Halton Housing (202217044)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217044

Halton Housing

20 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s reports of outstanding repairs following a rewire.
2. The resident’s request for reasonable adjustments due to her disability.
This report also looks at the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom house that is owned and managed by a housing association. The property was let under an assured tenancy agreement in 2014.
The landlord records that the resident is registered long term sick and disabled. The resident receives support from a floating support scheme.
This Service received an email from a support worker on 5 April 2023 which said she had helped the resident submit the complaint due to her dyslexia and learning difficulties. She explained that she was unable to represent the resident in this matter due to a conflict of interests with her professional capacity. For the purposes of this report the resident and the support worker are referred to as ‘the resident’
In her stage 1 complaint dated 4 July 2022 the resident referred to outstanding repairs following the landlord’s installation of a new boiler on 14 October 2021. She also said in a text message on 6 June 2022 that the landlord had said she was responsible for the completion of these repairs. The resident did not submit a complaint to the landlord about the matter when the boiler was repaired, nor raise the matter as a complaint until 9 months later.. Under the terms of the Scheme the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable time, which would normally be 6 months of the matter arising. We note that the landlord addressed the boiler issue in its stage 1 complaint response of 2 August 2022 by saying that it had already explained that the issue related to “the original boxing in from before the boiler was replaced and was not relevant to the work in question” and that any repairs to the encasing of boiler were the resident’s responsibility. Whilst the landlord commented on this aspect of the resident’s complaint, for the reason set out in this paragraph, this matter is outside of the scope of this assessment which will focus on the repairs that were required following the completion of the rewire which took place on 19 May 2022.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident has alleged that the landlord discriminated against her in her stage 1 complaint. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as these are legal terms which are better suited to a court to decide. It is not clear to this Service if the resident has contacted the Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS) about this. The EASS are the appropriate body to assist in dealing with allegations of discrimination.
This report will look at whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and responded in a reasonable and competent manner.

Relevant policies and procedures

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985), the landlord is obliged to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the house for the supply of electricity (including fittings for making use of the supply of electricity). It is also obliged to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
The tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for electrical wiring, sockets and light fittings, internal walls, skirting boards and plasterwork but not the decoration of these. It also says that the resident is responsible for decorations inside the home, including filling any hairline cracks in plasterwork.
The landlord’s electrical testing procedure says that it will ensure that the electrical installations in its properties are safe when residents move in and that the installations are maintained in a safe condition throughout the duration of the tenancy.
The landlord was required to have regard to a resident’s disability in line with its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. Where on notice, it must consider when making decisions and providing a service whether its decision making/ actions could place the person at a particular disadvantage due to their vulnerabilities. The landlord is also required to make appropriate reasonable adjustments.
The landlord’s talk to us procedure says that it operates a 2-stage complaint procedure. It says that where the issue is more than 6 months old the landlord will inform the resident that the issue cannot be dealt with under the complaints procedure because it is time-barred. The landlord will acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 3 working days and provide a written response within 15 working days. If the resident wishes to escalate the complaint to stage 2 they are required to explain what part of the stage 1 response is being challenged and why within 20 working days of the stage 1 response. If the landlord does not receive this information the resident will be told their escalation request cannot be considered.. When the landlord receives this information it will notify the resident of the date and time of a review meeting within 10 working days. The landlord will also hold a pre-meeting to familiarise the panel with the issues raised by the resident, ensure it has sufficient information to deal with the case in a proper and fair manner and to compile a list of questions or areas to be explored at the review meeting. The resident will be informed that they can present their case in person, can provide supporting documents, and/or can have a friend or relative accompany them for support. The landlord will subsequently issue a stage 2 complaint response letter to the resident within 5 working days of the review meeting.
Paragraph 4.1 of the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code (the ‘Code’) says a complaint should be acknowledged and logged within 5 days of receipt. Paragraph 5.6 says that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate. Paragraph 5.8 of the Code say that landlords must confirm the complaint stage, complaint definition, the decision on the complaint, any reasons for the decisions made, and details of how to escalate the complaint if the resident is not satisfied with the answer. Paragraph 5.9 says that in instances where landlords decline to escalate a complaint it must clearly communicate in writing its reasons for not escalating as well as the resident’s right to approach the Housing Ombudsman about its decision.

Summary of events

The landlord completed an electrical inspection at the property on 9 December 2019. The survey concluded that the general condition of the installation required attention and recommended improvement.
The landlord installed a new boiler and wet system in the property on 14 October 2021.
The landlord sent an internal email on 18 January 2022 that said that the property had been identified for a rewire in 2019 but because of the COVID-19 pandemic it had been put back until other investment works were completed.
The landlord completed a planned maintenance pre-work survey at the property on 1 April 2022, which said that the scope of the works was a rewire. The resident signed a disclaimer on the same day that said that the landlord could not be held responsible for any accidental damage to items that required removal and re-siting in order for the resident to have the repairs and investment work carried out within the property, and that if the landlord had to move any items it would be at the resident’s own risk.
The landlord confirmed that the resident had been booked into alternative accommodation for a week from an undisclosed date in a text exchange it held on 5 April 2022. It also confirmed that it would assist her with her packing and moving. The resident thanked the landlord and said that it “was 100% less stressful.”
The landlord held a text exchange with the resident on 8 April 2022. The resident asked the landlord if extra plug sockets would be added and if an extra light fitting could be added. The landlord confirmed that plugs would be added but not a light fitting.
The landlord held a text exchange with the resident on 20 April 2022 during which the landlord confirmed that the resident could bring her pets to the temporary accommodation and that changing the moving in day to accommodate her counselling appointment would be fine. The landlord said that the resident could remove 3 base units in the kitchen and that if she attended the property on the morning of the rewire she could choose where she wanted the plug sockets to be placed. It also said that the contractor would not move the electric bed as they would not want to damage it but that the resident could have it dismantled or it could stay in situ and the socket behind it would be replaced.
The landlord held a text exchange with the resident on 9 May 2022 during which it confirmed that it would make arrangements for the resident’s boxes to be collected and moved into temporary accommodation on 17 May 2022.
The landlord held a text exchange with the resident on 10 May 2022 in which it confirmed that it had arranged for the resident’s belongings to be returned on 30 May 2022. The landlord also confirmed that the resident would be given a £300 decoration voucher. The resident said that she would get some paint samples and see if she could find a decorator to assist her.
The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 11 May 2022 to provide her with permission to remove tiling and base units from a wall and for the installation of a low-level plug socket. The letter set out that there were conditions to making the alterations, one of which being that the landlord was not involved in any expense whatsoever relating to these adjustments.
The landlord held a text exchange with the resident on 16 May 2022 during which it said that the decoration vouchers usually took 2 weeks to issue as per its policy but that it would try to get the vouchers to her more quickly.
The landlord held a text exchange with the resident on 17 May 2022 during which the resident confirmed that she had moved from the property into temporary accommodation with the help of the floating support scheme, her aunt, her work coach, and a handyman.
The landlord rewired the property on 19 May 2022.
The resident held a text exchange with the landlord on 20 May 2022 during which she shared pictures of the property and asked about the location of plug sockets in her son’s bedroom. The landlord said that the existing sockets would be removed and replaced and would be flush to the wall.
The resident held a text exchange with the landlord on 23 May 2022 during which she asked when she should arrange for assistance from the floating support scheme to move her back into the property and whether the electrician would remove a plug from her son’s bedroom wall. The landlord confirmed that the contractor would remove the plug that day. It also confirmed that its plasterer would attend to a make good a wall instead of providing her with an additional £50 decoration allowance. The resident said that the wall being back to normal was better than an extra £50. The resident confirmed she had arranged for the floating support scheme to attend on 25 May 2022.
The landlord texted the resident on 24 May 2022 to say that small cracks along the skirting and walls would be a job for decorators but that it would sort out other repairs which included a fan and a socket. The landlord said that it could not provide money for a handyman or decorator and could only provide vouchers in line with its policy. The landlord said that it would post-inspect the property on 27 May 2022 and would ask the resident to sign a form for it to raise the decoration vouchers.
The landlord completed a post inspection in the property on 27 May 2022. The landlord identified plastering work and instructed a contractor to return to make good the snagging items. The landlord completed a form on the same day to raise a £325 decoration voucher which the resident signed.
The resident sent a series of texts to the landlord on 6 June 2022 about a list of snagging items. The resident said:
1. Some of the items were not to do with the rewire but were to do with the boiler work and that she had been told that the landlord would not complete the repairs as she was responsible for them.
2. The snagging included carpeting between bedroom doors, cracked panels that had been broken and put back, plastering not being done properly in places, issues with skirting boards and messy plaster.
3. She was disabled, had a blue badge, and received benefits for a disability that caused tiredness and injury with repetitive movements. She also said that she was struggling with post-cancer treatment and was not fit enough to attempt the jobs without help.
The landlord replied to the resident’s text on 6 June 2022 and said:
1. Some of the work simply required filler and sandpaper which the resident could get with the decoration allowance.
2. It had booked an electrician to attend on 8 June 2022 and a tiler was on course to attend the same day, but that it was not responsible for the other issues that the resident had raised and that this was what the decoration allowance was for.
3. It had to comply with its policies and procedures and treat all customer equally and that it had awarded an extra allowance as a goodwill gesture.
4. It would split the vouchers to make it easier for the resident.
The resident replied to the landlord on 6 June 2022 to ask for the voucher to be sent in one payment and said that she would make a complaint.
The landlord texted the resident on 8 June 2022 to say its award of £300 was the standard amount for a 2-bedroom property and that £25 had been added as a gesture of goodwill. It also said that it had provided a replacement bin and covered storage and skip costs and could not raise any more vouchers.
The resident texted the landlord on 9 June 2022 to ask about the wiring in the loft space. The landlord replied to say that wiring in the loft space was not clipped down and ran under the insulation. The resident said that the wiring had been laid on top of the insulation and that she had been told this was correct. The landlord replied to the resident the next day and apologised for the previous advice it had provided and said that the electricians were trained in electrical safety and were the ones to listen to.
The resident sent photographs and text messages to the landlord on 10 June 2022 about the rewiring and loft insulation. The landlord replied to the resident on an undisclosed date to confirm how the wiring should be laid in the loft.
The resident held a text exchange with the landlord on 15 June 2022 about outstanding repairs in the property. The resident said that holes had been caused by the electricians when completing the rewire and that she was confused why they would not be fixed. The landlord said:
1. Some holes had been made by the removal of tiles and not the rewire works and which would have been retiled if the kitchen had stayed in its original layout but that the resident had decided to remove some units and said she didn’t want tiling.
2. It would not complete skimming work in the property.
3. The resident’s decision to alter the kitchen by removing units meant the landlord was not responsible for making good any damage that had been caused and that this was the resident’s responsibility.
4. It would not be involved in any expenses related to the alteration works and referred her to the letter it had sent to her on 11 May 2022.
The resident sent a complaint letter to the landlord dated 4 July 2022 about discrimination arising from disability and a failure to make a reasonable adjustment. The resident said:
1. The landlord had rewired her home on 19 May 2022 and that the works had not been finished to a safe and reasonable standard.
2. The upstairs carpet had not been secured which created a trip hazard and she had been told this was not the landlord’s responsibility.
3. Gaps in the casing above the boiler required a repair and she had been told that she would be required to repair this herself with filler.
4. Re-plastering holes that had been caused by rewiring had not been completed in an area that the resident reported she was responsible for decorating.
5. She had been given conflicting information about whether wires should be laid underneath or on top of insulation in the loft and that the landlord placed the wires underneath the insulation when it returned to complete the work.
6. The bedroom skirting boards that the resident had fitted herself had been jarred open and had been left unsecured after the rewire but that the landlord had advised the resident to use filler on this herself.
7. Two new plug sockets were fitted in the kitchen that did not sit flush with each other. The landlord advised the resident to use filler on this herself, but she reported that replastering was required.
8. She had a new boiler fitted prior to the works and as a result pipework was exposed. The landlord said that encasing would not be completed despite a service engineer advising that the landlord could complete the work.
9. She had a medical condition that prevented her from some day-to-day activities that involved repetitive movement.
10. She had received a letter from the landlord that confirmed she would be responsible for any decorating and that it would provide her with decorating vouchers. However she had explained to the landlord that she was unable to complete the work as she had no family support.
11. She had asked the landlord to reduce the value of the vouchers and arrange for a contractor to complete the work but was told that all residents were treated the same regardless.
12. The landlord did not put reasonable adjustments in place for her which she said should have been helping to complete the repairs that were needed after the landlord had carried out the repairs.
The landlord sent an acknowledgment letter to the resident on 21 July 2022. It said that it had received her complaint letter on 20 July 2022 and would respond to her by 4 August 2022.
The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 2 August 2022. The landlord said:
1. Its customer liaison team had made numerous pre-works visits, welfare visits, and customer contacts via phone and message to advise and support the resident in the weeks leading up to, during, and following the works.
2. It had provided multiple skips to assist the resident with the clearing of her home and had delivered packing supplies and arranged for the storage of her belongings.
3. It had arranged for her household to stay in a temporary property while the repairs were completed in response to the concerns she had raised about her health issues. She had been relocated back into the property after the landlord had returned her furniture to its original locations and had the property professionally cleaned.
4. It had explained to the resident that some minor work was outstanding.
5. The resident had sent photographs of her concerns about snagging works to the landlord on 20 May 2022.
6. The resident had declined the landlord’s offer of an additional £50 decoration voucher due to the resident’s report of an incorrectly located socket. The contractor relocated the socket on the same day.
7. It had told the resident in the pre-planning stage that carpeting was her responsibility but that if she was unable to roll the carpets back a contractor could assist as a gesture of goodwill. It had provided this assistance when the works were completed but the contractors were not carpet fitters and could not provide the same type of service that a professional carpet fitter would. The resident had read and signed a disclaimer which included carpets.
8. A post inspection was conducted on 27 May 2022 during which additional plastering snags were identified and subsequently made good.
9. The resident had been advised that minor surface cracks were her responsibility to fill using the decoration allowance and that gaps to the skirting boards were not a result of the rewire and could be rectified with decorator’s caulk and filler.

It did not provide the services of decorator, nor give cash as per its decoration allowance policy, but the resident had been awarded a decorating voucher allowance of £325. It treated all customers equally in respect of the decoration policy and it had explained to the resident that it did not offer a decorator or handyman service but that it would provide decoration vouchers.

The resident had declined the landlord’s offer to issue the decoration award as 2 vouchers to make it easier for the resident to purchase decorating equipment in 2 visits.
It was not responsible for the replacement of the panelling around the boiler which the resident had asked to be repaired, but the resident could fill any gaps herself to make it more aesthetically pleasing.
It would not reinstate like-for-like tiling to a wall where the resident had completed her own alterations following a request she made on 11 May 2022.
It apologised for the information it had previously provided about the correct location of wiring in the loft. It confirmed that wires should be laid on top of the insulation to prevent overheating. It recognised that the resident wanted the wires to be laid beneath the insulation so that she could return her belongings to the loft space. It said that during the liaison process the resident had been told that the loft space should not be used for storage and that she should not climb in and out of the loft space.
Every snagging problem that the resident had reported had been corrected and the contractors had returned to resolve any issues that the landlord was responsible for.
It had not received any reports related to exposed pipework when it had installed a new boiler in October 2021.
The resident had been kept informed about the rewire process from the start and it had explained the steps it would need to take to complete the work as quickly as possible to minimise any disruption to the resident.
The resident had reported that she did have family support from an aunt who had helped fill the skips and bring items from the loft. She also had help from a cousin who removed the kitchen units for her and had other family members who had helped her move her electric bed in case it became damaged.
The resident had support from other agencies such as the floating support scheme that had assisted her with packing her belongings and moving her in and out of the temporary accommodation that the landlord had provided.
It had agreed dates for works around the availability of the family members and support services. It had rushed the issuing of decoration vouchers so that her aunt could take her shopping to buy the materials.
Many provisions and adjustments had been made to assist the resident before, during and after the works. Staff had responded to the resident while the resident was on leave to put her mind at rest and were a consistent source of support and communication.
It had incurred costs of £665.55 for the provision of skips, temporary accommodation, packing supplies and storage. It further incurred costs of £486 to professionally clean the property and provided the resident with £325 for decoration vouchers assistance. It also replaced a bin that had gone missing during the works which costs £30.
The landlord said that it did not uphold the resident’s complaint and that she could escalate the complete to stage 2 by outlining the areas where it had not investigated and responded to her complaint.

The resident submitted a stage 2 complaint to the landlord on 8 August 2022 via its online portal. The resident said:
1. The complaint was about the decision reached in the stage 1 complaint response.
2. There had been a number of outstanding repairs and snagging items that were not addressed related to plug sockets, poorly filled walls, boxing around the boiler, the responsibilities of the resident for follow on work, a refusal to arrange for a contractor in exchange for a reduced decorating voucher payment and a request for the walls to be skimmed to an acceptable standard.
3. That the landlord did not take into account the resident’s mental and physical health in its response and had applied a ‘one size fits all approach.’
The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 9 September 2022 in which it explained it had already responded to the complaint at stage 1 and it would not escalate the matter so as to investigate it as a stage 2 complaint. The letter was undated and did not refer the resident to this Service.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs following a rewire.

The landlord attended the property to complete a post-inspection on 27 May 2022. The landlord identified a series of additional repairs which it subsequently returned to complete. This included works to a fan, electrical sockets, tiling and some plastering works. It was appropriate for the landlord to return to the property to complete repairs and make good matters it was responsible for and/or where the property had been adversely affected due to the completion of the rewire.
The landlord decided not to complete some works in the kitchen where tiling had been removed to accommodate the resident’s request to move kitchen units. The landlord explained that make good repairs to this area had not been completed because the resident had said that she did not want the area to be tiled. It also said that the resident’s decision to alter the kitchen by removing units meant it was not responsible for making good any damage. The landlord’s advice about its own responsibilities where alteration work is agreed was not set out in its repairs policy. However it was stated in the letter it sent to the resident on 11 May 2022. The tenancy agreement also stated that the resident was responsible for decorations inside the home, including filling any hairline cracks in plasterwork. The landlord was entitled to decide what works the resident was responsible for using its own expertise. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to have suggested that this work could be completed by the resident using the decoration vouchers it had provided.
The landlord provided conflicting advice to the resident about the laying of cabling in the loft space and it is not clear to this Service if the landlord has laid the cables in line with the electrical safety guidelines it advised to the resident. It is evident that the advice it provided to the resident was contrary to the advice she had previously been provided with about the cables in the loft space. The landlord was expected to have provided the correct advice about the laying of cables and insulation in the property. It was also expected to attend the property to ensure the cables were appropriately laid. This caused time and trouble to the resident in pursuing an acceptable response from the landlord.
The landlord relied on its decision to issue decoration vouchers to the resident for the completion of many post-rewire snags and this was a reasonable decision for it to reach in line with the agreements it had made with the resident in advance of the completion of the works. However there were a number of repairs that the resident reported that went beyond decorating, such as plasterwork, and the flush installation of plug sockets. It was therefore unreasonable for the landlord to have expected the resident to complete these works.
The landlord reviewed its handling of the repairs the resident had reported in its stage 1 complaint response in which it said that it every snagging problem that the resident had reported had been corrected and the contractors had returned to resolve any issues that it was responsible for. Furthermore the landlord said that it did not uphold the resident’s complaint. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to consider its handling of the outstanding repairs under its complaint procedure the landlord failed to recognise that some of the repairs it had passed to the resident were beyond decorating.
Taking all matters into account this Service finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident reports of outstanding repairs following a rewire.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments due to her disability.

The resident complained to the landlord in a letter dated 4 July 2022 in which she said that the landlord had not put in place reasonable adjustments in recognition of her disabilities.
During its handling of the rewire the landlord arranged for alternative temporary accommodation to be provide to the resident. The landlord held conversations with her in advance of the rewire to reassure her about the process and it recognised the difficulties the rehousing caused the resident due to her disabilities. The landlord located accommodation that would allow the resident to bring her pets and on 8 April 2022 the resident said that the landlord had helped to make the situation “100% less stressful”. It was appropriate for the landlord to have discussed the matter with the resident to understand how the repair affected her and what it could do to respond to her individual circumstances and needs.
The landlord agreed to pay for a series of skips, the relocation of the resident’s belongings and it attended the property to assist her with packing and moving. The landlord also made appointments around the availability of the resident, her family and support agencies. Furthermore the landlord accommodated the resident’s counselling appointment by changing the moving day it had previously arranged. This was a supportive approach for the landlord to have taken in recognition of the concerns the resident has raised about the move and the impact it would have on her and her mental health and physical needs.
The landlord made arrangements to fast track the issuing of decoration vouchers and offered these to be split into 2 payments so that it would make the purchase of decorating equipment easier for the resident. The landlord offered this in recognition of the difficulties that she may have had in carrying decorating equipment due to her disabilities and this was an appropriate offer for it to have made in the circumstances.
The landlord agreed to arrange for a contractor to plaster a wall on 23 May 2022 instead of providing the resident with an additional £50 decoration voucher. The landlord’s decision to instruct a contractor to complete the works in place of issuing the additional voucher was a reasonable decision for it to make in response to the resident’s request.
On 6 June 2022 in response to a series of texts the resident had sent on 27 May 2022, the landlord said that it had to comply with its policies and procedures and treat all customers equally and therefore that it would not arrange for contractors to attend to matters it had issued decoration vouchers for. This advice was inappropriate given that the landlord had previously chosen to instruct a contractor to complete plasterwork instead of providing a decoration voucher. By taking this approach the landlord had set a precedent that suggested that it could apply its policies and procedures flexibly. The landlord’s advice about treating all customers equally was a misrepresentation of its responsibility to ensure its residents could access services by putting in place adjustments to accommodate differing individual needs.
The resident held conversations with the landlord about the rewire in advance of the works taking place during which she had been told that she was required to decorate. On 1 April 2022 she signed a disclaimer to say that she understood that she would be required to completed some decorating works. Furthermore on 24 May 2022 she said that she would look at paint samples and look for a decorator. There is no evidence to confirm that the resident had at any point indicated that she would not be able to complete decoration works. Furthermore the resident had told the landlord that she was in receipt of support from the floating support scheme , and it was evident that she had help from family members when moving into the temporary accommodation and when buying decorating equipment. It is evident that the resident faced difficulties as a result of her disabilities in this matter. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to have considered that the resident was able to complete the decoration work for which it had provided decoration vouchers based upon conversations it had held with the resident.
The landlord considered its handling of the rewire in its stage 1 complaint response. It listed the various actions it had taken and ways that it had considered her disabilities so as to provide services that accommodated her individual needs. It also said that many provisions and adjustments were made to assist the resident before, during and after the works. However it did not explicitly reference that these adjustments were made with reference to its understanding of her disabilities. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to explain how it had put reasonable adjustments in place in recognition of the resident’s needs.
It is evident that the landlord considered that the use of decoration vouchers would be appropriate and that it had used them in other similar circumstances. It is also apparent that the landlord had not been given advance notice that the decorating work would not be possible due to the resident’s needs and disability, as she had not mentioned this during the conversations she had held in advance of and during the completion of the rewire work. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have reviewed its decision to issue vouchers in light of the representations the resident made when the extent of the decorating became apparent and to consider if this was a reasonable adjustment to make in relation to the resident’s needs and circumstances in accordance with its obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
Taking all matters into account this Service finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments due to her disability.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

In its acknowledgement letter of 21 July 2022 the landlord said that it did not receive the stage 1 complaint that was dated 4 July 2022 until 20 July 2022. There is no evidence to confirm that the letter was emailed to the landlord so as to be certain about the date it was sent. Similarly there is no evidence to confirm whether the letter was posted or delivered to the landlord soon after it was written. This Service therefore cannot reach any conclusions to determine why the landlord did not receive the stage 1 complaint letter until 12 working days after it had been dated in order to determine if there was any failing.
The landlord did not accept the resident’s stage 2 escalation request because it considered that it had answered the resident’s complaint in full in its previous stage 1 complaint response. As a result the landlord did not review its own handling of the complaint in line with the dispute resolution principles contained within the Code. Furthermore it did not provide a response to the resident’s escalated complaint about its response to her physical and mental disabilities and her view that it provided a ‘one size fits all approach.’ The landlord complied with the principles of the Code by explaining its reasons for rejecting her stage 2 escalation request in writing. However it was unreasonable for the landlord not to have reviewed the complaint at stage 2 of the complaint procedure and to have addressed the resident’s view that it did not address the physical and mental disabilities she had referred to in her previous complaint.
The landlord issued its decision to reject the stage 2 complaint request 23 working days after it had received the escalation request. Whilst the landlord’s policy says that it should provide a written response to a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days it doesn’t state specifically when it should provide a decision to reject a complaint. Notwithstanding this Service considers the same 20 working day timescale should apply and therefore it was inappropriate for the landlord not to have issued the response sooner.
Taking all matters into account this Service find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs following a rewire.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments due to her disability .
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

Reasons

The landlord passed over repairs to the resident that went beyond simple decoration work. There were quality and workmanship issues which caused time and trouble to the resident. The landlord failed to provide reasonable redress for the detriment caused the resident.
The landlord took reasonable steps to accommodate the needs of the resident during the rewire of the property however it did not consider whether it would have been reasonable to complete decoration work in exchange for the decoration vouchers it had offered.
The landlord failed to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaint procedure and delayed in issuing its response to the resident’s escalation request.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for its complaint handling failures. This is to be provided in writing within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
In addition to any previous compensation issued and within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £300 in compensation made up as follows:
1. £100 for time, trouble, and inconvenience associated with the completion of outstanding repairs at the resident’s property.
2. £100 for time, trouble, and inconvenience associated with the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments.
3. £100 for time and trouble caused to the resident related to the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

The compensation is to be paid direct to the resident and not offset against any money that the resident may owe the landlord.

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to inspect the property to assess if there are any outstanding repairs. If works are required the landlord should send the resident and this Service details of the works, together with a timetable for the works to be carried out within 2 weeks of inspecting the property.