Clarion Housing Association Limited (202205710)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205710

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 June 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 how the landlord responded to the resident’s request for adaptations to improve her access to the bin storage area.

Background

2. The resident has a weekly assured tenancy with her landlord. The landlord was informed that the resident had been diagnosed with severe osteoporosis with a high risk of fractures should she fall.
3. In October 2021, she requested her landlord improve access to her refuse bins at the front of her property. This area consisted of a flower bed which was separated from a concrete area by a concrete edging. As the area was uneven and required the resident to step onto the concrete edging to reach her bins there was a risk of falls.
4. The resident requested that a flower bed in the front of the property be removed, and the concrete area is levelled.  The landlord agreed to send a surveyor to the resident’s property. The resident had applied for a disabled facilities grant (DFG) from her local authority to cover the work, but this had been refused.
5. In November 2021, the landlord indicated the works could be considered as a routine repair however after initially recommending the works in December 2021 the landlord changed its position. In January 2022, the landlord stated it would only agree to remove the cemented boundary partition that divides the cemented area and the flower bed, leaving the flower bed as it is.
6. The landlord took the view that the path was safe and although the concrete edging was a trip hazard it was not its responsibility to alter the garden. The landlord suggested to the resident she apply for a disabled facilities grant (DFG) to cover the work. It explained in any event the work required would exceed its minor works budget limit of £1,000.
7. The resident’s application for a DFG was refused on the basis that it would not cover access to bin storage. The resident complained on 16 March 2022 that she had been led to believe that the landlord would likely cement and resurface the whole area. The resident indicated the landlord’s suggestion of just removing the concreted edging would make things worse. She was concerned that she would have to step on the flower bed to access her bins and the soil would be washed onto the cemented area making it more slippery.
8. On 14 April 2022, the landlord in its stage one response stated the whole garden area requires re-levelling which will exceed its £1000 minor works budget amount. It only accepted responsibility for the path. It also indicated that there would be drainage considerations if it re-levelled the area which would increase the costs and require building regulation consideration. The landlord stated that these works will need to be completed by the resident or through the local authority as the front garden is not deemed its responsibility. It offered £100 compensation for any trouble or inconvenience caused.
9. In the landlord’s stage two response on 31 May 2022, it accepted that it is responsible for maintaining the front garden but not carrying out alterations. It also reiterated that the works required would include the removal of the flowerbed, removal of the concrete edging, re-levelling the whole garden area, and taking drainage into consideration which exceeds the £1000 budget for minor adaptions. Whilst waiting for this Service to investigate the landlord confirmed to this Service in May 2023 that it had completed the recommended works identified in December 2021.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the improvement request, including communication

10. The landlord’s initial response to the resident on 15 October 2021 was to agree to send a surveyor out to the property to make an assessment. This was reasonable to enable it to establish what works were needed and if it was liable to do them. After a visit on 2 December 2021, the landlord left the resident with the impression that it would be completing the work she had requested.
11. The landlord’s suggestion that it would do the works in December 2021 along with its discussion over whether the work could be undertaken within its £1,000 limit for minor repairs confused matters. It led to the resident understandably expecting that the works that she had requested would be carried out. The landlord subsequently failed to demonstrate that it explained to the resident its changed position in January 2022. Nor is there any evidence that it considered the resident’s concerns that its proposed solution may make things worse.
12. There was confusion evident in the landlord’s complaint responses. At stage one the landlord suggested it was only responsible for the path. Whilst in its stage two response it stated that it was responsible for the whole of the front garden. There were also discrepancies in the landlord’s findings during its internal complaint process. For example, in its stage one response it indicated that the resident’s path requires no work but in its stage two response it accepted there was a minor trip hazard off the path.
13. In its stage two response, the landlord reiterated its position but failed to evidence the cost of the proposed works to the resident or indicate that it would look at other ways to fund the works. For example, it did not communicate that it could consider doing the work as a major adaptation, even without a disabled facilities grant. It also did not communicate that it could consider doing work as part of a planned investment. Instead, it decided to email the resident’s occupational therapist to say that the resident would need to apply for a disabled facilities grant.
14. As the resident is vulnerable and at risk of falls, this Service would expect the landlord to give much greater weight to her needs. There is no evidence that a risk assessment was done for falls, or any acknowledgement or consideration was given to her age or vulnerabilities when deciding what work the landlord would do. This caused the resident distress and placed her and her husband at risk.
15. The landlord was aware the resident was vulnerable and identified in April 2022 that there was a minor defect off the path but requested the resident raise a repair for this rather than arranging the repair. The landlord confirmed in May 2023 that it had raised a repair for this minor defect. It stated that it had completed the recommended works on 27 and 28 April 2023. It was unreasonable of the landlord to place the burden on the resident to report this again under the circumstances.
16. When assessing how the landlord has responded to a complaint the Ombudsman must consider how it has applied its Dispute Resolution Principles- treating people fairly, putting things right and learning from the outcome. The resident has confirmed to this Service that the landlord has done the work that she had requested. This would usually support a finding of reasonable redress. However, as these actions were completed after the internal complaint process, and after delay and several failures this would not be appropriate.
17. The landlord had failed in its response to the resident’s request and communication for the following reasons:
    1. by not evidencing that it communicated to the resident the reasons for its change in position between December 2021 and January 2022
    2. by failing to offer a breakdown of the cost of the works or look at ways the work might be funded other than by minor adaptation
    3. by making confusing statements about whether it was responsible for the garden
    4. by not acknowledging the resident’s vulnerabilities and failing to evidence it had done appropriate risk assessments relating to managing risks from falls
18. These failures caused the resident additional and unnecessary distress, it is therefore appropriate that the resident be compensated for this. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for awards of between £250 and £700 where there has been no permanent impact on a resident by its failures but there has been a failure over a considerable period to act in accordance with policy or there has been misdirection. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (available on our website).

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in how the landlord responded to the resident’s request to improve access to her bin storage area.

Orders

20. Within 28 days of this determination the landlord must pay the resident of £700 (less any compensation payment it may have already paid) for the distress, inconvenience and frustration caused.

Recommendations

21. It is recommended that the landlord undertake risk assessments and provide written reports following each inspection to manage risks, comply with equality legislation and to evidence its findings.