Cottsway Housing Association Limited (202303404)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303404

Cottsway Housing Association Limited

3 July 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 refusal to install the resident’s preferred choice of flooring.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 19 April 2022. The landlord’s records state the resident is autistic and vulnerable due to health and support needs.
3. The resident was having a new kitchen installed by the landlord. As part of the installation the landlord agreed the plans with the resident. The landlord also agreed to fit a boiler tap and sink for the resident at his request. The resident was purchasing the tap and sink himself and completed the relevant alteration request forms prior to the works being completed. He was also made aware that he would be responsible for the maintenance of these items and would have to uninstall them if he ever moved out in the future.
4. The resident then explained that the flooring the landlord offered was unsuitable. He said it was not “non-slip” enough for his dog to use safely. He also said the colours offered meant that his flooring would not match which was important for his autism. He said the landlord had a duty to make reasonable adjustments in accordance with the Equality Act 2010. He did not understand why the landlord had agreed to the tap and the sink but not the flooring.
5. The landlord said it had agreed to install the sink and hot tap to demonstrate that it was trying to be reasonable and adjust to the resident’s needs. It was unable to extend this to the flooring. It was happy for the resident to arrange the flooring to be installed himself. The resident remained dissatisfied and raised a stage 1 complaint.
6. The landlord responded. It said the choices for fixtures and fittings was what its suppliers could provide. The flooring it provided was of a high quality and was anti-slip. It had offered an alternative where the resident could request permission and arrange his own flooring including fitting. The resident would be responsible for the costs of the installation of the flooring and would need to arrange installation himself. If the resident’s occupational therapist (OT) would provide specifications for his kitchen flooring it would be happy to review this.
7. The resident remained dissatisfied. He said the landlord had not considered its duties under the Equality Act 2010. He requested that the matter be escalated to stage 2.
8. The landlord responded. It said that it did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It said that it choose materials that were good quality and durable to ensure they were longer lasting. It also stocked like for like materials so that its team could repair or replace stock items. It also trained its operatives on how to fit the same products. It was important for it to be consistent with this across its housing stock. It considered its stage 1 response was fair and accurate and while it had declined his request it had offered options.
9. The resident was dissatisfied. He did not consider the landlord had handled his request appropriately. He said it had not made reasonable adjustments in line with his disability.

Assessment and findings

10. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that residents must obtain written consent from the landlord prior to making any alterations. It also states that the landlord may make disability related alterations, adaptions and/or improvements to the property.
11. The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy states that works below £2500 are usually classified as minor and processed directly by the landlord. OT assessments and a suitability and needs assessment are always preferred to ensure that adaptions are appropriate. Requests for standard works that are received directly by the landlord do not usually require such assessments.
12. It is not within the remit of this Service to determine what reasonable adjustments a landlord should or should not make. Rather it is our role to consider whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s request was reasonable in the circumstances.
13. The evidence shows that the landlord was in regular communication with the resident to agree the plans for the kitchen installation. This was appropriate and ensured that the resident’s expectations were managed and that he was aware of what works were going to be completed.
14. The resident expressed confusion as to why the landlord had agreed to install the tap and the sink. The landlord did however explain its reasons for agreeing to this within its communication with the resident. Furthermore, the evidence showed that the landlord had checked that its contractors were able to fit the items before it agreed to install them. It also appropriately followed the terms of the tenancy agreement by ensuring that written consent was provided in respect of the alterations to the sink and the tap.
15. The landlord clearly explained its position in its stage 1 response. It did not dismiss the resident’s concerns. It presented alternative options. It also left it open for the resident to seek specifications from his OT for it to review if appropriate. This was in accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreement and its own aids and adaptations policy.
16. It then went further in its stage 2 response to explain its position. Its explanation that it used like for like materials and that its staff were trained to fit the same products was reasonable. It confirmed the resident’s options to resolve the matter, and it reiterated its openness to review OT recommendations. This showed that the landlord had listened to the resident and had sought to try to find a resolution.
17. This Service acknowledges that the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s position on the flooring, which he evidently found disappointing. However, the landlord explained its position with clarity and consistency. That it encouraged the resident to provide evidence for it to consider was appropriate and evidenced that it took the resident’s concerns seriously. This Service has therefore found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter.

Determination

18. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s refusal to install the resident’s preferred choice of flooring.