Stockport Homes Limited (202304020)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304020

Stockport Homes Limited

14 February 2024

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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Advertisement of the property.
2. Handling of adaptations to the property.
3. Response to its staff failing to use their chosen pronouns/title.

Background

The resident’s introductory tenancy at the property began on 23 June 2022. The property was a ground floor studio flat.
The resident’s chosen pronouns are ‘they’ and ‘them’. Their chosen title is ‘Mx’. The resident is an ambulant wheelchair user – meaning they have capacity to walk in some limited circumstances but often require a wheelchair or mobility scooter to get around.
The landlord is an ‘arm’s length management organisation’ which manages housing stock across the borough on behalf of the local authority. The landlord employs an in-house Occupational Therapist (OT) to support its applicants and residents.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process.

Summary of events

The landlord says that in April 2022 its OT carried out a telephone assessment with the resident for their application to the local authority’s ‘choice based lettings’ (CBL) scheme. It says that “this determined that a property with a level access shower was recommended, and crucially that the resident would be able to manage up to two steps, with assistance or aid, when entering the property. The resident was identified as having a partially adapted property need, and so able to bid on properties advertised as being adapted”.
The property was advertised through the CBL scheme on 9 June 2022. It was listed as an ‘adapted property’. The advert stated that it was ground floor and had a level access shower.
The resident viewed the property on 21 June 2022. During the viewing the landlord completed a ‘risk assessment’ form, which was signed by the resident. The form included the question “Is the accommodation suitable for all household needs?” which was answered “yes”. The resident signed the tenancy for the property 2 days later.
On 12 July 2022, the landlord’s OT visited the resident to carry out an assessment. The OT recommended that grab rails were installed in several places, a ‘floor to ceiling pole’ was put into the bathroom (as the shower was accessed via a 6 inch step which the resident was struggling with) and steps leading up to the front entry door were altered to be more accessible.
The landlord completed works on 20 July 2022 to install the grab rails and alter the steps. The landlord’s records indicate that it did not proceed with the floor to ceiling pole due to structural concerns.
The OT carried out another assessment on 2 August 2022. They noted that since the alteration of the front steps the resident could no longer reach the grab rail by the front door and recommended that a ‘wall to floor’ handrail was installed. The OT also recommended that the shower be replaced to remove the 6 inch step and that a ‘wash and dry toilet’ was installed.
The landlord installed the wall to floor handrail on 8 September 2022.
On 14 September 2022, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord about a matter that is not subject to this investigation. On 16 September 2022 the landlord emailed the resident acknowledging receipt of their complaint. Within this email the landlord referred to the resident as ‘Mr’.
The resident emailed the landlord on 19 September 2022. They expressed their dissatisfaction that the landlord had “misgendered” them and said this was not the first time this had happened – despite the landlord claiming “to be an LGBTQIA+ friendly social housing service”. They requested a personal apology from the staff member who had sent the email. The resident also said they were having problems getting the landlord to install an outdoor power socket for their mobility scooter (and had been asked to pay £150 for this) and had experienced delays in having the new shower and toilet fitted. They queried why the property had been advertised as “accessible and adapted”. The landlord logged this as a complaint.
On the same day, the landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint of 14 September 2022. This was written by the same staff member who had sent the email which mistakenly referred to the resident as ‘Mr’. The staff member offered their “sincerest apologies for this and the distress I recognise that misgendering can cause”. They confirmed that the landlord’s main computer system did record the resident’s pronouns as “they/them” and their title as ‘Mx’, but that its separate complaints system did not pull through the title information which had led to the mistake. They advised that “steps have been taken to ensure that records on our complaint handling system match the main record we hold for customers, with regards to title and preferred pronouns”.
The landlord emailed the resident on 29 September 2022 setting out its understanding of their complaint of 19 September 2022. The resident responded the same day adding the fact that they wished for a ramp into the property to be installed and a ‘hard standing’ area created to store their mobility scooter.
On 4 October 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint made on 19 September 2022. It said that:
1. The property had been advertised as adapted due to having a level access shower. This was in keeping with its allocations policy which said that “an adapted property will include at least one major adaptation but does not necessarily have level or ramped access”.
2. The resident had viewed the property and, had they decided it was unsuitable for their needs, could have refused it without any adverse consequences for their housing application.
3. The process of arranging major adaptations was “a complex one and can take some time” but it would be in touch shortly to arrange to begin work to the bathroom.
4. It was unable to consider the resident’s request for an outdoor socket until they had been assessed by the local ‘wheelchair service’. However, it was arranging a quote for it to carry out this work at the resident’s own expense if they wished.
5. It was unable to install a ramp into the property as the OT had advised this was not possible.
6. It apologised for misgendering the resident and had provided feedback to staff in relation to this. Equality and inclusion were embedded into its values and all staff received diversity training, whilst the organisation celebrated “trans day of visibility, pronouns day and non-binary awareness week to raise awareness of issues faced by non-binary colleagues and customers”.
On 13 February 2023, the landlord’s contractor invoiced it for the completed major works to the resident’s bathroom including fitting of the wash dry toilet and a new level access shower.
At some point in March 2023, the resident contacted the landlord making enquiries related to their previous complaint, its adaptations process and rehousing. This Service has not been provided with any records relating to this discussion.
On 24 March 2023, the landlord emailed the resident providing further details on its adaptations policy and assessment process. It offered to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its process if they felt that this was necessary. On 27 March 2023 the resident confirmed they wished to escalate their complaint.
The landlord held a virtual meeting with the resident to discuss their complaint on 13 April 2023.
On 19 April 2023, the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. It said that:
1. Since the stage 1 complaint response it had installed an external power socket to allow the resident to charge their mobility scooter.
2. The resident had escalated their complaint due to requesting further adaptations in the form of ‘hard standing’ for storage of the scooter and a ramp to access the property. The resident wished for these to be agreed without going through an assessment process.
3. It used assessments by professionals – in this case the wheelchair service, to ensure that it made appropriate adaptations to suit the needs of the customer.
4. The resident had advised it that they had moved out of the property and were staying with relatives due to issues with the neighbours. They had said they were committed to finding another property, rather than returning. Due to this the landlord would not commit to any adaptations at the property in line with its policy.
5. When the resident was allocated a new property, the OT would accompany them to the viewing to ensure it met their needs. The landlord would also arrange for the wash dry toilet to be transferred from their current property.
The resident was allocated a new property on 28 June 2023.

Assessment and findings

Advertisement of property

The landlord has provided this Service with a copy of the original advertisement of the property on the CBL scheme. This lists the property as adapted with a level access shower. The advert makes no mention of level access to the property itself, only that it is located on the ground floor.
The advertisement of the property as adapted is in keeping with the landlord’s ‘Allocations of Adapted Properties’ policy which it referenced in its stage 1 complaint response. This states that “an adapted property will include at least one major adaptation but does not necessarily have level or ramped access”.
It is of concern that despite being advertised as having a level access shower, the OT’s assessment indicated that the shower was in fact accessed by a step approximately 6 inches high. Whilst the landlord contends that this still constitutes a level access shower, the resident was unable to access it without assistance – which led to the OT recommending that it was replaced with a completely level access shower. A recommendation has been made in relation to this below.
However, an advertisement on a CBL scheme is designed only to give potential applicants sufficient information to determine whether they wish to bid on the property. This is then followed by a viewing to enable to the selected applicant(s) to inspect the property themselves and determine whether it is suitable.
The resident viewed the property and signed the risk assessment form confirming that it met their needs, with the only concerns recorded on the form being “regarding area and neighbours” . Having had an assessment with the OT in April 2022 it was reasonable for the landlord to expect the resident to be aware of their requirements and in a position to make an informed decision as to whether the property was suitable.
The landlord clarified in its stage 1 response that if applicants felt an adapted property was not suitable for their needs, they were entitled to refuse this – and it would not ‘count against’ their housing application. Whilst it is unclear if this was made apparent to the resident during the viewing process, the resident did not allege as part of their complaint that they felt pressured or obliged to accept the property.
It is acknowledged that the resident claimed that they were told by the staff member conducting their viewing that the landlord would carry out any required adaptations. However, the landlord has stated there are no records to substantiate this and that the staff member was “long service and experienced and aware that adaptations would always be subject to relevant assessment of needs”.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord advised that it had expanded the role of its in house OT to provide increased support for those requiring adapted properties and was looking into the possibility of them attending property viewings. This evidenced good practice in taking learning from the complaint, even though it did not identify any service failure.
In summary, the landlord’s advertisement was in keeping its policy which does not require level access to the property for it to be listed as adapted. The resident had the opportunity to view the property prior to signing the tenancy and accepted it as suitable for their needs. There is therefore no evidence of maladministration by the landlord.

Adaptations

The resident’s complaint regarding adaptations centred on the delay in carrying out works to their bathroom and their request for a ramp, external power socket and hard standing area for their mobility scooter.
Work to install a new level access shower and wash dry toilet was recommended by the OT following their visit on 2 August 2022. This work had a cost in excess of £500 and so qualified as a major adaptation under the landlord’s adaptations policy.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord appropriately recognised that it was “challenging” for the resident to carry out day to day activities whilst awaiting these works. It explained that “the process of assessing, applying for and organising major adaptations such as those that are being carried out to your property is a complex one and can take some time”.
Whilst the landlord’s adaptations policy and procedure do not detail a timeframe within which it will deliver major adaptations, the local authority’s ‘Major Adaptations Policy’ states that those awaiting such works “will not be asked to wait …. to have their case progressed by Stockport Homes, for more than 6 months following receipt of a recommendation for a major adaptation”. It is clear from the invoice provided that the landlord completed works prior to 13 February 2023 which was reasonably in keeping with this.
This Service has not been provided with any information relating to the resident’s request for an external power socket prior to their complaint of 19 September 2022. Whilst the resident stated within this that they had been “asked to pay £150” for this, this is likely to have been confusion over the landlord’s offer (outlined in its stage 1 complaint response) to complete the works at the resident’s expense if they did not wish to go through the required assessment process.
The landlord’s position that it required an assessment by the local wheelchair service “to ensure that we are distributing resources fairly and providing assistance where it is most necessary” was reasonable and in keeping with its adaptations policy which says that it will “ensure that the resources available are focused on meeting need in the most efficient and effective way”.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord advised that “following the stage 1 response, a weatherproof double socket was installed to allow for charging of your mobility scooter. You confirmed during our meeting that you were happy with these adaptations”.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response stated with its OT had “confirmed that, unfortunately, [a ramp into the property] will not be possible as there is a small vestibule which would not allow a ramp to turn into it”. The landlord was entitled to rely on its OT’s expertise in this area. In addition, it had already carried out works to the entrance of the property just a few months ago to alter the steps and install handrails to meet the resident’s needs as recommended.
The landlord also stated that it “could not find any evidence of a request for hardstanding to the front of the property prior to this complaint” but appropriately advised it had passed the request on to the resident’s housing officer to discuss with them.
By the time of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, it is evident that the resident was staying away from the property, actively seeking alternative accommodation and did not intend to return. The landlord’s understanding was that the resident was seeking an “agreement in principle” for the ramp and hard standing which could be carried over to their next property. The landlord explained that in accordance with its adaptations policy it could not agree adaptations where a resident “is already seeking to move or transfer to more suitable accommodation”.
Whilst it is understandable the resident would wish to have the reassurance of these adaptations being agreed, it was reasonable for the landlord to decline in accordance with its policy. It would also not be practicable for the landlord to commit to completing what would likely constitute major adaptations at an unknown property without having this appropriately assessed by the relevant professionals.
The landlord showed good practice in confirming that its OT would accompany the resident on the viewing of any allocated property to ensure this met their needs and would also arrange for the wash/dry toilet to be transferred from their existing property.
In summary, the landlord carried out the major adaptation of the bathroom within a reasonable timescale in accordance with the timeframes set by the local authority. The landlord’s position that it was unable to carry out further adaptations without a professional assessment and could not agree adaptations in principle for a future property was reasonable and in keeping with its policy.

Misuse of pronouns/title

Within their complaint the resident requested a personal apology from the staff member who had sent the email addressing them incorrectly. This was provided within the stage 1 complaint response of 14 September 2022, which was written by that staff member and offered a full apology with appropriate recognition of the distress caused. The response also provided some clarity as to how the error had been made and steps that the landlord had taken to address this. This was in keeping with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to “learn from outcomes”.
Whilst it is noted that the resident described “constantly getting misgendered” by the landlord, the landlord has advised that it was unable to identify any other instances of this happening within its records. Nor did the resident provide any specifics in this regard for it to investigate further.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 4 October 2022 also offered an appropriate apology for the incident and advised that feedback had been given to staff and its ‘people and organisational development team’ for consideration of future training needs.
Whilst the landlord did not enact the resident’s wish for “mandatory pronouns and trans awareness training for all staff”, it did provide details of relevant training its staff currently undertook, as well as its work to celebrate and raise awareness around pronouns and the trans and non-binary communities.
In summary, the landlord offered appropriate apologies for addressing the resident incorrectly, provided feedback internally and took learning from the complaint to improve its computer systems and avoid recurrences. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns that it was “not LGBTQIA+ friendly” and provided details of training and events it promoted to support equality and inclusivity. There is no evidence of maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its:
1. Advertisement of the property.
2. Handling of adaptations to the property.
3. Response to its staff failing to use the resident’s chosen pronouns/title.

Reasons

The landlord’s advertisement was in keeping its policy which does not require level access to the property for it to be listed as adapted. The resident had the opportunity to view the property prior to signing the tenancy and accepted it as suitable for their needs.
The landlord carried out the major adaptation of the bathroom within a reasonable timescale in accordance with the timeframes set by the local authority. The landlord’s position that it was unable to carry out further adaptations without a professional assessment and could not agree adaptations in principle for a future property was reasonable and in keeping with its policy.
The landlord offered appropriate apologies for addressing the resident incorrectly, provided feedback internally and took learning from the complaint to improve its computer systems and avoid recurrences. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns that it was “not LGBTQIA+ friendly” and provided details of training and events it promoted to support equality and inclusivity.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord consults with its OT to review and clarify the requirements for a shower to be advertised as ‘level access’ on the CBL system.