Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited (202016023)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016023

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited

14 September 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 handling of the resident’s:
1. Reported repairs and associated decant.
2. Request to be moved on medical grounds.
3. Request to be allocated a different point of contact.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association.
The property is a 1 bedroom flat which the resident shares with his wife and 2 children.
The landlord’s records show that the resident sustained a spinal injury in 2001. A medical letter, dated 2004, said he had made a good recovery but suffered from residual issues such as pain, abnormal sensations and impaired mobility including limited walking.
In August 2021 the resident instructed solicitors to pursue a claim for housing disrepair under the pre-action protocol for housing conditions claim. The parties subsequently agreed a pre-action settlement on terms. This included the landlord carrying out works as per an agreed schedule of works. On 16 April 2020, the landlord’s offer was accepted on the basis that the resident was decanted for the duration of the works.

Summary of events

The landlord began searching for decant properties in March 2020. However, it states that this became problematic due to Covid-19 restrictions that were in place at the time.
On 2 November 2020 the landlord’s medical advisor issued its assessment of the resident’s request to move on the grounds that the property did not meet his medical needs. The request was based on the property not being suitable due to overcrowding and the resident feeling claustrophobic due to the size of the property. No medical priority was recommended.
A letter from the resident’s doctor, dated 7 December 2020, advised it was not the best time for the resident to relocate due to his mental health. It suggested that the building works be postponed until the resident was psychologically prepared. Meanwhile the resident contacted this service in March 2021. He advised that he had tried to raise a complaint with the landlord as he was unhappy with his living conditions. The resident advised that the landlord declined to open a complaint given the preceding legal action, but that the basis for the complaint was different.
The landlord was provided with a further update, from the resident’s solicitor, on 24 May 2021, saying the resident was not in a position to allow works to take place.
Following communication from this service on 17 September 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident on 24 September. It said:
1. Based on interactions with the resident’s solicitor, and the detail it had provided about his wellbeing, it had agreed to postpone the repairs. It had enquired in June as to whether the works could commence, but no reply had been received.
2. It had made 6 temporary decant offers which the resident had declined.
3. It considered they had reached an impasse regarding the decant property, and therefore suggested the following to the resident’s solicitor in June:
  1. That the resident decant to the next available property near to his current property. He would then return to the property on completion of the works.
  2. A decant to a hotel. It would book two rooms and would endeavour to find a hotel close to the resident’s home.
  3. That the works took place with the resident and his family in situ.
  4. A decant to a serviced apartment provided by its external partner ‘insurance claims accommodation bureau’ (ICAB) for the duration of the works.
4. The resident’s solicitor had advised that she was taking instruction from the resident, but it had not received a response to the above.
5. The resident had also requested that it address further repairs as part of the complaint, including:
  1. Living room carpet damaged by damp .
  2. Damage to the kitchen cupboards and work surfaces.
6. The schedule of works included the kitchen sink unit base and the bathroom vinyl flooring. No defects were identified in terms of the other points the resident listed when the surveyor inspected in November 2019, and neither was this included in the letter of claim or raised by his legal representative. It said it would investigate and any necessary repairs undertaken once access was provided and the main remedial works commence.
7. It did not register a formal complaint previously as it had received a disrepair claim and was liaising with the resident’s legal representatives. This service advised that the letter of claim was not evidence of legal proceedings, it was evidence that the pre-action protocol was being followed. Therefore, it was obliged to issue a complaint response detailing its answer to all complaint grounds. It acknowledged there had been a level of inconvenience caused for which it apologised.
8. It wished to offer £75 compensation in recognition of the “service issues”. It also confirmed that it had raised the feedback with the areas of service concerned, as part of lessons learnt, with a view to avoid any such future instance and to deliver a more “robust” customer journey.
Having agreed to be decanted, the landlord and resident exchanged a number of emails between 8 to 12 November 2021. The landlord agreed to provide the resident with an update every Friday. It also said it would send a revised schedule of works and consider providing compensation for the living room carpet. The resident had also requested a mould wash be carried out. Having received the schedule of works the resident emailed the landlord to request additional works be included in relation to radiators, kitchen, bathroom and the storage cupboard.
The landlord provided an update on works, adding that ICAB had been contacted to decant the resident and his family from the property. It confirmed that in the meantime it would also look for a permanent 2 bedroom property in the postcodes specified by the resident. It also set out details of a viewing of a property that had been arranged.
The resident provided medical evidence relating to a call made to NHS 111 on 17 November 2021 in relation to one of his children who was described as suffering from “respiratory distress.”
The landlord emailed the resident on 19 November 2021 as follows:
1. The resident had viewed a 2 bedroom property, offered as a permanent move, but had declined because it was not big enough for his needs.
2. The resident had asked the landlord to guarantee it would offer a 3 bedroom property when his daughter turned 10 years old. It confirmed it was not able to do so. It said it no longer had an internal transfer list for overcrowding and that residents seeking a larger property were encouraged to apply for a mutual exchange.
3. The resident had confirmed that he would consider moving temporarily, but only on condition that the landlord install a new kitchen in the property which it said it would not do. The schedule of works included repairs to the kitchen as well as the additional repairs that he raised as part of his complaint.
4. It asked the resident to consider a temporary decant for the works to proceed. The quickest and most efficient way to progress would be to move temporarily to a serviced apartment. It said it had no available 2 bedroom properties and it was “highly unlikely” any would become void until 2022.
5. It asked the resident to confirm his preferred date to decant to a serviced apartment. It would then refer that back to its external provider, ICAB, who would liaise with him regarding the location and move.
The resident emailed the landlord on 22 November 2021 to make a complaint, as follows:
1. He did not refuse on the grounds the property was too small. It was because there were stairs leading to the property which he would not be able to manage on a daily basis due to his disability. The resident felt that the landlord had behaved in a discriminatory manner by offering him a property it knew was unsuitable for him.
2. He was dissatisfied about the repairs the landlord said it would carry out.
3. During a telephone call with the landlord on 10 November 2021, he was told it was looking for a permanent 2 bedroom flat as the 1 bedroom property was deemed not suitable. It had said he would be decanted from the property flat temporarily while work took place and then moved from that temporary accommodation to a permanent 2 bed property once one had been allocated.
4. He requested that the landlord put its proposal in writing. On 10 November 2021, it confirmed this in an email. In the same email, it advised him that there was a 2 bedroom flat he could view which was compatible with his disability.
5. During the viewing it was evident that the property was not suitable because it had stairs. The landlord had since “backtracked” and requested that he find a mutual exchange instead.
6. ICAB contacted him on 15 November 2021 about a temporary move to an apartment. He replied immediately to ask if he could view the property and had not received a response.
7. He asked the landlord to confirm whether it was going to carry out the mould wash which he had repeatedly requested. He said the smell of mould and damp is extremely strong in the flat and was now “seriously” affecting the household’s health.
The resident emailed the landlord on 29 November 2021 to confirm he was available all week for the mould wash to be carried out.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 December 2021 saying this was the fourth time he had not received his weekly update. He expressed concern that he had not heard back from the landlord regarding the mould wash. He had also not received a reply to his email of 29 November. The landlord replied the same day to say it had not received the email of 29 November and asked him to resend it, which he did.
The landlord replied to the email of 29 November 2021 on 6 December as follows:
1. It was actively looking for alternative accommodation within its own housing stock but options were limited.
2. It had also instructed it external partner, ICAB, who would be contacting the resident.
3. Accommodation would be for the duration of the works only.
4. As it did not receive the email dated 29 November, it asked the resident to confirm a selection of suitable dates for the mould wash so it could be booked in.
5. It reminded the resident that he could pursue a mutual exchange.
The landlord sent a further email to the resident on 8 December 2021 to confirm that:
1. The mould wash had been booked in and the contractor would liaise with the resident directly to arrange access.
2. It had been sending regular updates, apart from 3 December, and attached the emails.
3. The schedule of works was sent on 9 November however, a further copy was attached to the email.
4. The radiators had been referred to the gas team and did not fall within the scope of the disrepair works. However, the bathroom radiator was covered by the disrepair and had now been included in the schedule.
5. The kitchen was last replaced in 2011. As such, the present condition of the kitchen related to resident damage. It had included the necessary repairs to the kitchen base unit as standard in the schedule. It said it would consider fitting a new kitchen on a rechargeable basis.
6. Cleaning was the resident’s responsibility. The wastepipe from the bathroom sink was due to be replaced and was already included in the schedule.
7. The bath would be reinspected during works and replaced if necessary.
8. The surveyor found no issue with the cupboard however, it would be reinvestigated and any necessary works, which fell within the landlord’s obligations, would be carried out as part of the works.
9. Following inspection, only the kitchen door would be replaced and was included in the schedule.
10. It would inspect the damaged rear garden fence and would replace it if it fell within its repairing obligations.
11. Replacement of the kitchen and bathroom floors were included in the schedule.
12. The wash hand basin, WC and flooring in the toilet were replaced in 2012. Extended works to the bathroom were included in the schedule.
13. The complaints team would reply to the resident’s complaint dated 22 November.
14. The compensation request in relation to the carpet was being considered. No decision would be made until the resident was decanted and the works completed.
15. It had communicated with the resident about the decant process. The resident had been offered a permanent 2 bedroom property which he turned down as he was not able to manage the stairs. The landlord informed the resident that it had no suitable properties (ground floor properties) at present within its own housing stock.
16. The resident was referred to its external partner, ICAB, to source a hotel or serviced apartment for the duration of the works. ICAB advised it contacted the resident on 11 November to discuss decanting but it too had no apartments at present in his preferred locations.
17. The landlord had previously offered a number of decant properties within its own stock. Some of the properties were 2 bedroomed and some were in close proximity to the current property. The landlord had noted the resident’s concerns about particular areas.
18. It asked the resident to forward the email he sent on 29 November, with recipients’ email addresses included, so that its IT department could investigate what had gone wrong.
19. It denied that there had been poor communication between the landlord and the resident.
20. It reiterated its view that works could take place with minimal disruption while the resident remained in the property. However, it was working hard to find decant accommodation to address the resident’s concerns about doing so.
On 13 December 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to say this was the second week in a row he had not received the weekly update. He added that:
1. The mould wash did not go ahead the previous week. He was contacted by the contractor that day to say they would be attending that morning due to a cancellation. Prior notice had not been provided.
2. The contractor said he had only been instructed to carry out work to visible mould he could see and access despite. The landlord had agreed to move heavy furniture in order for work to be carried out.
3. The contractor had said he could not paint, sand or seal any areas where the mould had caused damage to the interior of the property.
4. He was forced to leave his online meetings to assist he contractor. Had he been given prior notice he would have taken time off to be available.
The landlord replied on the same day to say that:
1. It had provided a detailed update on 8 December and there was nothing to warrant a further update on 10 December.
2. It had said that the contractor would be in touch regarding the damp and mould wash. Contact was made with the resident following a cancellation on the off chance he might be available. If this was inconvenient, the resident had every right to ask the contractor to arrange another time.
3. The landlord had not agreed that the contractor would be lifting heavy furniture to look for mould.
4. Decorative works would take place during the planned works.
On 17 January 2022 the landlord’s medical advisor issued a further assessment of the suitability of the property on medical grounds and concluded no medical priority applied. It said that there were 3 steps inside the flat that were “non- negotiable.” The assessment concluded that due to a lack of up to date medical information on the level of mobility it was not possible to recommend medical priority. It said it would be happy to review the assessment in the light of an occupation therapy (OT) report, should one be provided.
ICAB made a further offer of accommodation which the resident accepted on 28 January and moved into on early February 2022.
The landlord visited the resident on 8 February 2022 during which he raised a complaint about his Disrepair Liaison Officer (DLO) and requested another officer be allocated. The landlord subsequently emailed the resident to confirm that it would make a follow up call to him on Friday 11 February at 4.00pm.
On 9 February 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to ‘check in’ as it had not been able to get through to him by telephone. It emailed again on 11 February, to meet its commitment to provide a weekly update. It said it would soon know more about the ongoing works and commencement date and would provide a further update the following week. It confirmed it was still looking for a suitable 2 bedroom property.
On 25 February 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that works at the property were underway. The resident replied to say he had visited the property himself that day and noted that works had not started. He also said he no longer felt it was appropriate for the landlord to provide weekly updates because the property was not suitable for him and his family. Furthermore, it had been agreed that the family would be moved from the temporary accommodation to more suitable accommodation when one became available. Therefore, he would only need to be contacted once a suitable property was ready for viewing.
The landlord’s internal communications dated 28 February 2022 show that it considered the resident’s request to be allocated a different point of contact for the repairs. It had reviewed the communication and found there were no grounds for appointing another member of staff.
On 4 March 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to raise concerns about its lack of communication. The landlord replied the next day, referring to the email the resident had sent on 25 February saying he no longer wished to receive weekly updates. It said that if the works at the property were completed before a suitable 2 bedroom property became available he would have to return for an interim period.
On 8 March 2022 the resident emailed his complaint to the landlord, as follows:
1. He had been told works had commenced 7 February 2022 but when he visited to collect his mail it was clear that no work had begun. This meant he moved out 3 weeks before any work actually began. He did not feel that the landlord was taking his complaint about the conduct of his point of contact seriously.
2. The landlord did not contact the resident on 11 February 2022 as agreed. It did not make contact with him until 4 March and only because he had chased. This caused the resident to feel anxious because he was not clear on what to do about some of the issues he had raised.
3. He had emailed the landlord 9 February 2022 to seek an update regarding the disposal of other items that the removal team were unable to transfer from the property to storage, due to damage caused by damp and mould. He had not received a response until that day. He was frustrated and anxious about what would happen about the goods left behind and whether the landlord would compensate him.
4. On 10 November 2021 the landlord had informed him that it was looking for permanent accommodation and that it would provide a temporary decant until something suitable was identified. At his request, the landlord confirmed that it was sourcing permanent accommodation and that it had identified a property for viewing. He said the landlord retracted its statement when it said he could be required to return to the property for an interim period until a property was found.
5. The landlord’s customer relationship manager (CRM) failed to provide him with support to him and the landlord had failed to deliver on its promises. It had not taken his concerns seriously and did not communicate with him until he chased. It had not responded to the concerns he had raised to date. He asked the landlord to consider providing another CRM who would be able to provide support to him.
6. He was dissatisfied that the landlord was not able to consider the family for a 3 bedroom property, despite his daughter turning 10years of age in the near future.
7. His mobility was deteriorating which made it more and more difficult for him to negotiate the stairs at the property. He said he was therefore no longer able to return to the property due to his disability.
The landlord’s internal records show that work at the property was complete and due to be post inspected on 23 March 2022 however, the resident did not return.
The landlord provided its complaint response on 25 March 2022, as follows.
1. It apologised for the time taken to respond to the complaint which it had said was due to the complexity of the complaint. It offered £10 compensation for the delayed complaint response.
2. Having been advised by its contractor that work would commence on 7 February 2022 it updated the resident accordingly. It apologised for any inconvenience caused by the works not starting on that date. Its records also confirmed that it had kept the resident updated throughout and had endeavoured to help and assist wherever possible.
3. It apologised that the CRM was unable to call the resident on 11 February 2022 due to being out on visits. However, it did provide a regular weekly update on the 11 of February 2022, as part of its communication agreement.
4. It had established that the wardrobes and double bed were not moved because the works could be undertaken around this furniture. It attended on 14 February 2022 and took photographs which show that the furniture was undamaged.
5. Its records show that it had clarified it would continue to look for suitable properties. However, it was also explained that if works are completed before an offer could be made, then the resident would need to return to the property. It advised him in writing on numerous occasions that it would look to move him to a 2 bedroom property within its own stock if a suitable property became available, and that this would be a permanent transfer.
6. As an interim measure, the resident was temporarily decanted to a serviced apartment for the duration of the works. At a recent viewing of a 2 bedroom property, a permanent transfer, the resident informed the landlord that he was disabled. It had requested medical evidence in order for this to be considered in detail. It had also requested that the resident provide further details of his disability including any associated registration details and/or medical paperwork, so that it could update its records accordingly.
7. During the meeting on the 8 February 2022, the resident asked to change his Disrepair Liaison Officer (DLO), and requested his CRM oversee the case as a whole. This was because the resident was dissatisfied with the level of communication from the DLO. The CRM emailed the resident on 4 March, to clarify that the DLO leading on the case would stay the same and its position had not changed. It had agreed to provide weekly updates, but the resident had asked for them to stop.
8. Medical assessments had taken place, and based on the evidence provided the property was deemed suitable. It confirmed it would review any further medical evidence provided by the resident. However, evidence that the resident was in receipt of personal independence payment (PIP) was not evidence that the property did not meet his needs.
9. It confirmed that the works at the property has been completed and there were a few snagging points that needed to be addressed. It said it was aiming to address these points by 1 April 2022, and would keep the resident updated.
The resident responded to the complaint response on 30 March 2022 and requested that the landlord escalate his complaint. He said:
1. He did not accept its position that it had been unable to provide an update to him by phone on 11 February 2022 because of other off-site commitments. This is because there had been plenty of time to contact him to rearrange the telephone appointment.
2. It had not responded to the ‘service delivery failures’ he had raised from the CRM.
3. He felt that despite providing medical evidence, and proof that he was in receipt of PIP, the landlord continued to “refuse to take his disability and vulnerability seriously.” He said he had experienced disability discrimination which it had simply denied and “brushed under the carpet.”
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 3 May 2022, as follows:
1. During the meeting on 8 February 2022 the CRM took notes which he said he would review and follow with a courtesy call on 11 February. As per the stage 1 complaint response, due to inspections and unforeseeable circumstances this was regrettably not arranged. It apologised again and advised that the matter had been raised with the team. It had considered how it could have managed the situation effectively by rescheduling the appointment.
2. It reiterated the position with regards to its assessments of the suitability of the property. It suggested the resident submit any recent medical updates for review.
3. It had confirmed previously that the current DLO would remain on the case. The CRM had provided an update on the intended action for the works and return the property. It acknowledged that there had been a delay in confirming this however, during that period the DLO had been the officer leading on the case and responsible for providing an update with the works. It was satisfied that weekly updates had been provided and that there had been no discrimination. It had reviewed the resident’s concerns and was satisfied that it had followed its policy and procedure.
4. Medical assessments carried out to date concluded that the property was suitable on specific medical grounds. It assured the resident that it would act on any recommendations made following review of any new medical evidence.
5. It apologised for the failed telephone appointment and associated communication delays.
6. It offered £50 compensation in recognition of the service issues:
  1. £40 – communication
  2. £10 – delayed complaint response
The landlord emailed the resident on 5 May 2022 to advise him that works in the property were complete and invited him to jointly post inspect the works. It asked him to provide details of his availability.
The resident replied to the final complaint response on 10 May 2022. He remained dissatisfied with the service provided by the landlord.
On 16 May 2022 the landlord’s medical advisor issued its assessment of the resident’s request to move on medical grounds because there were 3 steps inside the flat. The assessment concluded that due to a lack of up to date medical information on the level of mobility it was not possible to recommend medical priority. It said it would be happy to review the assessment in the light of an occupation therapy report, should one be provided.
On 17 May 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to say that due to ongoing health and medical concerns he did not think it was appropriate to post inspect the property at this time. He said he had submitted a transfer application and would update the landlord in due course. The resident sent a further email on 20 May 2022 setting out the difficulties he would experience if he were to return to the property.
The landlord emailed the resident on 23 May 2022 to confirm that the property was ready for occupation. Therefore, it would not extend his time at the serviced apartment. It also sought to arrange a date for the resident to attend its offices to discuss the situation.
On 3 June 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to say he was unable to move back to the property due to his disability called ‘paraplegia’. He said he had provided medical evidence of this and confirmed that in his view, the property was not suitable for his health needs and was unsuitable due to overcrowding. He said he would only move to suitable permanent accommodation or temporary ground floor accommodation.
On 7 June 2022 ICAB emailed the landlord because the resident remained at the serviced apartment without authorisation. The resident was required to move out so that the property could be relet. On 8 June the landlord emailed the resident to request that he leave the serviced apartment and return to the property immediately. It confirmed it would continue to try to identify a suitable 2 bedroom property.
On 15 and 26 July 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm its intention to take legal proceedings because he was not living at the property. The landlord subsequently served notice. However, it took the decision to ‘hold’ legal action pending the outcome of possession action in respect of the serviced apartment.
The resident contacted this service on 26 September 2022 to say he had recently met with senior managers and awaited a response to his complaints and queries. He set out the various offers of compensation made by the landlord to date, none of which had been paid. He called again on 6 October to say that he wanted his complaint to be fully investigated, and suitable compensation paid. He also wanted to be offered accommodation with disabled access which could accommodate his children, a boy and a girl, one of whom turned 10years old the following year. He said he was waiting for a complaint response following a meeting it had with the landlord 112 days ago.
The landlord emailed the resident on 21 October 2022. It said that during its meeting with the resident on 15 June 2022 he expressed how he felt about treatment by staff and the alternative accommodation. It said that the resident had not said that he wanted to make a formal complaint and apologised if there has been any confusion. Following contact from this service it confirmed that if the resident wanted it to address any concerns under its complaints process he should provide details.
The resident emailed the landlord on 28 October 2022 to complain about the intention to evict him from the temporary accommodation which he felt had been initiated by the landlord.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 10 November 2022, as follows:
1. It reiterated the contents of its final complaint response dated 3 May 2022.
2. It confirmed there had been a further independent medical assessment, the outcome of which was no medical priority. This had been communicated to the resident on 18 May 2022. It recommended the resident submitting additional medical information for further reassessment if applicable.
3. With regards to the meeting held on 15 June 2022, it confirmed that it had advised the landlord of the serviced apartment to use its usual process to regain possession of their property. It confirmed it had no control over this. It advised the resident to contact the landlord of the temporary accommodation if he wished to pursue a complaint about the process.
4. The landlord confirmed that the property was ready for occupation and that it would contact the removal team to arrange to move items back.
5. It concluded that there was no evidence of any service issues and it did not uphold the complaint.
The resident emailed the landlord on 17 November 2022 to say that he wished to escalate his complaint to stage 2, as follows:
1. Following a request from the landlord to the apartment management it subsequently led to an immediate lock change and a gas, electricity power shut down. He believed this was a deliberate attempt to force the family to move back to the property.
2. At the point at which the landlord served him with notice, it had no proof that the property was in a safe condition and in the right state to move into.
3. Despite informing the landlord about his disability at different points of his tenancy it did not take this into account as part of the decant process.
4. He believed that the landlord’s behaviour towards the resident and his family was “dangerous, negligent and discriminatory.”
The landlord provided its final response on 15 December 2022, upholding the decision of the stage 1 complaint, as follows:
1. It contacted the resident on 5 May, 11 May, and 23 May 2022 to advise that that the property was ready. It requested the landlord of the serviced apartment to carry out its internal process. It said that if the resident remained dissatisfied the process was managed he should contact them directly and look to engage in their complaint process. It expected the resident to return to the property on completion of works following the decant process.
2. It employed a third party to carry out independent medical assessments on its behalf. It had assessed medical evidence that had been submitted on several occasions and concluded there was no evidence on which to suggest a transfer for medical reasons. Taking that into consideration, it concluded there had been no negligence or discrimination. It said it would happily submit any further medical evidence for assessment.
3. It offered the resident the opportunity to carry out a joint post work inspection but he did not respond. It confirmed there were no health and safety issues following completion.
4. The resident’s furniture was placed in storage facilities. The damp and mould was limited to 1 bedroom and no issues were raised in terms of the furniture being affected by mould. Furniture would always to be returned once the post work inspection had been carried out.
5. Given that the resident continued to refuse to return to the property, it would now take steps to regain possession.
The resident was provided with a medical letter dated 16 December 2022 confirming that he had been complaining of pain involving his left thigh and hip. He was unable to walk long distances, had been using a walking stick. It said he had recently been rehoused to a ground-floor flat and would benefit with disabled access which would minimise accidents.

Events post internal complaints process

The landlord of the serviced apartment gained possession of the property in May 2023. The resident subsequently returned to his property around 9 June.
By way of follow up its letter dated 24 September 2021, the landlord emailed the resident on 12 June 2023 to say it would not clean or replace the carpet.
In a letter to this service dated 28 June 2023 the landlord confirmed that it had identified lessons learnt. It had reviewed its decant policy and procedure to ensure that a clear decant licence was provided and check in/out process was signed with residents. It said it would undertake a welfare visit, to decide if an independent OT referral should be made to assess if any adjustments were to be made to the home.
During June and July 2023, the landlord and resident exchanged emails about the ongoing difficulties the resident was experiencing due to the suitability of the property. The landlord proposed that they meet to discuss the situation, including whether an OT assessment might be beneficial. The landlord later confirmed it would arrange a private, independent OT assessment to see what adaptations might be required. However, the resident expressed a preference to consult his own physiotherapist at the hospital. He was doubtful that temporary adaptations at the property would be helpful because he was seeking a permanent move on medical grounds.
The resident submitted further medical evidence to this service on 8 August 2023 which stated that he would “benefit from a property that has level access internally and step free access.”
On 15 August 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that it had not authorised a medical move due to the lack of medical evidence. It hoped that an OT assessment could provide further insight in this regard.
In an email to this service on 18 August 2023 the landlord confirmed that it remained intent on carrying out a private OT assessment in order to establish whether the property was suitable. It also said it would rely on the tenancy agreement to insist that the resident provide access to allow a welfare check and tenancy audit to be carried out at the property.

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

The tenancy agreement states at 9.5 that the resident must use the premises for residential purposes as their only or principal home.
The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy states that it will only consider offering available homes to those with an immediate and urgent need to move, including residents who:
1. Have a significant medical need or disability which means they are unable to remain in the property.
2. Need a temporary or permanent decant.
The landlord’s decant policy defines a temporary decant as one when the resident is moved out of their property with the intention of returning them to their original property at the earliest opportunity. Whether a decant is permanent or temporary will be discussed and agreed before the move.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord’s complaint procedure states that it will consider making a payment of compensation where there has been a failure in service standards which has caused the resident inconvenience and distress. The amount of compensation should recognise that each case is unique and will be considered on its own merits.

Assessment and findings

Reported repairs

The landlord’s handling of repairs which were set out in the schedule of 2020 falls outside of the scope of this investigation because it was agreed as part of a disrepair claim settlement. If the resident remains dissatisfied about whether the landlord fulfilled its repair obligations as agreed in the schedule of works he should seek legal advice.
In early November 2021, in response to the resident’s concerns the landlord appropriately confirmed it would arrange for a mould wash to be carried out. While this was appropriate, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide the resident with a timescale for when this was likely to be carried out. That the landlord did not was a shortcoming in its handling of the matter. The resident chased the landlord, saying the smell in the property which he said was “seriously” affecting the household’s health. The medical incident which occurred on 17 November 2021 is noted, although it is acknowledged that the report does not indicate that this unfortunate incident was linked to conditions within the property.
There was then a short delay because the landlord did not receive the resident’s email of 29 November 2021 which confirmed his availability for the mould wash to take place. On 8 December the landlord confirmed that the mould wash had been booked in and the contractor would contact the resident accordingly. As such, the evidence provided to this service shows the landlord responded quickly once it realised the delay and also took reasonable steps to investigate why the email had not come through. Therefore, while it is acknowledged that there was a slight delay, the landlord’s response was appropriate overall.
On 13 December 2021 the resident complained that the mould wash had been carried out on short notice which had caused inconvenience. He was also dissatisfied that the contractor did not move furniture to wash down concealed mould and that it did not carry our redecoration. The landlord appropriately explained why the contractor contacted him at the last minute and confirmed he would have been within his rights to refuse entry if the timing was not satisfactory. It denied having said that the contractor would move furniture and that redecoration would be carried out during the planned works, and this service has seen no evidence to that effect. As such, its response was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord emailed the resident on 25 February 2022 to advise him that works to the property were underway. Having been to the property himself the resident confirmed that this was not the case. The resident was dissatisfied that he had been asked to move out 3 weeks before any works actually commenced. On 25 March 2022 the landlord confirmed that it had acted in good faith, having received the update from the contractor. This was not an appropriate explanation, because the contractor was acting on behalf of the landlord and it would have been reasonable for it to have had oversight of the works. It is acknowledged that this caused frustration and distress for the resident; and also further eroded the level of trust between the resident and landlord.
In his second complaint escalation request, dated 17 November 2022, the resident raised a concern that the landlord had not provided proof that the property was safe to move back into. In its response the landlord confirmed that there were no health and safety issues following completion. It reminded the resident that he had declined the invitation to joint post inspect the works. This investigation has not seen any evidence that suggests the property was not ready for occupation. However, given the complexity of the situation it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered offering a second opportunity to carry out a joint post inspection. This may have provided reassurance to the resident. That the landlord did not, was a missed opportunity to try to rebuild the relationship with the resident, and was a failing in its handling of the matter.

Associated decant

The landlord advised that it experienced problems finding a decant property firstly because of Covid-19 and secondly because the resident’s mental health had declined, meaning the move was postponed on medical grounds. Given the restrictions in place during March 2020 this was reasonable. It is also noted that the landlord made several offers of temporary accommodation in the latter part of the year, and the evidence shows that it was trying to accommodate the resident. However, in December 2020 the resident’s doctor said the resident was not able to progress with the move at that time. This remained the case in May 2021.Therefore, while the decant was delayed, the evidence does not suggest that this was as a result of a failing by the landlord.
The works at the property were complete and due to be post inspected on 23 March 2022. The landlord emailed the resident on 5 May 2022 to advise him that the property was ready. The resident advised the landlord that he would not be moving back to the property because he considered it was not suitable for his needs.
The landlord confirmed to the resident that the decant property was temporary for the duration of the works in emails dated 24 September, 19 November, 29 November, 8 December 2021, 4 and 25 March 2022. It appropriately set out the parameters of the move in order to manage the resident’s expectations which was in line with it decant policy. As such, while the resident’s concerns about moving back to the property are understood, it was therefore reasonable that the landlord took steps to address the resident’s non-occupation of the property. This was also appropriate because the resident’s tenancy agreement says residents must “use the premises for residential purposes as their only or principal home.”

Medical transfer

During November 2021 the landlord offered the resident a viewing of a 2 bedroom permanent property. It asserted that the resident declined the property because it was too small to accommodate his needs. However, it said it would continue to look for a 2 bedroom property within its own stock for a permanent move. On 19 November 2021 the landlord advised the resident that it no longer had an internal transfer list for overcrowding and that residents seeking a larger property were encouraged to apply for a mutual exchange. It is therefore unclear on what basis the landlord was offering the resident a permanent move from his current 1 bedroom property to a 2 bed. A lack of clear and concise decision making means the landlord did not comply with its own allocations policy. It is acknowledged that the decision itself did not have a detrimental impact on the resident. However, it did mean that its communication with the resident as to its decision making was unclear.
When the resident complained, he denied refusing the offer of a permanent property on the basis of its size, but on the fact there were stairs leading to the property which did not meet the needs of his disability. Having received further medical evidence, the landlord responded appropriately by submitting the information to its independent medical advisor for assessment. The assessments, dated 17 January and 16 May 2022, concluded that no medical priority should be awarded, adding that the decision could be reviewed if an OT report was provided.
Further medical evidence was provided on 16 December 2022. This investigation has not been provided with evidence that this information was assessed by the independent medical assessor, which would have been reasonable. In August 2023 the resident provided this service with further medical evidence regarding the need for level access accommodation. However, it is unclear whether this information has been shared with the landlord.
The landlord agreed to look for a permanent 2 bedroom property from the outset. Therefore, the issue of medical priority was not relevant to whether the resident could be moved as this had already been authorised by the landlord.
However, the medical assessments carried out in January and November suggested that an OT report could be useful to assess the resident’s medical needs in relation to his housing. The outcome of such an assessment could have had some bearing on the type of 2 bedroom property offered and/or on whether it was reasonable for the landlord to carry out adaptations to the current property until a suitable property became available. It also would have provided clarity on the situation, saving ongoing time and trouble, distress and inconvenience to the resident.
It is noted that during July 2023 the landlord made the decision to explore a private OT assessment. While this is an appropriate step, it came too late in the process for the reasons outlined above. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider an OT assessment, either carried out by the local authority or privately, in January or May 2022. That the landlord did not recognise this was a failure.
Furthermore, the landlord’s communication around the purpose of the medical evidence could have been clearer. There is no evidence that it clearly explained to the resident that the assessment was not just of his medical needs per se but specifically how those medical issues directly impacted on his housing needs. For example, a letter confirming receipt of PIP does not show how the health issue for which PIP is awarded directly impacts on the resident’s housing situation. Had the landlord made this link clearer, the resident may not have become so frustrated with the process. He would have been clearer about what medical evidence he needed to be provided and the basis on which it would be assessed.

Allocated a different point of contact

On 6 December 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and said there had been 4 occasions when he had not received his weekly update. In its email response, dated 8 December, it said that it had missed 1 week but otherwise had been providing updates as agreed. It did not apologise or offer a reason as to why it missed a week which would have been reasonable.
On 13 December 2021 the resident complained again that he had not received his weekly update, this time for 2 weeks in a row. The landlord advised that because it had updated him on 8 December, and there was no further information to share. It therefore did not consider it necessary to provide a further update 2 days later. This was not an unreasonable, however the landlord could have considered setting this out in its email of 8 December. This is because it would have helped to manage the resident’s expectations around communication.
In his email dated 25 February 2022 the resident said it was no longer appropriate for the landlord to send him weekly updates; however, he subsequently complained about this. The landlord appropriately explained in response that it had stopped the weekly updates, in line with his request.
On 8 March 2022 the resident expressed his frustration about the misinformation he was given about the start date for the works. He felt that the landlord was not taking his concerns about staff conduct seriously. In its complaint response on 25 March 2022 the landlord advised it had passed on information from the contractor and it apologised for the error.
The landlord specifically investigated the resident’s request to be allocated a different point of contact on 28 February and 25 March 2022, which was appropriate in the circumstances. It concluded there were no grounds to change his point of contact. It is acknowledged that the resident may have disagreed with the landlord’s conclusions but it appropriately investigated his concerns and found that there were no grounds to change the point of contact.

Complaint handling

In the landlord’s complaint response dated 24 September 2021 it explained that it was responding to the complaint having received advise from this service in relation the issuing of the disrepair claim. It apologised for the misunderstanding and inconvenience this had caused, offering £75 compensation for the failure. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the failing, and to offer compensation aimed at putting things right.
The resident emailed a further complaint to the landlord on 22 November 2021. In its email to the resident dated 8 December 2021 the landlord said the complaints team would reply to the resident’s complaint; however, it failed to do so. It is unclear why; however, that the landlord did not respond was inappropriate. As a result, the resident was caused time, trouble and inconvenience in raising a further complaint on 8 March 2022.
The landlord replied on 25 March 2022, 13 working days later. The response was 3 days out of time for which the landlord apologised and offered £10 compensation. However, the landlord did not recognise that it failed to respond to the resident’s original complaint of 22 November. This meant that the response was in fact 86 working days overdue and therefore the amount of compensation offered was not appropriate.
The landlord’s explanation given at stage 1 as to why the CRM did not contact the resident on 11 February 2022 was poor. There is no evidence that the off-site visits which prevented the call being made were emergencies. It is not clear why they took priority over the pre -arranged call. In any event, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident to rearrange at the point at which it knew it would not be able to honour its commitment. By not making the call the resident was left feeling frustrated and anxious, causing further damage to his relationship with the landlord.
The resident had sought an update from the landlord 9 February 2022 about disposal of items damaged caused by damp and mould but had not received a response until nearly a month later. He had felt was frustrated and anxious about what would happen about the goods left behind and whether the landlord would compensate him. The landlord clarified the position with regards to the items in its complaint response but did not provide an explanation as to why it had not responded to the resident’s query which was important.
The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 30 March 2022 and the landlord provided its response on 3 May, taking 24 working days which was 4 days out of time.
The resident raised the issue of the failed call again in his stage 2 complaint. In this complaint response the landlord confirmed that it had considered lessons learnt from the process. It had taken steps to ensure that it would handle the situation better in future. This was an appropriate response given the acknowledgement of the failure by the landlord however, it would have been appropriate to provide this response at stage 1.
In light of the resident’s ongoing occupation of the serviced apartment it was appropriate that senior managers met with the resident on 26 September 2022. At the meeting the resident said he was still waiting for a complaint response following a meeting he had with the landlord on 15 June 2022. It appears that there had been a misunderstanding and that the landlord had not realised that the resident wished to make a further, formal complaint. It acted appropriately by offering an apology and asking the resident to submit any further concerns he may have which it would then address under its complaints process.
The landlord said it had considered compensation for damage to living room carpet caused by damp in kitchen. On 8 December 2022 it said it was considering the resident’s request for compensation for the carpet but that no decision would be made until the resident had been decanted and works completed. The landlord emailed the resident on 12 June 2023 to say it would not clean or replace the carpet. It failed to provide an explanation as to why in either email. This would have been appropriate, helping the resident to understand how it had arrived at the decision stated in each email. Furthermore, given that liability was disputed it would have been appropriate for the landlord to signpost the resident to make a claim on its liability insurance. That it did not do so was a failing.
The complaint failures identified in this report amount to maladministration. The compensation of £10 offered by the landlord as redress for complaint handling failures does not adequately reflect the detrimental impact caused to the resident. An order has been made for the landlord to pay a further £300.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs and the associated decant.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a medical transfer.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be allocated a different point of contact.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord provided the resident with inaccurate information about the start date of works at the property. Its explanation as to why was not appropriate given that it should have oversight of the works.
The landlord delayed in its consideration of arranging an OT assessment.
The landlord responded appropriately by investigating the complaint and making a reasonable decision to keep the current point of contact.
The landlord failed to respond to the original complaint meaning its stage 1 complaint response was significantly delayed. The stage 1 complaint response was poor.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should pay the resident £450 comprising:
1. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the inaccurate information provided to the resident in relation to the commencement of works.
2. £100 for the distress, time and trouble caused by failure to organise an OT assessment earlier in the process.
3. £300 for the detrimental impact caused to the resident by the complaint handling failures identified in this report. This is to be paid in addition to the £10 offered compensation offered by the landlord.
The landlord should write to the resident to tell him how he can make a claim on its liability insurance for damage to his carpet. The landlord should provide a copy of the email or letter to this service, also within 4 weeks.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should provide a reminder to staff about signposting residents to its insurer where damage to belongings is raised.