Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited (202201412)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201412

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited

24 July 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 decision not to convert the loft, to provide an additional bedroom and bathroom for the resident’s son.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handing of the subsequent complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured-shorthold tenant of the housing association landlord. She lives in a four-bedroomed, mid-terraced house with her partner and six children.
The resident has an 11-year-old son, who has a diagnosis of Autism; Global Development Delay; language and communication difficulties – non-verbal; sensory needs; Chronic Diarrhoea; Bilateral Hypermetropia with Astigmatism. He also presents with high anxiety levels.
The resident’s property has a ground floor with a lounge, a bedroom, rear lobby, and large kitchen. The first floor consists of three bedrooms, a bathroom with wash-hand basin, bath, and WC. There is also a separate WC on the first floor.

Summary of events

In September 2020, an Occupational Therapist (OT) completed a report for the resident, following an application for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DGF). The OT confirmed:
1. The resident’s son had challenging and complex behaviour needs including autism and PICA (eating disorder).
2. He had a disturbed sleep pattern, waking every one-two hours each night, which disturbed his brother, whom he shared a room with.
3. He would benefit from his own room, which could also be used as a sensory room. The OT suggested that a loft conversion could provide an additional bedroom.
4. It had discussed re-housing with the resident; however, it did not consider this an option due to the six children in the household, two of which had special needs.
5. The current property had been adapted to include an additional toilet, secure garden, high bannisters, and reinforced windows.
6. The family had understanding neighbours, who were aware of the son’s behavioural needs.
It is understood from the evidence that the resident made an application directly to the local authority for a loft conversion. It is unclear what date the application was submitted.
On 11 November 2021, the local authority confirmed in an email to the landlord:
1. A visit was completed on 9 November 2021, as requested by the OT. It was to establish the feasibility of providing additional sleeping and washing facilities at the property.
2. An existing and proposed ground floor and first floor plan was provided.
3. It proposed dividing the main bedroom by constructing a stud wall, creating two smaller bedrooms.
4. It would be minor works and meet the family’s bedroom need.
5. The resident was not in agreement with this option and stated that she could not move her double bed. She was advised to consider a smaller bed.
6. There was no space within the current layout to provide additional washing facilities.
7. The resident questioned why a loft conversion could not be provided and was informed that the DFG would provide a maximum of £30,000 which would not cover the cost of a loft conversion.
8. The resident did not wish to consider moving.
9. The local authority confirmed that the case would be closed.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 11 November 2011, and advised:
1. The local authority had assessed the property for a loft conversion following approval of a DFG, however, to create an additional bedroom and a bathroom, it would cost more than the maximum DFG allowance.
2. She had a son with severe mental impairment and other complex needs, and an extra bedroom and a shower was required to meet his needs.
3. The neighbours had accepted her son, and his behaviour, following challenges previously. She was anxious about moving again, and hoped the landlord would consider the family’s situation before making a decision.
On 11 November 2021, a Specialist Clinical Psychologist wrote a letter to the landlord in relation to the resident’s request for a loft conversion. The Psychologist confirmed:
1. The son was diagnosed with Autism; Global Development Delay; Language and Communication Difficulties – non-verbal; Sensory Needs; Chronic Diarrhoea; Bilateral Hypermetropia with Astigmatism. He also presented with high anxiety levels.
2. The resident’s son was under the care of the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAHMS) Intellectual Disabilities Team. He was referred by his GP after displaying high levels of anxiety around new settings.
3. He had previously attempted to jump out of windows at home and always required close supervision.
4. A shower would be extremely beneficial from a personal care point of view as he had difficulties around spatial awareness, and other sensory related issues (including struggling with depth of water). As he grew, it would be very difficult for his parents to safely get him in and out of the bath.
5. He required his own space, due to being noisy and disturbing his siblings during the night.
6. It was her professional opinion that adaptations in the home would benefit him and the family, who were struggling to contain him within the current home setting.
The landlord sent a response to the resident on 12 November 2021. The letter was headed “Adaptation Case Closure – Additional Bathroom and Bedroom.” It confirmed the following:
1. Consent had been given for the local authority’s adaptations team to assess the feasibility of adding an additional bedroom and bathroom to the property.
2. The local authority had identified a viable option to create additional bedroom space within the existing property layout.
3. The option put forward was to split the master bedroom into two smaller bedrooms. The landlord advised it was happy to support this option to meet the son’s needs, however, it had been advised by the local authority that the resident had declined the option.
4. It was not feasible to install an additional bathroom due to the current layout of the property.
5. It would not pursue a loft conversion as it was not considered a reasonable adjustment, and the local authority had confirmed that the option far exceeded the DFG limit and had since closed the case.
6. The resident’s case had been referred to the Customer Relationship Team to support the family to explore housing options.
7. The resident was advised on how to appeal the decision. It confirmed that the response on the appeal would be final.
In an email response, sent the same day, the resident confirmed:
1. The information passed to the landlord, via the surveyor, was inaccurate.
2. The surveyor’s initial opinion was that it was not able to create two small bedrooms, or add a shower, and therefore the local authority was happy to support a loft conversion if the landlord was willing to pay the difference in the cost.
3. Moving to another property would create further problems, as it had taken a long time for her neighbours to accept her son and they did not want to go through a similar situation by moving to a new area.
4. There was no guarantee that by moving, the property would meet of all her son’s needs.
5. The resident requested the landlord reconsidered its decision and supported them in meeting her son’s needs, without making the situation difficult.
On 16 November 2021, the resident sent an email, appealing the landlord’s decision not to convert the loft. The resident confirmed the son’s disabilities and gave the following reasons why she was not in agreement with the proposals put forward:
1. It was not possible to split the main bedroom without causing huge disruption and making the family’s lives more difficult. She said:
  1. It would block the only source of natural light, as well as her son’s only view through the window.
  2. Blocking the window with a bed would pose a safety hazard and would give her son easy access to open and jump out of the window.
  3. The main bedroom was the only space that could accommodate the double bed and other furniture and there was no space for a wardrobe.
  4. The bedroom provided a comfort space for her son when he awoke in the middle of the night.
  5. His sensory equipment was in the main bedroom, as there was no space anywhere else in the house for it.
  6. There was no space for a shower in the house.
  7. It had taken a long time for the neighbours to accept her son and his behaviours, and the thought of moving and going through that again gave the whole family anxiety.
  8. A loft conversion would accommodate the adaptations needed for her son. She added that she felt the landlord had not fully understood her son’s needs or weighed up the knock-on impact its decision had on the whole family.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s appeal email on 17 November 2021, and advised it would be forwarded to the Head of Assets for review, as part of the appeals process.
The resident emailed the landlord on 21 January 2022, to request an update on the outcome of the appeal.
The landlord responded on 31 January 2022, to apologise that the resident had not received a response regarding the appeal. It confirmed that it would follow up and respond to the resident as soon as it had an update.
The landlord provided an appeal response letter on 3 February 2022. It stated:
1. It upheld its original decision not to convert the loft.
2. It was willing to explore options to achieve recommended adjustments with the existing footprint and would not reasonably withhold consent for proposed works.
3. The obligation under law was to make “reasonable adjustments.” Reasonableness should be assessed by reference to several factors which included:
  - The type and length of letting.
  - The age and condition of the building.
  - How practicable it is to achieve the adjustments.
  - Availability of more practicable options.
  - How much the adjustment will cost.
  - The resources and funds of the landlord.
  - How effective the change is likely to be.
  - Reasonable adjustments do not include major structural changes to the property.
It set out its reason for refusal as follows:

Installation of an additional bedroom

After an inspection visit on 1 December 2021, and following a review from the surveyor, it confirmed that it would be possible to provide an additional bedroom by splitting the main bedroom. It would involve creating a stud wall and making two single bedrooms, both of which would have a window.

Installation of an additional bathroom

This was not feasible due to the layout of the property. It confirmed a discrepancy between the OT’s recommendation for an additional bathroom, and the psychologist’s recommendation for a shower.
The OT had recommended an additional bathroom because her son spent a significant amount of time in the bath, preventing others in the household using the bathroom.
The psychologist advocated a shower, stating that the resident was finding it increasingly difficult to support her son in getting on and out of the bath, alongside his difficulties to gauge depth of water.
It acknowledged the difficulties faced and confirmed that it was willing to consider adapting the existing bathroom to a wet room. Thus, providing the son with safer access to washing facilities, if supported by the OT.
It advised that should the resident wish to pursue this option, it would consult with the OT to confirm the works required.

Loft extension request

It had identified a potential, more practicable option to create an additional bedroom. The request for an extension or conversion to achieve the same, was not reasonable under the requirements of the Equality Act 2010.
The cost of an extension or conversion would far exceed the maximum limit of a DFG which was £30,000 and was only available for “essential facilities”.
The process would also be highly disruptive and intrusive, and the family would need to be decanted for the duration of the works.
While it would not pursue the loft conversion, it was willing to consider giving landlord/freeholder consent should the resident wish to pursue the works independently.

Housing options and duty

The resident was advised on how to request a transfer and submit evidence based on medical grounds.

Decision

It could adapt the existing bathroom and divide the first-floor front bedroom to create an additional bedroom space.
It had considered all the information available, and a loft conversion was not a reasonable adjustment within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. It was committed to working with the family to improve her son’s quality of life.
The resident was advised to contact the landlord, should she wish to discuss the proposals further.

The resident submitted a formal complaint on 7 February 2022, reiterating the points made in the email sent to the landlord on 16 November 2021.
On 8 February 2022, the landlord confirmed that the matter would be treated as a complaint under its complaints policy. It confirmed that it would provide a response by 18 February 2022.
On 18 February 2022, the landlord provided a “supplementary response”. It confirmed:
1. The matter raised, as discussed with the resident, was not a complaint as such, and was considered as a service request.
2. It would not provide a loft conversion, as ‘reasonable’ and ‘practicable’ options had been identified and offered.
3. The resident had raised concerns regarding the disruption that would be caused by the option offered. The landlord confirmed that any building works would cause disruption which could not be avoided. It would aim to limit disruption and would arrange a pre-meeting before any works commenced.
4. The meeting would provide an opportunity to discuss how the works would work best. Additionally, a loft extension or conversion would be significantly more disruptive.
5. A window would be installed into the smaller spaces, allowing for light and ventilation. This would ensure that the resident’s son’s sensory needs were met. The landlord confirmed that window restrictors and locks would be provided.
6. The surveyor had measured the room to ensure there would be sufficient space for two separate, single bedrooms. However, if the bedrooms did not provide sufficient space for sensory equipment, it may be necessary to relocate items to another space in the property.
7. The option considered facilitated the residents need to be in a room adjacent to her son. It was clear that a loft conversion would not suitably accommodate the son’s need to remain on the same floor as his mother.
8. The wet room shower provided a reasonable solution for both the needs of the resident and her son and was open to adapting the existing bathroom. It added that any reasonable adjustments made were to enable the disabled resident access to essential facilities and enable carers to provide care.
9. It was sorry to hear of the problems the resident suffered when she moved in and it had asked the Customer Relationship Manager to contact the resident to discuss a way forward.
1. It appreciated that there was no guarantee that moving to another property would meet all her son’s needs. However, the offer of rehousing was another solution.
The resident replied via email the same day. She said:
1. The landlord misinterpreted what she had said. She considered the landlord was unwilling to assist the family, without making their lives more difficult.
2. The disruption of splitting the main bedroom was related to the light that would be blocked, as well as the lack of space to accommodate the sensory equipment.
3. The bed against the window would be a safety hazard, whether there was a lock on the window or not.
4. The landlord did not care how the family lived and could not claim that it was assisting them.
5. Her son slept in the room adjacent to hers, and a loft conversion did not necessarily mean that her son would be the one to move to the loft.
6. She had another child with special needs that the landlord was failing to consider.
The landlord emailed the resident on 28 February 2022, in response to her email of 18 February 2022. It said:
1. It was providing a final response, as explained, which was a response to a service request.
2. It wanted to assure the resident that it had fully reviewed her concerns, along with the recommendations made by the OT, as well as its policy and procedure.
3. A loft conversion was not a reasonable adjustment, as advised previously, in letters sent on 12 November 2021, and the appeal response on 3 February 2022.
4. It had clearly clarified the scope of works and issued a supplementary appeal response, to ensure that it had covered all issues and concerns raised.
5. Its records did not indicate that it had received any correspondence from the OT recommending any adjustments for the second child. If the resident felt that adjustments would be required for that child, an OT should complete an assessment. It would then consider any recommendations, within the existing footprint of the property.
6. A request for the Customer Relationship Manager to contact the resident had been made, to update the records in terms of other disabilities within the household, as well as exploring other housing options.
7. It confirmed that it had concluded the matter under its appeals process, and would not correspond on the matter further, unless new evidence was provided from the OT, or the resident wished to pursue the options offered.
The resident contacted this Service in April 2022 after she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. This Service emailed the landlord and requested that it issue a response within its complaint process. Based on the appeal response, the landlord was advised that it could issue a stage two response, if the landlord wished, confirming its position.
The landlord emailed this Service on 27 July 2022, after confirming the matter had not formed part of its complaints process. It requested advice on how to progress with the case, and was advised by this Service to issue a final stage complaint response.
The landlord issued a stage two complaint response on 14 September 2022, in which it said:
1. It concluded that the actions taken within its appeal were thorough, reasonable, and fair.
2. It confirmed that as it was a non-profit organisation, it reinvested profits to provide more homes and services for those that need them the most. As such, it was unable to fulfil requests that were not reasonable or practical.
3. Its asset surveyor measured the front bedroom, and in agreement with the local council’s adaptations surveyor, it concluded there was sufficient space to adapt the existing first floor bedroom to provide two separate bedrooms.
4. It reiterated the options around transferring to alternative accommodation.
5. It reiterated its duty to make reasonable adjustments to support disabled persons to access essential facilities and enable carers to provide support to that person.
6. It confirmed that it had managed the matter as a service request under an appeal and the resident had not contacted the landlord regarding the matter following its response on 28 February 2022.
7. It acknowledged that it should have provided the Ombudsman’s details as part of the appeal responses, and it had learnt lessons from this. It offered £50 compensation for this.
The resident remained dissatisfied and asked the Ombudsman to investigate the complaint on 21 September 2022.

Legislation, policies, and procedures

The landlord’s adaptations policy defines its approach to establishing when an “adaptation may or may not be practical or suitable.” It states that it will collaborate with the local authority’s OTs to support its residents.
Upon receipt of the OT assessment, it will evaluate the practicality, viability and cost of recommended adaptations and will consider the recommendations, the residents circumstances and the long-term viability of the property.
It states that it will offer housing advice where an adaptation is not practical or viable, or where alternative accommodation represents a practical solution to the resident’s needs. Where it refuses an adaptation, the resident may appeal and request a review of the decision. Appeals will be a final response.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaint process. Its complaints policy confirms that it will respond to stage one response within 10 working days. It states that it may agree an alternative timescale with the resident on a case-by-case basis, but it would not exceed 20 working days in total. It will provide a stage two complaint response within 20 working days.
The landlord uses the Ombudsman’s definition of a complaint; however, it has in place a definition for a “service request” and for an “official complaint” and will take steps at each stage to resolve issues as soon as possible. It defines a service request as:
“This is usually about a repair, provision of service or action, where the timeframe for delivering that repair or action has not yet passed.”
It defines an official complaint as – “An official complaint will not fast-track or change its process but will provide an opportunity for the landlord to investigate the issue, explore how and why it happened, find an appropriate resolution, and learn any lessons to avoid such issues in the future.”

Assessment and findings

A landlord should not unreasonably refuse permission for adaptations, but it can consider factors including how much work is needed. Where an individual is disabled, the Equality Act 2010 states that they are entitled to “reasonable adjustments” to a property. This does not include changes to physical features, including structural changes. Where a landlord refuses permission, it must provide reasons for this.
There is no obligation on the landlord under the tenancy agreement, or otherwise, to convert part of a property at the request of a resident. Rather, the landlord may use its discretion to decide whether there are grounds for the property to be adapted, altered, or converted. However, in exercising its discretion, the landlord must act in a manner that is fair and reasonable overall.
It is not for the Ombudsman to decide what would be best for the resident, her son, and the family in this case, including whether the loft should be converted. Our role is to consider the evidence which was available to the landlord and decide whether its decision making was in line with relevant standards and fair in the circumstances of the case.
The landlord was not obliged to follow any recommendations made by the OT; however, it was obliged to consider the recommendations made. In assessing the proposal, the landlord was entitled to consider the scope of works, the cost of the associated works, and the availability of other practical options. The evidence provided to this Service shows that it appropriately considered these factors when reviewing the OT’s recommendation.
In considering the request, the landlord instructed the local authority to conduct a survey of the property, to ascertain the viability of a loft conversion to form an additional bedroom, and bathroom for the resident’s son. This was appropriate, demonstrating a collaborative approach with the local authority, to determine the feasibility of the request.
Evidence provided to this Service demonstrates that the landlord appropriately considered the initial request to convert the loft into a bedroom and bathroom before it decided to offer a proposal that was “reasonable and more practicable” within the existing floorplan. The landlord’s actions show regard for the Equality Act 2010, as well as considering a more viable option, making best use of its stock, and financial resources. It is understood that the property had previously been adapted to accommodate the needs of the son by providing an additional toilet, reinforced windows, high bannisters, and secure garden.
The landlord reached the decision not to convert the loft, after considering the issues of necessity, scope of works, cost of the works, and the disruption that would be caused. The landlord advised the resident that the cost of the works would far exceed the maximum DFG of £30,000. It appropriately offered an alternative solution which would provide an additional room for the resident and her family, while considering the needs of the child, including the offer to install a wet room. This was a reasonable approach to take, demonstrating consideration had been given to the circumstances of the case.
The consideration of costs, and use of the landlord’s housing stock, are reasonable factors for the landlord to consider in responding to applications for adaptations. As a social landlord, it has a budget which it is required to use appropriately, considering the needs of all its residents. The landlord has demonstrated it reasonably considered these factors and provided detailed responses throughout its correspondence with the resident.
It was reasonable for the landlord to consider other factors, such as the significant disruption the work would cause the family. It confirmed that the family would be decanted while the works took place. In noting that the clinical psychologist confirmed that the resident’s son displayed high levels of anxiety in new settings, the landlord offered a solution that would mean the family would not be decanted and caused significant upheaval. It also reconfirmed that splitting the main bedroom would cause significantly less disruption than converting the loft. In considering all the factors, the landlord’s decision making was balanced, reasonable and fair.
The resident expressed her concerns regarding the natural light being blocked because of splitting the bedroom, as well as the safety aspect of her son accessing the windows. The landlord appropriately addressed all matters of concern, advising that a window would be installed in each bedroom, allowing natural light and ventilation. It said it would also provide window restrictors and locks, for additional peace of mind for the resident.
The resident advised that by splitting the room, there would not be room to house her son’s sensory equipment. The landlord addressed the resident’s concern by advising that it would make reasonable adjustments to improve her son’s quality of living and by having his own bedroom next to the resident’s, it hoped to achieve this. Although the resident’s concerns about having the son’s sensory equipment in another area of the house are understood, the landlord provided an option that best accommodated the recommendations provided by professional services, in ensuring the child had independent space.
The landlord noted discrepancies in accounts from the OT and the clinical psychologist in relation to bathroom requirements for the resident’s son. The OT had suggested that the son would need his own bathroom, due to the amount of time he spent in the bath, preventing other family members from using the bathroom. However, the clinical psychologist stated that a “shower would be extremely beneficial” as the son had difficulties around spatial awareness and struggled to gauge depth of water in the bath. Furthermore, the psychologist added that it was growing increasingly difficult for his parents to safely manage him, in and out of the bath.
The landlord advised the resident that it could not accommodate an additional bathroom, within the existing footprint of the property. Therefore, it proposed adapting the main bathroom into a wet room. The landlord had considered the requirements of the son and his need for essential washing facilities, which would allow the resident to provide care, in a safe way. Again, the proposal was reasonable and fair.
The landlord ensured the resident was aware of all options, one of which included moving to an alternative property. The resident explained the reasons why this was not something she would consider, given the difficulties the family initially faced with the neighbours before they accepted her son and his behaviours. She also explained the impact a move would have on the whole family. It is understandable that moving was not the resident’s preferred option. However, it was appropriate that the landlord offered housing advice, where the resident’s preferred option was not considered viable, or where moving represented a practical solution to the resident’s needs, in line with its adaptations policy.
The landlord recognised the issues faced by the resident and clearly attempted to find alternative solutions to those proposed by the resident and the OT. It explained its rationale for not agreeing to the loft conversion, but also presented alternative options for further consideration. This showed a willingness to find a solution that would work for all parties.
Although the resident was not guaranteed to have her request for a loft conversion met, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have included her in a case discussion, in an attempt to suitably manage her expectations. While the solution proposed appears to have been reasonable, it seems to have been reached more unilaterally than collaboratively. This gave reason for the resident to believe that the landlord was not understanding of her situation, that it was not fully considered, or taken as seriously as the evidence demonstrates that it was. While this not does constitute maladministration, this was a shortcoming in the landlord’s handling of the matter and a recommendation has been made to the landlord.
While the resident was not happy with the decision, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision making. It considered all relevant views and evidence, and demonstrated a commitment to achieving a resolution in this case that met the needs of the child, and which supported the continuity of care by the resident.

Complaint handling

The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 7 February 2022. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint within one day and confirmed that it would be “treated as an official complaint, under its complaints policy.”
Despite acknowledging the complaint, the landlord did not issue a stage one complaint response. This was not in accordance with its complaint policy which states that “an official complaint will be investigated and responded to, in writing, within 10 working days”.
The landlord did not consider the matter under the complaints policy as it stated it would, but considered all expressions of dissatisfaction from the resident as appeals under its adaptations policy. This resulted in the landlord issuing a “supplementary response” on 18 February 2022 and a further “final response” on 28 February 2022. Its final response confirmed that the matter was concluded.
The landlord failed to provide the resident with information on how to escalate her complaint, either through its internal complaints process, or by contacting this Service. In failing to provide the resident with a stage one complaint response, the landlord failed to meet the standards set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which confirms the landlord should provide “details of how to escalate the matter if the resident is not satisfied with the answer.”
The Code also states that “landlords must provide advice to residents regarding their access to the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.” Not doing so unreasonably delayed the resident’s right to request that this Service reviewed her complaint, protracting the matter.
Part 4.1 of the Code states that landlords must ensure that efforts to resolve a resident’s concerns, do not obstruct access to the complaints procedure or result in any unreasonable delay. In this case, the complaint stalled after the landlord concluded its response, under the appeals process. While the landlord’s responses made efforts to address the residents’ concerns, it hindered the residents access to the complaint’s procedure.
From the evidence, the landlord appeared unclear on how to address the complaint, referring the matter each time as a “service request”, which was inappropriate, and complicated the matter. In line with the requirements of the Code a landlord should operate a complaints procedure which facilitates and supports quick resolution of complaints and promotes a positive relationship between the parties, which the landlord did not achieve in this case.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles set out the approach to providing remedies. The three principles are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The evidence demonstrates that the landlord has acknowledged its failures in relation to the handling of the complaint and confirmed that lessons had been learned, and that action would be taken to prevent a reoccurrence. It has also taken steps to address the matter with its team.
The landlord acknowledged its failings with the “service request” issue, as well as the delay in issuing a stage two complaint response. It offered the resident £50 for the failings it had identified.
However, the stage two complaint response was issued on 14 September 2022, which was 219 days after the resident confirmed she was dissatisfied with the appeal response. This was an unreasonable delay and a significant departure from the landlord’s complaints policy.
Given the significant delay in providing a response, and the protracted appeals process which stalled the resident’s access to the complaints process, the offer of redress was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience, as well as time and trouble, that was caused to the resident. Therefore, an order has been made which reflects the failings identified within the complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision not to convert the loft to provide an additional bedroom and bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord was not obliged to convert the loft but it was appropriate for it to assess and consider the resident’s request to convert the loft to meet her son’s needs. The landlord fully explained its position to the resident and based its refusal on several valid factors, such as offering a reasonable and suitable alternative, the cost of the conversion, and the disruption that would be caused while the works were completed. The landlord appropriately considered the resident’s request in line with its policy, and demonstrated that it considered relevant evidence from the OT, clinical psychologist, the local authority’s aids and adaptations team and its surveyor. The landlord demonstrated a willingness to explore an alternative that it reasonably considered was suitable in meeting the needs of the resident’s son.
The landlord delayed in issuing a complaint response and failed to use the complaints process as an effective tool for timely resolution. The handling of the matter caused confusion as well as delay to the resident, in being able to conclude the matter.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for its handling of the complaint.
2. Pay the resident £200 for the adverse effect caused by its failure to respond to the resident within its prescribed timescales. If the £50 offered during the complaints procedure has already been paid to the resident, this should be deducted from this amount.
3. The landlord should provide a reminder to its staff on the difference between a service request and complaint, and acknowledging and responding to complaints appropriately. This should include reference to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
Within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Review its adaptations appeal process, to ensure that residents are able to have their dissatisfaction with decisions made during this process dealt with as a complaint, and that they are signposted to the Ombudsman. As a minimum, the landlord’s review should include consideration of the wording of the appeals policy, and guidance and training for staff. The outcome of this review must be shared with the Ombudsman, also within eight weeks.

Recommendation

The landlord should consider how it can better involve residents in its decision making where residents have complex needs and adaptations are requested.