Camden Council (202010569)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010569

Camden Council

28 May 2021

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:
1. Handling of adaptations following an occupational therapist assessment.
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the tenant of the property (the property) which the complaint concerns. The landlord owns the property.
The resident’s daughter (the representative) makes the complaint on the resident’s behalf. The representative has provided a Lasting Power of Attorney naming her as the resident’s attorney. The representative lives with the resident.
The representative confirms that the resident has dementia and schizophrenia.
The landlord is a local authority. Where a landlord is a local authority the Ombudsman can only look at the landlord in relation to its housing activities so far as they relate to the provision or management of social housing. The actions of the local authority’s Occupational Therapy Team will be referred to within the report. While the Occupational Therapy Team do not provide a housing management function, the team’s actions provide important context to the matters which the Ombudsman can consider.
The Ombudsman is not able to comment on the adaptations agreed by the Occupational Therapy Team as this would be a matter for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman who look at complaints about social care services.

Summary of events

In March 2020 the Occupational Therapy Team (OTT) completed an assessment on the resident. Following the assessment, the OTT recommended adaptations were required to the property’s kitchen (installation of induction hob) and bathroom (installation of bath-lift).
In May 2020 the representative spoke with the OTT. The OTT’s record of the conversation noted:
1. The representative reported that the gas oven had been condemned.
2. The representative reported that the resident continued to attempt to use the condemned gas oven.
3. The representative confirmed that the hob on the gas oven worked despite the oven not working.
4. The representative requested that the kitchen adaptations be undertaken as an emergency to help prevent injury to the resident.
5. The OTT explained that the housing adaptations team (AT) were currently not carrying out home visits due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
6. The OTT suggested purchasing a small electric oven and taping over the oven knobs while the adaptions were outstanding.
On 3 June 2020 the OTT wrote to the representative in relation to the kitchen adaptations. The OTT explained that in order to progress the adaptations the AT needed to visit the property to complete a survey. The OTT confirmed that the AT were not currently undertaking visits due to the pandemic however would do so “after lockdown”. The OTT suggested that the representative purchase a free-standing cooker and relocate the cooker control switch. The OTT confirmed it would be in touch to arrange a joint visit with the AT when it was safe to do so.
In mid-June 2020 the OTT and representative discussed the kitchen adaptations. The OTT confirmed that it would request a survey for an induction hob and eye level oven. The OTT confirmed that this would be classified as a “major adaptation”.
On 23 July 2020 the representative wrote to the OTT regarding work to complete the adaptations. In summary the representative said:
1. Following a visit to the property before Covid-19 the OTT recommended that adaptations were needed in the property’s kitchen and bathroom.
2. The kitchen adaptations were “quite urgent” as the resident would leave the gas hob on and burn herself. The representative also noted that the oven had broken during lockdown explaining that it would not fire up but filled with gas if switched on.
3. It was unsatisfactory that the works to complete the adaptations had not been scheduled and no update had been provided.
4. The situation was impacting on the resident’s health.
On the same day the OTT responded. In summary the OTT said:
1. The resident was number 22 on the list for a visit to plan the adaptations.
2. The appropriate services were already involved in the resident’s case and were aware of the representative’s concerns regarding the outstanding adaptations.
3. In response to the representative’s concerns about the risk to the resident while the adaptations were pending the representative may wish to:
  1. Purchase a free-standing cooker with built in induction hob and relocate the cooker control swich in a cabinet out of the resident’s reach.
  2. Purchase a gas safety valve via the gas company.
The representative responded to the OTT later on 23 July 2020. The representative said it was unfair that the resident was number 22 on the list as the OTT’s request had only been generated earlier that day following her contact. The representative also stated that the OTT’s suggestions in relation to the oven were not practical due to resident’s health conditions and the associated costs.
On 6 August 2020 the representative wrote to the OTT. The representative stated that the resident’s health was deteriorating “due to all the outstanding work needed”. The representative confirmed that her previous correspondence was intended as a formal complaint. Within her email the representative noted that the property suffered from damp and mould.
In late September 2020 (exact date not known) the OTT wrote to the representative. The OTT said that the resident’s case was on the waitlist and the AT would “make contact once visits resumed and when appropriate”.
On 30 September 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to acknowledge the complaint.
Internal correspondence from the OTT dated 1 October 2020 confirmed the kitchen adaptations should be carried out as a matter of urgency as the resident’s health and wellbeing was deteriorating.
On 6 October 2020 the representative wrote to the landlord regarding her complaint. In summary the representative said:
1. She had first registered her complaint in July 2020.
2. She had first requested the kitchen adaptations in early 2020.
3. The kitchen adaptations were necessary as the resident was unable to use the kitchen safely.
4. She had requested assistance to progress the adaptations from her MP and the resident’s GP however this had not helped.
On 8 October 2020 the landlord wrote to the representative confirming that it received the complaint on 15 September 2020. Within its correspondence the landlord confirmed that it was waiting on information in order to respond to the complaint and therefore its complaint response would be provided by 22 October 2020.
On 9 October 2020 the OTT wrote to the landlord to confirm the kitchen adaptations should be completed as a matter of urgency as the resident’s health had significantly deteriorated.
On 26 October 2020 the landlord provided its stage one response. In summary the landlord said:
1. The OTT contacted the Specialist Works Operations Manager on 23 October 2020 to request that the adaptations were prioritised.
2. Due to the previous and current lockdown and its “Covid-19 repair protocol” there was currently restrictions on inspections and work which could be carried out in a resident’s property.
3. The AT would carry out an inspection as soon as it was able to under the current restrictions. The landlord confirmed that it would then raise the order and arrange for the works to be completed as soon as possible.
4. It was sorry if its Covid-19 protocols seemed unfair, however they were in place to protect its staff and residents.
5. Its repairs records showed that it inspected the cooker on 28 September 2020 and found that the oven was broken however it was safe.
6. It recommended that the representative purchase a new cooker in the interim and install a safety-locking valve until it was able to complete the adaptations. The landlord noted that the representative had previously stated that these options were not appropriate.
The landlord concluded by confirming that it did not uphold the complaint as it was following its Covid-19 protocols in relation to inspections and works. The landlord stated that it was “working as hard as [it could] in the current climate to get inspections and works carried out as soon as possible, without compromising the safety of [its] residents and work force”.
On 27 October 2020 the representative requested to escalate the complaint. In summary the representative said:
1. The adaptations were deemed urgent by the resident’s hospital consultants, the resident’s care coordinator and the head of the OTT.
2. The Government had not said that kitchens could not be installed. The representative noted that high street retailers had been installing kitchens throughout the pandemic.
3. The landlord was using the pandemic as an excuse for the delay in completing the adaptations.
4. The landlord should have put measures in place to work safely in resident’s homes by this point in the pandemic.
On 27 October 2020 the landlord responded to the representative. In summary the landlord said:
1. It was sorry that the representative was unhappy with its stage one response.
1. Due to Covid-19, and as per Government guidelines, adaptations were not currently being carried out at that time. The landlord noted that there was currently a backlog of adaptations to be undertaken.
2. The only adaptations being completed were in void properties and where a resident had agreed to move out temporarily.
3. If the resident voluntarily moved out of the property it could complete the adaptations in the kitchen. The landlord noted that a survey would need to be undertaken first, however.

On 29 October 2020 the landlord wrote to the representative. In summary the landlord said:
1. It understood that the representative had declined to temporarily move from the property to allow the adaptations to proceed due to the impact this would have on the resident.
2. It had discussed if the works could be undertaken if the resident remained in situ and stayed in one room, however this had been rejected by its Health and Safety Team.
3. The only option to complete the adaptations at this time was for the resident to temporarily move from the property.

On 30 October 2020 the representative responded to the landlord. In summary the representative said:
1. The adaptions had been outstanding since March 2020.
2. The landlord had “continuously” failed to treat the resident with dignity or respect citing examples as “having to live with ants during lockdown… due to external walls, damp issues throughout the flat due to the external walls and poor insulation”.
3. Highstreet retailers continued to install kitchens during lockdown.
On the same day the landlord responded. In summary the landlord said:
1. It was not aware of any previous reports of damp and mould by the representative.
2. It had carried out works to the brickwork on 16 June 2020 to remedy ants.
3. It was unable to comment on why high street retailers continued to operate. The landlord reiterated that it was following its Covid-19 procedure in relation to carrying out work in residents’ properties.
4. Until guidance was changed it would be unable to carry out work in the property while it was occupied.
On 11 December 2020 the landlord provided its final response. In summary the landlord said:
1. Following a conversation between the representative and the OTT it was agreed that the kitchen adaptations would be prioritised. The landlord confirmed that it was informed of this decision on 23 October 2020.
2. Due to the pandemic it was “currently only carrying out emergency and essential repairs”. The landlord set out that it was “under protocol and guidance from the Government to only attend resident’s properties” for limited reasons. The landlord explained that this was to keep its staff and residents safe. The landlord confirmed that while the adaptations had been prioritised, the survey and works had not yet taken place.
3. In order to progress the kitchen adaptations it had offered to complete the work while the resident was in temporary accommodation for approximately one week, however the representative had declined. The landlord noted that the representative had declined as a temporary move would be unsettling for the resident.
4. It had also explored the option of completing the kitchen adaptations if the resident stayed in one room in the property for the duration of the works, however this option was not possible as it was contrary to its Covid-19 procedures.
5. The representative had recently raised the following repair issues with it:
  1. “Bath panel, bath overflow and leak”. The landlord explained that a plumber attended in mid-August 2020 to remedy the taps and bath overflow issues. The landlord noted that during the works the bath panel was removed and it was the resident’s responsibility to replace it. The landlord confirmed that the representative requested a new bath panel however this was declined as it did not need replacing. The landlord confirmed that if the resident needed assistance to replace the bath panel she should raise a repair request.
  2. “Damp and mould”. The landlord noted that the representative had delayed in reporting damp and mould in the property as she was aware that it was only completing emergency repairs. The landlord noted that the representative would contact its repairs service once restrictions had lifted.
  3. “Blocked drain outside property”. The landlord confirmed that the representative reported a blocked drain on 28 November 2020 which was remedied on the same day.
The landlord concluded by confirming that while it empathised with the resident’s situation, it did not uphold the complaint as it was unable to enter the property to complete the work due to the current restrictions. The landlord explained that the adaptations would be completed when it was safe to attend the property. The landlord reiterated that it would be able to complete the kitchen adaptations sooner if the resident moved into temporary accommodation.
As the representative was not happy with the landlord’s response she referred the complaint to this Service for adjudication.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman accepts that Covid-19 has had a major impact on the services a landlord is able to provide, and therefore that some normal services will have been significantly and unavoidably disrupted during the pandemic and going forwards. In considering complaints related to Covid-19 the Ombudsman will consider the impact of the pandemic on the decisions and actions that a landlord has had to undertake during the period and take this into account when investigating complaints from residents.
The representative has suggested that due to the delay in completing the kitchen adaptations the resident’s health conditions worsened. Whilst this may be the case, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to reasonably determine a causal link between the delay and the deterioration of the resident’s health. The Ombudsman has therefore made no comments in relation to this. Should the representative wish to pursue this matter, legal advice will need to be sought.

The landlord’s handling of adaptations following an occupational therapist assessment.

The Ombudsman understands the representative’s concerns and reasons for wanting the adaptations installed promptly within the property. The Ombudsman also recognises that the pandemic has required the landlord to work in challenging and unprecedented circumstances.
From March 2020 the Government issued new legislation and guidance setting out how a landlord should deliver its services during the pandemic. Of particular relevance to this complaint the Ombudsman notes the following:
1. On 28 March 2020:
  1. Recommended that access to a property is only proposed for serious and urgent issues.
  2. Current restrictions may prevent routine and obligatory inspections in relation to repairs.
  3. No reasons to allow dangerous conditions to persist.
2. On 18 May 2020:
  1. Letter from Housing Minister to all social housing residents setting out that as lockdown measures are eased landlords should be able to carry out routine as well as essential repairs for most households.
1. On 1 June 2020:
  1. Landlords can now take steps to address wider issues of repairs and safety inspections, provided these are undertaken in line with public health advice.
  2. Where workforce is available and resources allow, landlords are now able to visit most properties to carry out both routine and essential inspections and repairs, as well as any planned internal works.
1. On 5 November 2020:
  1. Landlords can still carry out repairs and safety inspections if in line with public health advice despite a second national lockdown.

In response to the Government’s guidance and legislation, the landlord had modified the way that it is delivering its repairs service, including the installation of adaptations. Specifically, from March 2020 and up until 17 May 2021, the landlord has been completing emergency and essential repairs inside a property and all non-essential repairs have been suspended. The landlord’s website sets out that its decision to suspend non-essential repairs up until 17 May 2021 was to “help prevent the spread of Covid-19”.
Between March 2020 and September 2020 the OTT’s position was that the adaptations were non-urgent. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord was therefore operating in accordance with its Covid-19 repairs procedure on completing repairs by placing the adaptation surveys and works on hold during this period.
While the landlord was operating in accordance with its Covid-19 repair procedure in placing the adaptation surveys and works on hold between March 2020 and September 2020, the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord took into consideration the Government’s guidance from 1 June 2020 permitting landlords to carry out both routine and essential inspections and repairs inside a property. In the Ombudsman’s opinion it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have undertaken a risk assessment in June 2020 to determine if the adaptation surveys and works could have gone ahead at that time. In the Ombudsman’s opinion a continued blanket ban on all non-essential repairs post June 2020 was unhelpful as it did not allow consideration of a resident’s individual circumstances and the impact on them. The Ombudsman understands that a risk assessment may have deemed it unsafe to deliver the resident’s adaptations in June 2020.
In October 2020 the OTT confirmed that the kitchen adaptations were considered urgent and should be completed as a priority. In response to the revised priority the Ombudsman can see that the landlord responded by agreeing to complete the kitchen adaptations if the resident moved to temporary accommodation for the duration of the works. This was appropriate as the landlord’s Covid-19 repairs procedure set out that it would undertake emergency and essential repairs, and it deemed that the work could not be done safely while the resident was in situ. The Ombudsman notes that the representative declined on the grounds that a temporary move would be detrimental to the resident’s health, which she was entitled to do.
The evidence shows that the kitchen and bathroom adaptations are yet to be completed. The evidence further shows that the OTT, landlord and representative are in dialogue over the scope of the adaptations and other repair issues. The Ombudsman understands from the evidence that the landlord has agreed to complete some of “the essential requirements of the OT assessment” while the resident remains in the property and would progress all adaptations after 17 May 2021. The representative has informed the Ombudsman that she remains concerned regarding the progress to complete the adaptations and has therefore attempted to make a new complaint however the landlord has advised that it would not respond as her concerns were being considered by this Service. As the Ombudsman can only consider matters which have exhausted a landlord’s internal complaints procedure the Ombudsman cannot comment on the landlord’s handling of the adaptations since December 2020.
In May 2020 the representative reported issues with the oven to the OTT– that it did not work and it had been condemned. The Ombudsman cannot see that the representative reported this as a repair issue directly to the landlord for intervention at that time. The Ombudsman notes that the oven was inspected by the landlord’s heating team in September 2020 when it became aware of the complaint. The record of the appointment confirmed that “oven will not work but is safe – all work complete”.

The landlord’s complaint handling

This Service finds that the landlord’s management of the complaint was not satisfactory. The evidence shows that the landlord did not respond to the complaint in a timely manner as it significantly delayed in providing both its stage one and stage two response. This is unsatisfactory as a complaint process exists in order to ensure a complainant’s concerns are addressed within a specified timeframe and that this timeframe assures the complainant that their complaint will be addressed without undue delay. The delay was also contrary to the landlord’s complaint handling principle ‘to resolve complaints for [its] residents as quickly and simply as possible”. In line with the requirements of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code a landlord should operate a complaint procedure which facilitates and supports quick resolution of complaints and promotes a positive relationship between the parties, which the landlord did not achieve in this case.
During the period under investigation and while the complaint was live the representative referred to damp and mould within the property, in addition to some other repair issues. While the landlord did acknowledge that the resident had some repair concerns in respect of the property within its final response and then set out the most recent repairs it had completed, in the Ombudsman’s opinion it was reasonable that the landlord did not respond further. This is because the complaint which the representative raised in July 2020 was about the adaptations not progressing. In the Ombudsman’s opinion in this case it would not have been practical to incorporate any new issues into the existing complaint as the repair concerns were separate from the adaptations and would require an independent assessment.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of adaptations following an occupation therapist assessment.
2. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s handling of adaptations following an occupational therapist assessment.

While the landlord was operating in accordance with its Covid-19 repair procedure in placing the adaptation surveys and works on hold between March 2020 and September 2020 the evidence does not show that the landlord took into consideration the Government’s guidance from 1 June 2020 permitting landlords to carry out both routine and essential inspections and repairs inside a property. The landlord should have considered undertaking a risk assessment in June 2020 to determine if the adaptation surveys and works could have gone ahead at that time; in light of the updated guidance from the Government.
It was appropriate that the landlord responded to the revised priority for the kitchen adaptations in October 2020 by agreeing to complete the work if the resident moved to temporary accommodation as its Covid-19 repairs procedure set out that it would undertake emergency and essential repairs.
The landlord arranged to inspect the oven when it became aware of the complaint in September 2020 documenting the representative’s concern that it was not safe.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord significantly delayed in providing both its stage one and stage two response to the complaint.
The landlord’s approach to responding to the representative’s repair issues in respect of the property under its complaint procedure was reasonable as the complaint which the representative raised in July 2020 was about the adaptations not progressing.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should pay the resident the following compensation within four weeks of the date of this determination:
1. £250 for not undertaking a risk assessment in June 2020 to determine if the adaptation surveys and works could have gone ahead at that time in light of the updated guidance from the Government.
2. £150 in respect of its complaint handling.
The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with a copy of its self-assessment against the Complaint Handling Code, within one week of the date of this determination, to demonstrate that its complaint handling procedure is in line with the code and with best practice.

Recommendations

The landlord should contact the representative, within four weeks of the date of this determination, to understand her current concerns regarding progress to complete the adaptations. If appropriate the landlord should provide a response to the representative’s concerns under its complaint procedure.
The landlord should inspect the property, within four weeks of the date of this determination, to determine if the property has any outstanding repair issues for which it is responsible for addressing. Any works identified should be scheduled to be completed as soon as practically possible.