Walsall Housing Group Limited (202309975)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309975

Walsall Housing Group Limited

26 April 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adaptations to the property.
2. The Ombudsman will also investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

3. The resident lives in the property, owned by the landlord, under an assured shorthold tenancy. The property is a 3-bedroom house and he is currently living there with his oldest son. When the events investigated in this complaint started, his wife and four younger children were also living in the property. The landlord is aware that the resident has both physical and mental health problems.
4. This Service investigated a previous related complaint about adaptations in September 2021. At this time, the Ombudsman found that there had been no maladministration as the landlord had acted in line with its adaptations policy and was working with the resident and the local authority to move discussions about the resident’s housing needs forward.
5. After this previous determination, the landlord said it would reconsider the request for changes to the property. The resident said he was sleeping in the downstairs living space and only had to access to a downstairs toilet, but no shower or bath. However, after receiving a new Occupational Therapy (OT) report in March 2022, the landlord said that there was not enough information to show that the resident was unable to use the stairs and therefore the upstairs bathroom and bedroom.
6. On 11 May 2022 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord about its handling of his request for adaptations. He was unhappy that the landlord wanted to move them to another property to resolve overcrowding. He said that he was living without access to a bedroom and bathroom, which violated his human rights.
7. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 9 June 2022. It declined to investigate its decision not to carry out the adaptations, as it said this had been investigated under the previous complaint. It said that it had not received an OT assessment that said the resident was unable to get upstairs to use the bedroom or bathroom and that moving to a larger home was the most reasonable option available.
8. In June 2022 the resident asked for his wife to be removed from the tenancy and the landlord started to look for alternative properties for his wife and four younger children.
9. On 2 July 2022 the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint. He said that the landlord had been aware since November 2019 that he was unable to sleep upstairs. He also said that rehousing them would be disruptive for his children.
10. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 2 September 2022. It maintained that moving was still the best solution, as the proposed adaptation would still leave the property overcrowded. It said it still had not received any evidence to show he could not get upstairs.
11. On 5 September 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm the tenancy had been transferred solely into his name. On 12 September 2022 the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to its third stage, a panel review. It initially declined this, however it changed its mind and sent a stage 3 response on 21 November 2022, in which it maintained its position.  The resident remained unhappy and on 20 June 2023 asked this Service to investigate the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

12. As part of the complaint, the resident said that the landlord’s service failures were responsible for him and his wife separating. This Service cannot assess a landlord’s actions in the context of the breakdown of household relationships as we do not have the expertise to identify such causal links. However, it remains relevant that the resident expressed his concern that the issues under investigation had an impact on personal relationships as this gives an indication of his understanding of the extent of the detriment he experienced during this difficult and protracted period. 
13. While this investigation will not assess the possible impact of any landlord service failures on personal relationships within the household, it is noted that the landlord responded to the resident’s allegations on this issue through its response to his complaint. In the context of the landlord’s overall response to this complaint, this investigation will determine whether it has acted fairly and reasonably in this respect.
14. It is also noted that the change in the household makeup had an impact upon the landlord’s consideration of the adaptation issue. At the point that the resident’s partner vacated the property and took an a tenancy elsewhere, the resident’s household needs changed as this meant that he and his eldest (adult) child remained at the property and it was their needs that became the sole focus of the landlord’s attempts to ensure that suitable housing was in place. Clearly, this was a complex and changing situation that the landlord was required to manage in a timely and efficient manner. While some consideration has been made for this changing environment, it remains the case that the Ombudsman will consider whether, overall, the landlord acted fairly and reasonably in its attempts to provide the resident with suitable housing conditions over the period under assessment.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adaptations

15. When investigating the complaint, the landlord declined to investigate its refusal to approve the adaptations, as it said it had covered this under the previous complaint. However, after this Service sent its determination on the previous complaint, on 30 September 2021, the landlord emailed the resident’s social worker on 1 October 2021 and said that it would reconsider the request, and asked for the DFG approval to be resent. As this occurred after the conclusion of the previous complaint, this Service will investigate how it handled its reconsideration of the adaptation request.
16. The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy sets out that all requests for aids and adaptations will be assessed against housing need and suitability of the property for family needs. It says that in some cases, re-housing will be the most cost effective and practical solution. The landlord will prioritise and support a move in preference to adaptations wherever possible, but will consider all requests on their individual merits.
17. For major adaptations a professional assessment of need is required. Where a disabled facilities grant (DFG) is required, there must be an OT assessment, and permission from the landlord.
18. During October 2021 and November 2021 the landlord proactively chased the local authority for the DFG approval, via email and then by phone when it received no response. The landlord did not receive a copy of an OT assessment directly from the local authority and asked the resident to provide a copy of this, which was something he expressed concern about. Whilst this Service appreciates that the resident was experiencing stress as a result of this situation, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to ask him to provide a copy of the report himself as it was looking to identify relevant information that it had been otherwise unable to obtain.
19. The landlord received a copy of the OT assessment from the resident on 2 March 2022. The assessment was carried out on 12 November 2021. This acknowledged that the home was overcrowded, but that the family did not want to move. It said that the resident reported that he was no longer able to go upstairs due to his fear of falling due to his physical health problems. It recommended a ground floor extension with a double bedroom and en-suite shower room in order to alleviate his anxiety and the risk of falls on the stairs, however it said that it was not able to comment on overcrowding issues.
20. The landlord facilitated a multi-agency meeting on 22 March 2022, which was a proactive step for it to take. It said at this meeting that not enough supporting information had been submitted to warrant the extension as no medical evidence had been provided to show that the resident could not use the stairs. However, the OT assessment went into detail about the residents health problems and why he was unable to use the stairs, which the landlord did not consider.
21. At this meeting the local authority said that the resident’s wife had made it aware she was looking to leave the home with the children. At a home visit from the landlord on 11 April 2022, she was told she should register for a home move.
22. The landlord’s records show that the resident raised a complaint on 11 May 2022, however a copy of the details of this complaint has not been provided to this Service. The landlord visited him on 19 May 2022, and he then emailed the landlord on 24 May 2022 setting out his complaint. He said that the landlord had failed to take action to progress his DFG request and was violating his human rights by not allowing him somewhere to sleep or shower. It said that by suggesting rehousing as an option it was promoting the worsening of his health conditions, and the splitting of his family. He also complained about poor communication and delays in the landlord obtaining a copy of the OT assessment.
23. In its stage 1 response the landlord said that it was the resident’s responsibility to self-refer to OT and it had given him information on this. It said that he would have to raise any concerns about delays with the assessment with the local authority. The records show that the landlord did make attempts to chase this information directly, but it was unsuccessful, so it was not unreasonable for it to ask the resident to chase this up himself.
24. The landlord said that it had still not received any OT recommendation that suggested the resident was unable to get upstairs. However, as explained above, this was set out in the OT assessment received in March 2022, so it was not reasonable for the landlord to say it had not received such a recommendation.
25. However, it said that it had a duty to offer suitable solutions to housing needs and that a move to a larger home was the most reasonable option available. It said that it would be better to address the housing need and then consider adaptations to a new home once this was resolved. Given that the property had 3 bedrooms, and the extension would only provide 1 further bedroom, this would still have left the home overcrowded. The landlord has a duty to consider OT recommendations, however it also has an obligation to consider the occupancy level in the property. It was not unreasonable for it to decline to carry out adaptations that would still have left the property unsuitable for the family’s needs.
26. So, the landlord acted reasonably and in line with its policy in saying that a move to a larger home was the most suitable option. It also assured the resident that it would find a property locally to allow his children to remain in their current schools to minimise disruption. It acted with sensitivity in recognising that the resident had already been moved many times in the past, and by trying to offer a solution that minimised disruption to the family. At this stage the family were still living together, so the landlord remained focussed on identifying a solution for the wider family unit, including the resident’s wife and their four younger children.
27. When the resident requested the complaint be escalated on 2 July 2022, he maintained that rehousing would be disruptive for his children, however by this time his wife had requested for her and the children to be rehomed, meaning that moving the children was something they were willing to consider, even if this was not their preferred option. He said that the landlord had never previously said that they could be rehoused and then have adaptations considered at a larger property. No evidence has been provided to show the landlord had communicated this previously.
28. During a multi-agency meeting on 4 July 2022 the landlord said that it had tried to offer the family a larger property, but this had been declined, however the resident’s wife was now being considered for a 4-bedroom property for her and their four younger children. As the landlord had made the resident aware that they could move to a larger property and then apply for adaptations, and the family were willing to move the children at this time, the landlord acted reasonably to say that this was the most suitable option.
29. On 12 September 2022 the resident asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage 3. At this time he also raised concerns that the landlord had said he was domestically abusing his wife. This Service expects landlords to take such concerns very seriously and enact safeguarding procedures where appropriate.
30. On 21 November 2022 the landlord sent its stage 3 response, in which it said its position had remained the same. It said that it was working with him to address his housing needs, which it had demonstrated by allocating the tenancy to him which was outside its allocations policy as it meant the property was underoccupied. It said that it would still consider adaptations if the resident obtained an up to date OT assessment. This demonstrates that the landlord was still trying to work with the resident to find a solution that worked for him, but also met its obligations under its policies.
31. The landlord said in its complaint response that it did not agree that it had made inappropriate references in relation to the resident’s relationship with his wife. As explained above, it is not for the Ombudsman to draw any causal link between the landlord’s actions and the impact on the resident’s relationships. However, it is expected that landlords respond to issues raised during the internal complaints process and in this case it is clear that the landlord did so. At stage 1, the landlord disputed having contributed to the deterioration of the household and said that it had actively supported moving the household as a family unit.
32. At stage 2 the landlord responded to the resident’s assertation that it had encouraged his wife to remove him from the tenancy and said that it could not establish whether a panic room would have helped the family.  The landlord’s stage 3 complaint response said that it had acted reasonably and proportionately in this respect and the Ombudsman has seen no evidence to contradict this position.
33. The Ombudsman is satisfied that at all stages of the internal complaints process, the landlord acted transparently and fairly in responding to the resident’s concerns and setting out its position on the concerns the resident raised about the impact on his household.
34. Overall however, the Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s requests for adaptations. Whilst its declinature of the adaptations was in line with its policy, it failed to set realistic expectations for the resident, causing him prolonged stress. Despite this Service having said there was no maladministration in its previous handling of the resident’s adaptation request, it chose to revisit the decision. Yet it declined the request for the same reason that it did so previously, and so protracted the process for the resident unnecessarily.
35. There is no evidence the landlord made it clear to the resident that adaptations could still be considered if they were moved to a larger property, which may have made the family more receptive to a move much earlier on in the process. And it failed to take on board the OT assessments observations about the resident’s ability to use the stairs, leaving him feeling that he was not being listened to. And, whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to look to re-house the resident in the long term, it did not implement a short term solution for his personal needs, in terms of sleeping and washing facilities.
36. The landlord was aware of the severity of the resident’s mental health problems, and how the living situation was affecting him. Yet it has not demonstrated that it considered his circumstances when dealing with his request. If it was ultimately unwilling to adapt the property due to the overcrowding situation, it should have been clear about this from the outset. Whilst the Ombudsman appreciates that it may have been trying to be helpful, its actions caused more upset in the long run, and the resident has still not had his housing needs met.
37. During a telephone call with this Service prior to investigation, the resident said that the solution he is looking for is for the family to all be able to live together, in an adapted property. He said that the property his wife is now living in has space for an extension, or a separate unit in the garden, which would meet his medical needs, but also provide enough bedrooms for the whole family.
38. It is not for this Service to order a landlord to carry out adaptations to a property, be it the resident’s or his wife’s property. However, an order has been made for the landlord to meet with the resident to discuss his housing needs, taking the OT report into consideration, and propose a suitable way forward.
39. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for compensation from £100 for cases where “there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and/or made no attempt to put things right”. An order has also been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £400 to reflect the distress caused to him by the landlord’s identified failures and given his mental health problems.

Complaint handling

40. Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord’s complaint process took too long.
41. The resident raised the complaint on 11 May 2022. The landlord visited the resident on 19 May 2022 to discuss the complaint and he emailed the landlord with a full list of issues on 24 May 2022. The landlord updated him on 25 May 2022 to extend the deadline by 10 days, which was reasonable given that it had taken the time to meet with the resident in person, and allow him time to put his full list of issues across in writing.
42. The landlord then sent its stage 1 response on 9 June 2022, 9 working days after it had extended the deadline. So, this response was sent within a reasonable timeframe and in line with its complaints policy.
43. The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated on 23 June 2022. The landlord did not escalate it at this time, and asked him to provide more information about why he wanted to escalate it. The resident provided a more detailed response on 2 July 2022. On 5 August 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident extending the deadline to 16 August 2022 to allow for a face to face meeting. Whilst this Service appreciates the landlord taking steps to discuss things face to face with the resident, it did not attempt to arrange this until more than 20 working days after the escalation request, when it should have already issued a response.
44. The resident responded to the update saying he was unsure what the meeting was for. Due to his availability, the meeting did not take place until 26 August 2022. The landlord then wrote to the resident on 1 September 2022 and apologised for the delay. It said it would send its stage 2 response the next day, which it did.
45. The resident emailed the landlord on 12 September 2022, to ask for the complaint to be escalated to stage 3. It wrote to him on 20 September 2022 to say that no new information had been provided, and so it was declining his request for a panel review. It reiterated this in an email of 5 October 2022, however on 21 November 2022 it reconsidered the request to escalate the complaint and sent a stage 3 response. It did not make it clear what had changed since 12 September 2022 to prompt it to send a response 49 working days after the resident had requested the escalation. This response was outside of its policy timeframe of 20 working days.
46. The Ombudsman considers that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The complaint was a very complicated one, and the landlord did meet with the resident face to face several times to discuss the complaint, and extended the timescales reasonably as a result of this. However, at stage 2 it did not arrange a meeting until it had already missed the timeframe set out in the policy, and it did not act with clarity at stage 3, changing its mind about providing a response. 
47. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for compensation from £50 for cases where “there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided and it did not appropriately acknowledge these and /or fully put them right”. An order has been made for the landlord to pay compensation of £100 to the resident to reflect the distress caused by the delays during the landlord’s internal complaints process.

Determination

48. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint.
49. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

50. The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £500, broken down as follows:
    1. £400 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adaptations to the property.
    2. £100 for the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
51. The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above order to this service within 28 days of this report.
52. The landlord to meet with the resident and discuss his housing needs, taking the OT report into consideration, and proposing a suitable way forward. Following this meeting, the landlord to provide written confirmation to the resident and this Service, within 8 weeks of this report, of his housing options, ensuring that expected timescales are provided for any identified adaptation works, or move of property, if applicable.