East End Homes Limited (202014929)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014929

East End Homes Limited

20 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to install an additional toilet in her property.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the handling of the associated complaint.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and lives with her husband and daughter. All members of the household have medical conditions and the resident requested the installation of an additional toilet on medical grounds in 2018.
4. On 16 May 2021, the resident complained that the landlord had refused permission for her to make adjustments to the property. She said the landlord had reviewed the medical evidence she provided and suggested it would grant permission once architectural drawings of the required adaptations were provided.  However, the resident remained unhappy permission still was not granted so made a formal complaint.
5. The landlord provided its stage one response on 1 June 2021. It said it had acknowledged the resident’s request at the time, but as she acquired the property in a mutual exchange this meant it was accepted in its current condition. In the previous response, the landlord advised the resident that if the adaptation was required due to changes in any medical conditions, a referral could be made to Occupational Therapy to conduct an assessment. The landlord stated it believed this caused the resident to offer to pay for the toilet, so it referred the resident for an Occupational Therapy assessment.
6. The resident wrote to the landlord the following day, and explained that she was requesting permission to carry out the work herself. She did not understand the relevance of the mutual exchange or the Occupational Therapy assessment, as she did not expect the landlord to pay for the work. The landlord reiterated its position that the Occupational Therapy assessment was necessary in the first instance, and if this this did not result in a recommendation being made the landlord could then look to grant permission for the resident to carry out the work themselves.
7. The Occupational Therapy assessment was completed on 5 October 2021. Recommendations were made to provide the residents with a commode, not an additional toilet.
8. The resident complained to this Service on 12 September 2022 that she had not heard from the landlord following the Occupational Therapy assessment. The landlord provided its stage two response on 17 October 2022 and confirmed there were no recommendations from the assessment for any adaptations. It said it did not receive any further requests to escalate the complaint at the time.
9. Since the complaint has been brought to this Service, the resident has provided the landlord with architectural drawings for the planned works. The resident met with the landlord in June 2022 and was advised permission could be granted provided the necessary building rules and regulations were met. The landlord advised the resident this would require her to be treated as a leaseholder and would incur administrative fees, which the resident remained dissatisfied with.

Assessment and findings

Policies and Procedures

10. The landlord’s tenant handbook, under ‘Right to improve your home’, states that residents ‘have the right to make alterations, improvements or additions to their home as long as they get (the landlord’s) written approval before carrying out the work. Improvements include replacing bathroom or kitchen fixtures and fittings.’ It also states it ‘will not refuse permission without a good reason, although there are certain terms and conditions that residents will have to meet before approval is given.’
11. The landlord has an additional making alterations and improvements to your home policy, which states that it will:
    1. ‘progress all requests for permission within the timescales identified timescales identified;
    2. provide clear guidance to residents on the information required and the process through which permissions will be considered;
    3. ensure that all work is authorised subject to the necessary health and safety and statutory conditions’.
12. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to acknowledge it within five working days, and provide a stage one response within ten working days. If the resident is dissatisfied with the stage one response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. A review of the complaint will be undertaken, and the landlord will provide a stage two (final) response within 20 working days.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to install an additional toilet in her property

13.  When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair- treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
    2. Put things right, and;
    3. Learn from outcomes.
14. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
15. The resident first requested permission to install another toilet in 2018, and the landlord advised this was not possible as she had acquired the property through a mutual exchange. The landlord advised the resident to provide medical evidence so an Occupational Therapy referral could be made if necessary. The landlord provided incorrect advice to the resident, and it is unclear what guidance this advice was based on. Undertaking a mutual exchange did not preclude the resident from making a request to carry out alterations to the property. The resident was advised to seek an Occupational Therapy referral, but it is unclear why an assessment would be needed for the resident to carry out alterations herself. This was a failing on the part of the landlord.
16. The resident then provided her family’s medical evidence in 2019. Whilst a referral was made in late 2019, it is unclear what happened as there is no record of an assessment. It is a concern that the landlord has not provided evidence of either the Occupational Therapy assessment being carried out, or any attempts it made to follow with the resident. Ultimately, there is no evidence to show the landlord took any appropriate additional steps after it make the Occupational Therapy referral.
17. In May 2021, the resident made a clear complaint to the landlord about wanting permission to carry out her own alterations and being incorrectly denied permission on the basis of the property being a mutual exchange. She said the landlord had reviewed her medical evidence, referred the matter to a colleague and advised once architectural plans were provided permission would be granted. She complained that she had provided the requested information, but was then told the original 2018 decision was final.
18. The landlord’s stage one response from June 2021 failed to address these concerns appropriately, and misunderstood the resident’s request. The landlord made another Occupational Therapy referral, seemingly because it again misunderstood the resident’s requests and appears unaware that a referral had been made in 2019. This is a failing on the part of the landlord, and caused an unreasonable delay in addressing the resident’s main issue.
19. The resident clarified the request to make the adaptations herself to the landlord following the stage one response, to which the landlord responded by reiterating its position on the Occupational Therapy referral. It is unclear what policy or process the landlord followed by maintaining its position on needing a recommendation from Occupational Therapy, as the tenant handbook simply states that residents must request permission before making adaptations.
20. There were further delays for the resident caused by waiting for an Occupational Therapy assessment, which took place on 5 October 2021. The resident chased a response from the landlord in January 2022. The resident informed this Service in September 2022 that she had not been successful in contacting the landlord. The landlord reasonably ought to have followed up on the assessment and made the resident aware of the next steps, as detailed in its email from June 2021 where it states ‘if for whatever reason (Occupational Therapy) decline the request the alternative is for the tenant to submit plans and seek permission from us to carry out the work at their expense’. As it did not follow up with the resident, this was a failing.
21. In June 2023, the landlord visited the resident to discuss the architectural plans and provided provisional consent provided building safety regulations were met. The landlord informed this Service it was awaiting the resident’s risk assessment and method statement for the works in order for permission to be given. The action the landlord has taken more recently to assess the resident’s request is more reasonable, although should have happened when permission was first requested.
22. The resident told this Service the landlord advised she would need to be treated as a leaseholder to carry out the work, and she was worried about the fees incurred. It is unclear what process is being followed here, and where the charges have originated as there is no reference to them in the tenant handbook or alterations policy. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have a clear process in place for dealing with these types of requests from tenants, and to set this out clearly at the beginning along with any associated costs. However, the landlord has since confirmed to the Ombudsman that it will waive its fees and only building control fees will have to be paid, which appears to be correct.
23. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to install an additional toilet in her property. Orders are made below to put things right, along with a total of £800 compensation in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

24. The resident complained on 16 May 2021 and the landlord responded 10 working days later, adhering to the timescales set out in its complaints policy. However, the landlord failed to address the substantive issue of the resident’s complaint and misunderstood her request for permission to make alterations. The Complaint Handling Code states that landlords should confirm their understanding of the complaint and the outcomes being sought with the resident. The resident reiterated her complaint points following the stage one response, and clarified to the landlord that she was ‘simply requesting permission to carry out the work’.
25. Despite this, the landlord again confirmed the resident would need an Occupational Therapy assessment and made a referral on her behalf in June 2021. This was another missed opportunity to provide an appropriate response to the resident’s complaint, and therefore a shortcoming on the part of the landlord.
26. Following on from this, the landlord did not contact the resident until its stage two response on 17 October 2022, after the resident brought her complaint to this Service. In its stage two response, the landlord stated it did not receive any further requests to escalate the complaint to stage two. It is acknowledged that no evidence has been provided to show that the resident requested the escalation of her complaint. However, the landlord reasonably should have responded to the resident and updated her on the status of her request to install the additional toilet when she chased it for a response on 6 January 2022.
27. Additionally, the landlord’s stage two response also fails to address the substantive issue of the resident’s complaint, and instead addresses the outcome of the Occupational Therapy Assessment. The landlord appears to have continually misunderstood the resident’s issue, and failed to reasonably consider her request in line with its own policies.
28. In conclusion, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and orders are made below for compensation in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. An award of £200 compensation is made, as ‘there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, and the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings’.

Determination

29. Under paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to resident’s request to install an additional toilet in her property.
30. Under paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

31. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £1000, comprised of:
       1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in the handling of the resident’s request to install an additional toilet;
       2. £300 for the time and trouble the resident experienced pursuing the issue;
       3. £200 for the complaint handling failures.
32. The landlord should write to the resident, copying in the Ombudsman, setting out exactly what steps the resident needs to take in relation to the request for alterations, what the associated costs are and an explanation of these, and confirmation that the resident is not being treated as a leaseholder.
33. The landlord should review its handling of the resident’s complaint. It should re-train staff if necessary, to ensure the substantive issues of complaints are addressed and responses are in line with its own policy guidance.