The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

First Choice Homes Oldham Limited (202108369)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108369

First Choice Homes Oldham Limited

23 January 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of toilet and kitchen adaptations and repairs at the resident’s property.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling and communication.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a house. She has medical conditions causing her limited mobility, the need for quick and frequent toilet access, difficulty lifting items from a low height, allergies, and serious long-term illness. However, the landlord states that it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. In February 2022, the resident’s occupational therapist (the OT) requested that adaptations be made to her property for her above medical conditions. She required a ground floor toilet and wash basin in order to access these facilities during the day because she had difficulty climbing the stairs to do so. The resident also needed housing for the built in oven that she was buying to address her difficulty in bending down to lift items out of her existing free standing oven. The local council therefore made a referral for these adaptations to the landlord in February 2020, which were approved in March 2020.
  3. After COVID-19 pandemic restrictions began in March 2020, the landlord told the resident in July 2020 that it had given permission for the above adaptations. It explained that it would then work with the OT and its original contractor to plan and install the adaptations, which it would discuss with her and any representatives. The landlord also said that the resident could contact it she wanted to consider the alternative of moving to a more suitable property for her needs instead of having major adaptations to her home.
  4. The resident subsequently made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord in March 2021 about the delay in it completing the toilet and kitchen adaptations at her property. She stated that her health was being affected by this, and that it had made incorrect plans for the adaptations that it had not responded to her about after she had reported this to it. The resident added that the local council and the landlord had disputed its original contractor being told to stop work, and that its staff had argued with and declined to help her about this, criticising their competence and behaviour. She therefore requested that it complete the adaptations, train its staff in customer relations, and communicate with her.
  5. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response in April 2021 explained that a disagreement over the plans for the resident’s toilet adaptation was previously referred to the OT’s team. They were described as then approving the plans as meeting her needs, with the fact that the local council was partly funding the works meaning that it could be a lengthy process to get final approval for these. The landlord nevertheless outlined that its original contractor was unable to carry out the adaptations due in April 2021 at the last minute. This meant that its new contractor was now planning their new timescale for the works, which it agreed to update her on. The landlord added that the resident’s feedback about poor customer service would be dealt with internally by its senior management.
  6. The landlord and its new contractor subsequently discussed the adaptations with each other and the resident in April 2021 before these started in May 2021. The new contractor then installed the downstairs toilet in her property in June 2021 and handed over this and the works to the kitchen as complete in July 2021. This was after waiting for parts for the resident’s bespoke oven housing and her preferred start date for this and other related kitchen works. However, she went on to report her dissatisfaction with the adaptation works. This included outstanding snagging repairs for sealing, filling, electrical wires and sockets, boxing in, gaps, damage to the boiler, the cooker sparking, mismatched cupboards, and a bad smell from the new toilet.
  7. The resident added that the landlord’s new contractor had turned off her fridge freezer without turning this back on, which had ruined the contents, as well as leaving her without kitchen access for 5 days for a 1-day job. They had also taken 3 weeks to fit the downstairs toilet after she had waited many months for this, which was not acceptable for her medical conditions and had caused her stress. The resident therefore made a final stage complaint to the landlord in July 2021 about the above issues, while it recorded having difficulties arranging access for and communicating with her about this.
  8. The landlord’s final stage complaint response in July 2021 asked the resident to confirm when its new contractor could complete the above works at her property, which it agreed that its surveyor would inspect. The new contractor also agreed to pay her £60 for spoiling the food in her fridge freezer. Although the resident was denied the same amount for food prepared elsewhere due to being without her kitchen for 5 days. This was because the landlord considered that this delay was from the resident not giving its new contractor access to complete the works to the kitchen. It added that its staff’s handling of her case had been affected by the OT changing the works, apologising if their conduct was not in the manner expected. The landlord nevertheless found no evidence that its staff had not followed its values, which they had all been appraised on.
  9. The landlord also declined to replace the resident’s mismatched kitchen units because it stated that she had agreed the colours for the new cupboard doors and that the other units were in good condition. Although it apologised for the disruption that she had experienced during the works at her property. The landlord’s new contractor then paid the resident £60 compensation in August 2021, apologised that her experienced had not been up to standard, and completed tiling, plinth, and boiler boxing in works at the property. She and its surveyor subsequently both signed for these and her adaptations works to be handed over.
  10. However, the resident complained to the Ombudsman that the landlord’s new contractor took 3 days instead of the 2 hours agreed for the above snagging repairs. They had also agreed but not paid her £60 for being without her kitchen for 5 days, and she had paid £280 for her kitchen cupboards to be the same colour, with big plinth gaps preventing her use. The resident described the new contractor as damaging her washing machine socket for a week, leaving gaps around incorrectly sized worktops, and messing up her walls, tiles and carpets. Access was only denied by her after damage to her electrics, boiler, and food. The resident was also without a double cupboard, fencing that had been agreed, had a bad smell from the wrongly installed toilet, and had rude, unhelpful, and unreturned calls, asking to be reimbursed for her above costs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has explained that her ill-health may have been affected by the landlord not installing the fence that it had agreed to stop debris from her neighbour’s property, which is very concerning. It is also of concern that she has outlined that her downstairs sink and toilet have subsequently become blocked, her walls, tiles and carpets were messed up, and she is without a double cupboard. These matters are nevertheless outside of the scope of this investigation to consider. This is because, under the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that are made prior to exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure. As there is no evidence that a complaint from the resident about its handling of the above issues has exhausted the complaints procedure yet, these are not considered by this investigation. Although the landlord has been recommended below to contact her to take and respond to a formal complaint about these matters, if it has not done so already.

Adaptations and repairs

  1. The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy defines major adaptations as involving structural alteration to a property or as costing over £1,000. These include providing suitable toilet facilities and adapting the kitchen. Requests for such major adaptations are required to be assessed and recommended by the OT, considered and approved by the landlord, and passed to the local council to access a disabled facilities grant. Rehousing will be explored when major adaptations are requested, where appropriate. The landlord is obliged to liaise with the local council and keep the resident updated on the progress of the adaptation, carrying this out to the appropriate standard once funding is approved. Major adaptations are aimed to be completed within 6 months.
  2. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy requires it to complete routine repairs that are not emergency or priority repairs within 20 working days. Routine repairs are defined as including cupboard and panel repairs. The resident is responsible for allowing access at the agreed time for works that the landlord is responsible for. It is obliged to carry out work to the appropriate standard, ensure that the working environment is protected, and make good any aspects that have been disturbed during the repair that it is responsible for.
  3. The resident’s kitchen and toilet adaptations were major adaptations as defined by the landlord’s aids and adaptations policy. This is because these involved structural alterations to her property, in the form of a ground floor toilet and wash basin installation, which was in order to provide her with suitable toilet facilities, as well as a kitchen adaptation to house her built in oven. The policy therefore required the resident’s adaptations to be assessed and recommended by the OT, which occurred on 6 and 26 February 2020. The landlord was then obliged by its policy to consider and approve the adaptations, which it did on 3 March 2020, before passing this to and liaising with the local council for funding, in order to seek to complete the adaptations within 6 months.
  4. COVID-19 pandemic restrictions were subsequently recommended, announced, and legally came into force on 16, 23 and 26 March 2020, respectively, which the landlord recorded as affecting the resident’s case. It then confirmed to her on 16 July 2020 that permission had been given for the adaptations, which it would work with her, the OT, and its original contractor on to carry out over a number of weeks. Although the landlord also gave the resident the alternative of contacting it about moving to a more suitable property for her needs instead of the major adaptations.
  5. The landlord’s above actions were reasonable in the circumstances of the resident’s case at the time. Although it was taking longer than the 6 months required by its aids and adaptations policy to complete her toilet and kitchen adaptations from February 2020 until after July 2020, this was due to the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. The landlord was therefore prevented at that time from carrying out the adaptations sooner by factors, including legal restrictions, which were beyond its control. These restrictions would also have been particularly necessary in the resident’s case, given the increased risk to her from her serious long-term illness. The landlord additionally followed the policy by giving her the alternative of seeking to move to a more suitable property for her needs, which was appropriate.
  6. However, the landlord subsequently took over 16 months from the OT’s recommendation of the resident’s toilet and kitchen adaptations on 26 February 2020 until its new contractor handed these over as complete on 1 July 2021. It then also took over another month to hand over the related snagging repairs for these works as complete on 18 August 2021. The landlord therefore exceeded its aids and adaptations policy’s 6-month timescale for it to carry out the resident’s adaptations by over 10 to 11 months, which is very concerning. This is particularly because she explained that this was not acceptable for her medical conditions and had caused her stress.
  7. As well as the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, the landlord attributed the delays in the resident’s adaptations to a disagreement over the plans for her downstairs toilet adaptation. It explained that this was therefore referred back to the OT’s team, who confirmed that they were happy that the plans met her needs, but that the local council’s part funding of the works meant that it could be a lengthy process to get final approval. The landlord described the adaptations as subsequently being delayed from the scheduled start of 6 April 2021, due to its original contractor no longer being able to provide these at the last minute, and it then having to instruct a new contractor. It added that there were then further delays from the resident denying access to the new contractor.
  8. It is understandable that the landlord took almost 3 months from 6 April to 1 July 2021 to complete the resident’s adaptations, excluding the related snagging repairs. This is because it was required at short notice to instruct its new contractor, arrange for them to price the works, approve this, discuss and schedule the adaptations with her and the new contractor, and arrange for them to complete the works. It was also not unreasonable that the landlord took less than half of its aids and adaptations policy’s 6-month timescale to carry out these actions, particularly given the lack of notice that it had to instruct the new contractor.
  9. It is nevertheless of concern that the landlord did not provide the Ombudsman with any records of its previous actions or communication for the resident’s adaptations from 16 July 2020 to 6 April 2021. This meant that there is no evidence to justify why it took this over 8-month period to schedule the adaptations, other than its later unsupported explanation that a disagreement over the plans for her downstairs toilet had to be referred to the OT’s team. It is also concerning that the landlord did not show that it had provided the resident with any updates on the progress of the adaptations during this period, despite its aids and adaptations policy’s requirement for it to do so. She instead only began to receive updates from it after her stage 1 complaint of 29 March 2021 outlined its lack of responses to her previous queries, which was inappropriate.
  10. There is additionally only evidence that the resident denied access to the new contractor on 5 to 6 July 2021, which she explained was only after they damaged her electrics, boiler, and food. It is noted that the new contractor subsequently confirmed on 3 August 2021 that they had paid her £60 compensation and apologised to her for damaging her food. There were otherwise only unsupported claims of the resident delaying access on unspecified dates in the landlord’s final stage complaint response, internal correspondence, and communication with the new contractor. Moreover, further concerns were then raised about its record keeping in her case when it responded to the Ombudsman’s enquires about this by incorrectly telling us that she had no vulnerabilities and that it had no aids and adaptations policy.
  11. The landlord’s failure to keep full and detailed records of its and its contractors’ actions and communication for the resident’s adaptations was unreasonable, and this meant that its delays and lack of updates for these could not be justified. This was also contrary to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management (the spotlight report). This recommends that the landlord review its databases and its staff’s training on its systems to adequately capture data about its residents and properties, which meets minimum standards. This should be easily accessible to support decision making, as well as being appropriately reviewed for any new circumstances.
  12. However, the landlord failed to ensure that the above data was captured in the resident’s adaptations case, or to follow the spotlight report’s recommendation to review its internal guidance around recording vulnerabilities. This was unreasonable because this led to it not recording that she was disabled and had a serious long-term illness, despite her complaint being about its handling of her disability adaptations and related repairs. This also meant that the landlord did not take these factors into account when considering its and its contractors’ handling of the resident’s case, and the resulting effect on her health and wellbeing, which was inappropriate.
  13. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy required it to complete the remaining routine tiling, plinth, and boiler boxing in repairs at the resident’s property within 20 working days. Therefore, the fact that it took 34 working days from 1 July to 18 August 2021 for its surveyor to confirm with her that it had carried out these works meant that it exceeded this timescale by 14 working days, which was unsuitable. It is noted that the landlord stated that the resident did not want its new contractor to return to her property to complete the remaining repairs there, which its final stage complaint response of 28 July 2021 asked her to arrange with it. There is nevertheless no evidence that she declined these works, which further contravened the spotlight report.
  14. It is also of concern that the resident reported to the landlord that there were further outstanding snagging repairs related to her adaptations to the property that it did not respond to. The absence of these issues from its final stage complaint response to her is addressed in the below complaint handling and communication section of this report. However, it is concerning that, while the resident indicated that the new contractor’s damage to her electrics and boiler were repaired after up to a week, the landlord did not respond to her reports from 6 July 2021 that her downstairs toilet had not been fitted correctly and had a very bad smell. This and the fact that its records additionally only mentioned her reports of and not any of its responses to her electric and boiler repairs was unreasonable, and this was again contrary to the spotlight report.
  15. The landlord’s above failings meant that, while its final stage complaint response appropriately apologised for the disruption to the resident during her adaptation works, its lack of remedies for this meant that it did not put things right. This was contrary to the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle for it to do so, apart from its new contractor’s above compensation for her damaged food. While the landlord disputed the resident’s claim for another £60 for food for being without kitchen access for 5 days, which she reported that the new contractor had agreed to, there was no evidence for it to say that she prevented their works for all of this time. It also did not provide any evidence to support its position that she had agreed to her new kitchen cupboard doors’ mismatched colours, which it declined to change, and so she paid £280 to do so herself.
  16. The landlord’s compensation policy gives it discretion to compensate for considerable failures from £250. This is for reasons including it delaying services and repairs, not following policy and procedure, taking unreasonable time to resolve situations, and causing material loss. This is in the range of compensation recommended by the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures by the landlord that adversely affected the resident, which it failed to acknowledge or put right. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to pay the resident the £340 further compensation that she has requested from it. This in recognition of its above delays, lack of communication, and poor record keeping for her toilet and kitchen adaptations and repairs.
  17. The landlord has also been ordered below to write to the resident to acknowledge and apologise for the failings by it in handling her toilet and kitchen adaptations and repairs identified by this investigation. It has additionally been ordered to contact her to arrange for it to inspect the incorrect fitting of and bad smell from her downstairs toilet, and to carry out any outstanding repairs for this. Moreover, the landlord has been ordered to complete a self assessment of its compliance against the spotlight report, and to provide the resident and the Ombudsman with the outcome. It has been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its aids and adaptations and repairs and maintenance policies, in order to prevent its failures in her case from occurring again in the future.

Complaint handling and communication

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy requires it to respond to stage 1 complaints within 7 working days, and to final stage complaints within 15 working days. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) obliges the landlord to conduct complaint investigations by seeking sufficient, reliable information from both parties, so that fair and appropriate findings and recommendations can be made. It is also required to address all points raised in complaints. The landlord’s website states that it will treat its residents with respect, and that it will be open, honest, and transparent at all times. It also says that it will deliver high levels of customer service, and share clear, accessible and timely information.
  2. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 29 March 2021 within its complaints policy’s 7-working-day stage 1 response timescale on 9 April 2021. It then replied to her final stage complaint of 7 July 2021 within the policy’s 15-working-day final stage response timescale on 28 July 2021. The landlord’s complaint responses in the resident’s case were therefore appropriately timely at both stages of its complaints procedure.
  3. However, as outlined above, the landlord’s final stage complaint response made findings in the resident’s case without any evidence to support these. This is because it found that she had delayed its new contractor’s access to her kitchen for 5 days, and that she had agreed to her new kitchen cupboard doors’ mismatched colours, but its records did not indicate that she had done so and she disputed these findings. This meant that the landlord did not follow the Code’s requirement for it conduct the resident’s complaint investigation by seeking sufficient, reliable information from both parties to make fair and appropriate findings and recommendations, which was unreasonable.
  4. As also described above, the landlord’s final stage complaint response of 28 July 2021 did not address all of the further outstanding snagging repairs related to the resident’s adaptations complaint. These included the incorrect fitting of and very bad smell from her downstairs toilet, which she reported to it from 7 July 2021, and the damage to her electrics and boiler, which she reported to it from 5 July 2021. This was contrary to the landlord’s obligation under the Code to address all of the points raised in the resident’s complaint. However, it did not respond to her about the above issues, despite her final stage complaint of 7 July 2021 expressing her dissatisfaction with its new contractor’s works, which included these items, and so this was inappropriate.
  5. The landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance both recommend compensation from £50 for failures including incorrect responses, disappointment, and loss of confidence. It has therefore been ordered below to pay the resident another £60 compensation in recognition of its unsupported and incomplete complaint responses in her case, as well as to write to her to acknowledge and apologise for these failings. The landlord has also been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of the Code in order to prevent its complaint handling failures in her case from occurring again in the future.
  6. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response did address the resident’s dissatisfaction with her reports of its staff’s calls arguing with and declining to help her. She criticised their competence and behaviour during the calls and requested that it provide them with customer relations training. The landlord responded to the resident by agreeing to forward her feedback about this poor customer service to its senior management to deal with internally. It replied to her subsequent final stage complaint about their behaviour, and them not responding to her, by apologising if they had not acted within its core values, However, the landlord explained that it could not find any evidence of this, and that its staff had all gone through appraisals for its core values.
  7. The landlord therefore addressed the resident’s concerns that its staff had not followed its website’s requirements to show her respect, openness, honesty, transparency, high levels of customer service, and share clear, accessible and timely information. It was reasonable that it did so by passing this to its senior management to deal with internally, as this was a personnel matter involving its staff’s personal data, which their managers were obliged to deal with internally, and so the details could not be shared with her. It was nevertheless appropriate that the landlord then apologised to the resident about this to try and put things right, and that it provided her with the outcome of its investigation, which was that there was no evidence that its staff had not followed its above obligations.
  8. In the absence of any evidence from either party that the landlord’s staff had not followed its website’s requirements in their communication with the resident, it was suitable that it took no further action for this. However, it was also reasonable that it attempted to reassure her that all of its staff had gone through appraisals for its core values to confirm that they were aware of these. It would nevertheless have been preferable if the landlord had responded to the resident’s request for its staff to receive customer relations training directly. This is in order to further reassure her that it had attempted to prevent her concerns about their behaviour and communication from occurring again in the future, and so it has been recommended below to review such training.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of toilet and kitchen adaptations and repairs at the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling and communication.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident compensation totalling £400 within 4 weeks, which is broken down into:
      1. £340 in recognition of its delays, lack of communication, and poor record keeping for her toilet and kitchen adaptations and repairs.
      2. £60 in recognition of its unsupported and incomplete complaint responses in her case.
    2. Write to the resident within 4 weeks to acknowledge and apologise for the failings by it in handling her toilet and kitchen adaptations and repairs, and in its complaint handling, identified by this investigation.
    3. Contact the resident within 4 weeks to arrange for it to inspect the incorrect fitting of and bad smell from her downstairs toilet, and to carry out any outstanding repairs for this.
    4. Complete a self assessment of its compliance against the spotlight report within 8 weeks, and provide the resident and the Ombudsman with the outcome.
    5. The landlord shall contact the Ombudsman within 4 and 8 weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders and whether it will follow the below recommendations.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Contact the resident to take and respond to a formal complaint from her about its handling of her requests for a fence to stop debris from her neighbour’s property, and of blockages to her downstairs sink and toilet, her walls, tiles and carpets being messed up, and her being left without a double cupboard, if it has not done so already.
    2. Review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its aids and adaptations and repairs and maintenance policies, in order to prevent its failures in the resident’s adaptations and repairs case from occurring again in the future.
    3. Review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of the Code, in order to prevent its complaint handling failures in the resident’s case from occurring again in the future.
    4. Review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its website and core values in communicating with residents, in order to prevent concerns about their behaviour and communication from occurring again in the future.