response also provided information on how to escalate the complaint.
When the resident emailed the landlord on 21 August 2021 to reject the compensation offered, she was clearly dissatisfied with the outcome of her complaint. The resident had contacted the landlord within the 28 days it specified to request escalation. However, the landlord failed to escalate the complaint or even to consider doing so, which was not in line with its complaints policy. This is also a failure to comply with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code, which states at paragraph 5.9 “if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage one it must be progressed to stage two of the landlord’s procedure”.
Following receipt of further emails from the resident which showed her dissatisfaction, the landlord raised a second stage one complaint on 6 September 2021 and requested an extension on 20 September 2021, and responded to the complaint on 4 October 2021 within the ten working days extension. The landlord complied with the timeframes set out in its policy. The landlord’s first response to the second complaint covered the issues raised under the first complaint, plus an additional complaint about the wet room. The response said that the complaint was partially upheld, however at no point in the response were any faults identified, which would have been confusing for the resident.
Following the resident’s request to escalate the second complaint, the landlord escalated it. It sent an acknowledgement letter containing details on how to contact this Service on 5 October 2021, in line with its policy. It provided its stage two final response on 2 November 2021 within 20 working days. The landlord upheld the complaint and apologised for the inconvenience caused, however it failed to clearly explain why the complaint was upheld. The landlord did state that learning had taken place on complaints handling and ownership which would be a priority for a new senior member of staff to be appointed. It also set out the plan of works to address the repairs issues and explained it was trying to set up a contract with the lift manufacturer. It did not offer any compensation for the inconvenience suffered by the resident. It also failed to include details on how to escalate the complaint to this Service if the resident remained dissatisfied, which is a breach of paragraph 5.20 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling. The landlord’s failure to escalate the first complaint and its confusing responses would have caused further distress to the resident, as well as further time, trouble, and effort in having to pursue her complaints. An order has been made that the landlord pay £300 in compensation to reflect the impact these failings had on the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s request for adaptation works and repairs.
2. Complaints handling.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s claim that the property did not meet her disability needs when let to her.

Reasons

There was maladministration in the handling of repairs and adaptations requests as the landlord failed to take ownership of and carry out repairs reported when the resident first moved in. The landlord also gave conflicting answers on the repair and replacement of the rear doors, confirming that these were needed, but later stating that this work would not be carried out, meaning that the doors remain in disrepair.
There was maladministration in complaint handling because the landlord failed to escalate the resident’s first complaint. Its responses were not clear on what aspects of a complaint were upheld or why, and when it did find a failing there was no evidence it considered offering any compensation to try to put things right. It failed to provide information on how to escalate the stage two complaint to this Service.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s claim that the property did not meet her needs, because it explained clearly how the property was built, and signed off, before it was acquired by the landlord. It explained that it met the relevant regulations for disabled adapted properties. It encouraged the resident to approach an OT so that it could look to provide any further adaptations needed in line with its policies.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay direct to the resident compensation of £1,100 made up of:
  1. The £200 it had previously offered for its failure to include the lift on its inspections list.
  2. A further £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failures in the handling of repairs and adaptation requests.
  3. £300 for the distress and inconvenience, time, and trouble caused to the resident by its complaints handling failures.
3. Inspect the rear doors, or provide evidence that it has inspected them within the last two months, and carry out any repairs needed. If replacement is required, the landlord is to order the necessary door(s) and or parts and provide evidence of this, and to fit them as soon as possible once received.
4. Update its template complaint response letters and complaints policy or procedure, to include giving details of how to escalate a complaint to this Service as part of its stage two response, to comply with paragraph 5.20 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code.
5. Provide complaints handling training or refresher training to members of staff who draft complaints responses, to include how to clearly set out details of failings when a complaint is fully or partially upheld, and to consider offering appropriate compensation.
6. Confirm compliance with the above orders to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord consider inviting an OT to attend settling-in visits for adapted properties with the resident’s permission. This would give the resident the opportunity to raise any issues they had with the suitability of the adaptations and for these to be assessed.