Havering Council (202119533)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119533

Havering Council

04 October 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 regarding;
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adaptations to extend the home.
   2. The accuracy of information provided by council employees.
   3. The landlord’s handling of the arrangement of a surveyor inspection to assess the feasibility of an extension.
   4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for information.
2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

Background

3. The resident has occupied the property since December 2002 under a secure tenancy. The property has two bedrooms, with the resident, her former partner/carer and her daughter sharing one bedroom and the resident’s son occupying the other. Both the resident and her daughter have a range of disabilities, including mental health concerns. The landlord is aware of these vulnerabilities.
4. In March 2018 an occupational therapy (OT) assessment was completed. The OT recommended the resident be rehoused into a three-bedroom property. The resident instead requested either an extension or a loft conversion to allow an extra bedroom to be added to the current property. The OT assessment did not recommend adaptations to the current property.
5. The resident made her stage one complaint to her local councillor on 25 November 2021, this was forwarded to the landlord on 28 November 2021. The resident stated that the property is overcrowded but an adaptation would be required to resolve this on medical grounds. She requested information on when she had been made aware that the loft conversion would not be carried out and advised that false promises had been made regarding a surveyor attending the property.
6. The landlord provided its stage one response on 13 December 2021. It stated that it had spoken with the members of staff involved and they had advised the resident that a request for an adaptation would be put to management, but it was unlikely to be agreed. The landlord advised that the decision remained that it would be unable to accommodate the adaptation request. The landlord stated that the resident was provided with accurate information on her housing status and how she could go about being rehoused.
7. The resident requested escalation to stage two on 14 December 2021. She stated that the landlord was missing the point of her complaint as it was not an overcrowding issue. She advised that letters from two professional bodies stated her daughter needed to remain within the current property. The resident also requested evidence of conversations had with her housing officer in 2018 and advised she had been told a surveyor would attend the property, but this did not happen. Lastly the resident stated that the OT had provided her with false information.
8. The landlord provided its stage two response on 16 March 2022. It apologised for the resident feeling her complaint had been misunderstood and advised that it had checked all information going back to 2018. It stated that an adaptation would not be done to the current property as the family’s medical needs did not meet the required criteria and this had been communicated to the resident on multiple occasions. The landlord advised the resident to complete a freedom of information request to access the conversations had with her housing officer. The landlord advised that a surveyor did attend the resident’s property and agreed to pass the request for an adaptation on to the housing team. Lastly the landlord advised that it did not agree that the OT provided false information and had at no time agreed to an extension.
9. The resident remains dissatisfied and by way of resolution would like the landlord to reconsider adaptations to her current property.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

10. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
11. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraphs 42(c) and 42(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint sit outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adaptations to extend the home.
    2. The accuracy of the information provided by council employees.
    3. The landlord’s handling of the arrangement of a surveyor inspection to assess the feasibility of an extension.
12. Paragraph 42(m) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon. As such, this Service will not seek to investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adaptations to extend the home, as this same issue was already decided on by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO), under case reference 21018929. Any dissatisfaction with the response should have been pursued via the LGSCO’s process.
13. Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate matters that are not brought to the attention of a landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matter arising. It is noted that the information complained about under complaint element (b) refers to conversations had in 2018 between the resident and an OT. Similarly, the resident’s dissatisfaction with the handling of a surveyor inspection relates to a promise made to the resident in 2018 to have a surveyor attend the property. This complaint was initially raised in November 2021, over three years after the issues arose. As such, the Ombudsman will not be investigating these matters as they were not brought to the landlord’s attention within a reasonable period of time.  In the Ombudsman’s view, this should have been raised and pursued soon after the issue occurred.
14. With this in mind, this investigation will only consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for information as well as the landlord’s complaints handling.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for information

15. In the resident’s stage two escalation request on 14 December 2021, she requested evidence of conversations she had with the landlord in 2018.
16. In the landlord stage two response, provided on 16 March 2022, it advised that a number of conversations had been logged between the resident and itself. It advised the resident that she could complete a freedom of information request to access these logs and provided a link to the required form.
17. The information provided by the landlord was accurate and the appropriate way to deal with the resident’s request. Providing the resident with the required form was practical and as such a finding of no maladministration will be made.

The landlord’s complaints handling

18. The landlord’s complaints policy states stage two complaints will be responded to within 25 working days.
19. The resident requested escalation to stage two on 14 December 2021. The landlord provided its stage two response on 16 March 2022, 63 working days after the escalation request.
20. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code is a guidance document that sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. It states landlords must respond to a stage two complaint within 20 working days, with any delays communicated and not exceeding an additional ten working days without good reason.
21. The resident chased the landlord for a stage two response on two occasions. This service has seen no evidence to suggest the resident was kept up to date with the investigation or provided with any updates besides a single email sent by the landlord on 9 February 2022, which failed to provide expected timeframes. This is not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy or the Ombudsman’s complaints handling code and is a service failure.
22. Had the landlord explained the delay and provided the resident with a timeframe for response, this would have saved the resident time and trouble chasing said response, as well as showing the resident that her complaint was being taken seriously and her concerns were being treated fairly.

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 42(m) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her request for adaptations to extend the home is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
24. In accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the accuracy of information provided by council employees is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
25. In accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of the arrangement of a surveyor inspection to assess the feasibility of an extension is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for information.
27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling,

Orders

28. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is;
    1. To pay the resident £75 in recognition of the landlord’s complaints handling failure.
    2. To provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders.