London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202206684)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206684

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

30 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for trunking to be removed from her property and the arrangements to decant her temporarily to carry out the work.
2. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

The property is a 2-bedroom house and the tenant has an assured tenancy which began on 19 October 2020.
The landlord’s records show that the resident is vulnerable and the landlord is aware that she has autism.
The resident’s partner was the contact person in relation to some of the resident’s correspondence with the landlord. For simplicity, the report refers to ‘the resident’ even where contact was with the resident’s partner.

Summary of events

On 23 March 2021, the local authority’s Occupational Therapy (OT) service produced an assessment report recommending that the landlord make certain adjustments in the resident’s property. One of the recommendations was that the OT service should enquire whether the trunking between the smoke alarms and the lights could be removed as the resident had stated that this triggered her post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
The OT service wrote to the landlord on 16 April 2021 and requested the landlord to make the following adaptations within 21 days, under the provisions of the Care Act 2014 and the Equality Act 2010:
1. Remove all fluorescent lighting and install LED compatible lighting.
2. Remove the trunking as this was triggering the resident’s PTSD.
3. Remove all 4 hard-wired smoke alarms and replace them with 2 battery operated smoke alarms as the hard-wired alarms were triggering the resident’s PTSD and causing the resident distress and anxiety.
On 24 June 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident regarding the smoke alarms and the lighting and included the following points:
1. The landlord stated that due to current fire regulations it was unable to replace the hard-wired smoke alarms with battery operated ones as this would compromise the resident’s safety in the property.
2. The landlord was considering the resident’s request to remove the trunking.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 11 July 2021 and stated that she was still waiting to hear about the action the landlord intended to take regarding the trunking. The landlord replied on 22 July 2021 and stated that it would provide an update as soon as possible.
The landlord’s records show that an order was raised on or about 16 August 2021 to remove the trunking and ‘chase’ the wiring into the walls and ceiling. On 16 August 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident and confirmed that the order had been raised.
An electrician attended the property on 9 September 2021 regarding the trunking but reported that there was asbestos present in the ceiling and therefore did not carry out the work.
On 19 October 2021, an asbestos contractor carried out an asbestos survey in relation to the removal of the trunking and produced a report on 21 October 2021. The report stated that there were no urgent asbestos containing materials requiring immediate removal. However, some of the ceilings in the property were finished with a textured coating, which the contractor presumed contained asbestos.
On 4 November 2021, an internal email sent by the landlord confirmed that the resident would need to be temporarily decanted for the work to be carried out.
On 13 January 2022, the resident’s psychologist wrote to the landlord stating that the resident needed a clear plan with timescales for the decant. He stated that because the resident had autism, she could become anxious if things were not clearly defined or there was a lot of uncertainty. The psychologist therefore listed the following questions relating to the decant that the resident wanted answers to:
1. Where would the resident be staying during the works and for how long?
2. Would the planned work to her bathroom also take place at the same time as the trunking removal?
3. Would the resident have access to a refrigerator to store her medication?
4. Where would the resident store her furniture and furnishings?
5. How much help would the resident receive in preparing her home for the works and restoring her home afterwards?
The resident wrote to the landlord on 28 January and 31 January 2022 and requested an update regarding the questions that her psychologist had asked. The landlord replied on 31 January 2022 and advised the resident that it was still looking into the points raised by the psychologist.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 February 2022 following a meeting with her and provided further information about the decant, including:
1. The works were anticipated to take up to 3 weeks and it had been agreed that the resident, her partner and daughter would stay in a local hotel with bed, breakfast and evening meals paid for. A refrigerator would be provided in the hotel room for the resident’s medical needs.
2. The works would commence on or about 15 March 2022. A further update would be provided at the landlord’s next meeting with the resident on 2 March 2022.
3. The landlord’s surveyor would carry out a survey of the resident’s property on 25 February 2022 and would look at whether the bathroom works could be done at the same time as the trunking removal.
4. As neither of the bedrooms required works, they could be used to store the resident’s belongings and would be locked.
5. The ceilings in the hallway, stairs/landing, living room and dining area would need to be taken down as they contained asbestos.
6. Painting of the ceilings would be done after the new plaster had dried and on completion of the work a full clean would be carried out. The resident’s belongings stored in the bedrooms would also be returned to their original positions.
On 20 February 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord about various matters regarding the decant, including:
1. The arrangements for switching the house security alarm on and off each day.
2. Whether locks could be fitted to the upstairs doors and the loft hatch for security.
3. The choice of hotels the resident would be staying in and whether she could have vouchers or a pre-paid card for meals. The resident also requested a room in the quieter part of a hotel.
4. The arrangements for the resident to store some of her furniture and whether the furniture would be insured.
The landlord replied to the resident on 24 February 2022 and stated the following:
1. The decant would take place on 17 March 2022.
2. The landlord’s surveyor would look at the security alarm during his planned visit to the property and report back so that suitable arrangements could be made while the resident was away from the property.
3. The landlord stated that residents do not have access to loft areas but the landlord agreed to fit new locks to the 3 upstairs rooms where the resident would be storing belongings.
4. The landlord said it could only make hotel arrangements through its approved provider and would work through the arrangements to ensure the hotel and the room were sensitively chosen.
5. The landlord would either find a hotel with a restaurant or would provide the resident with a meal allowance of £10 per day per adult and £5 per day per child.
6. The landlord confirmed that it could put some of the resident’s furniture in storage and would be in contact to discuss the removal arrangements. It confirmed that the removal company would be fully insured.
On 24 February 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord and stated that she had decided to leave the ceilings as they were and not have the work done. The resident followed this up with an email to the landlord on 25 February 2022 setting out her reasons for not wanting to proceed with the works and the decant. The resident explained that she had been “disappointed” with the landlord’s answers to her questions and stated that:
1. The meal allowance was inadequate to meet her dietary requirements.
2. She had been led to believe that she would be able to choose the hotel and was now being told that a third-party provider would choose it.
3. The landlord had been made aware of the resident’s reasonable adjustments since the start of the process and had consistently refused to take them into account.
4. The resident stated that the stress of the decant had become too much for her.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 March 2022 and confirmed that based on the resident’s decision not to proceed with the work, it would not be prepared to consider removing the trunking in the future. The resident replied on the same day and stated that the landlord had previously advised her to look for a hotel and that she would be given time to consider which hotel was suitable.
The resident’s psychologist wrote to the landlord on 3 March 2022 and confirmed that the resident had decided not to proceed with the work as she had concerns about the decant process. The psychologist asked whether the landlord could consider making further reasonable adjustments. The landlord replied on 7 March 2022 and stated that it had provided answers to help allay the resident’s concerns, but she had decided not to proceed with the work.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 June 2022 to make a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the trunking removal work. She stated that she had been given just 2 weeks to move and the landlord did not make reasonable adjustments. The resident complained about one of the landlord’s staff members and requested the landlord to carry out a fire risk assessment (FRA) as she did not require 4 smoke alarms in the property.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 29 June 2022 and stated that she had raised her complaint over 3 weeks ago and had not received a response. The landlord replied on 30 June 2022 and confirmed the name of the officer who was dealing with the complaint.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 30 June 2022 and stated that it was unethical for the person she had complained about to deal with the complaint. She therefore requested the landlord to allocate the complaint to a different member of its staff.
On 30 June 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident with its stage one reply, in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord had reviewed the handling of the decant by the staff member who the resident had complained about. The landlord concluded that although the resident had experienced delays in relation to the trunking removal work, it was satisfied that the staff member had appropriately coordinated the arrangements.
2. The landlord stated that it would not consider removing the trunking in the future as the resident had decided not to proceed with the work.
The resident replied to the landlord on the same day (30 June 2022) and repeated that the landlord had failed to make reasonable adjustments and therefore, in her view, had directly discriminated against her.
The resident sent further emails to the landlord on 1 July, 7 July, 14 July, 15 July and 22 July 2022, in which she requested a reply to the OT report. She also requested an FRA so the landlord would remove the smoke alarms or reduce the number.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 1 August 2022 and asked for a new complaint to be raised as she had requested an FRA on various occasions and had not received a response. She stated that, in her view, 2 of the smoke alarms in her property could be removed. She repeated that the landlord had failed to make reasonable adjustments and had inappropriately allocated her previous complaint to the officer she had complained about.
On 16 August 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that its policy was to carry out FRAs in communal areas only.
On 18 August 2022, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord and asked it to formally reply to the resident’s complaint.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 August 2022, thanked her for the meeting earlier that day and confirmed that it would start investigating her complaint. The landlord advised that it would reply by 2 September 2022.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 1 September and 2 September 2022 and explained that it was taking longer to respond to the complaint than had been anticipated because it was waiting for information. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 6 September 2022 and the main points included in the reply were:
1. The landlord accepted there had been delays in removing the trunking due to issues with the temporary decant. The landlord stated that it had followed its policies and in doing so may not have been able to meet all the resident’s needs.
2. The landlord stated that the removal of trunking was something it would not usually do but had offered this as a goodwill gesture. The landlord confirmed that it was now willing to rearrange the work if the resident agreed.
3. The landlord had identified an officer who would coordinate the resident’s temporary decant from the property.
4. The landlord repeated that its policy was not to carry out FRAs on individual properties. The landlord explained that the officer dealing with the resident’s query about the FRA had requested advice from its Fire Safety Advisor but had failed to respond to the resident. The landlord apologised for this.
5. The landlord confirmed that it could not remove the fire alarms because of regulations and for safety reasons.
6. The landlord apologised that the resident had not received the required standard of service and apologised for the lack of care from staff. It advised that staff training would be provided.
7. The resident had stated that the process had impacted on her mental health. In response, the landlord stated that it could not deal with liability claims but the resident had the option of pursuing a personal injury claim with the landlord’s insurers.
8. The landlord offered the resident £230 compensation, which was broken down as follows:
  1. £30 for the late stage 2 reply.
  2. £50 for complaint handling and communication.
  3. £50 for distress.
  4. £50 for inconvenience.
  5. £50 for time and effort.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 12 September 2022 and identified various hotels she would be happy to stay in while the works were in progress.
The resident and landlord exchanged emails during the remainder of September 2022 to arrange a meeting involving the resident, her psychologist and the landlord. The resident wrote to her psychologist on 20 September 2020 with several questions that she wanted to raise at the meeting. However, the meeting was not attended by the landlord due to some miscommunication.
The landlord’s records show that it had made an appointment for an electrician to attend the property on 7 October 2022 regarding the trunking. The resident therefore sent emails to the landlord on 29 September 2022 and from 3 to 6 October 2022 to find out why the appointment had been made prior to her being decanted. The landlord advised the resident on 6 October 2022 that the appointment had been booked to carry out an initial assessment of the work.
The resident sent further emails to the landlord on 12 and 17 October 2022 requesting timescales for being decanted. She mentioned that the process had made her unwell. The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 October 2022 and advised her that she would need to contact the landlord’s insurance team if she wanted to pursue a personal injury claim.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 October 2020 with a revised stage 2 reply. The landlord said it was writing because there had been further updates since it issued its previous stage 2 reply. It had reviewed its position and advised the resident of the following:
1. The resident had sent a list of requirements in relation to the decant to the landlord. These requirements had been discussed with the landlord’s senior management and with the teams involved and the landlord had taken a decision that it would no longer remove the trunking.
2. The landlord stated that the removal of the trunking did not meet any of its health and safety thresholds and was considered a cosmetic issue rather than a repairs matter. The landlord stated that the trunking was fitted to all its properties and did not pose any health and safety risks to residents.
3. The landlord added that the previous supervisor who had handled the request to remove the trunking had left the organisation and the matter had therefore been reviewed by a new supervisor.
4. The landlord referred to its previous correspondence stating that it would not reconsider removing the trunking following the resident’s decision not to proceed.
5. The landlord apologised for any inconvenience and confusion caused by its final decision.
6. The landlord advised that it considered the removal of trunking to be a major adaptation because of the works needed to the walls and ceilings. As such, it could only consider adaptations that were recommended by an OT and met the landlord’s requirements. The landlord recommended that the resident pursue this route if she felt impacted by the trunking in the property.
7. The landlord reiterated that it would not carry out an FRA as its policy was not to carry them out in individual homes.
8. The landlord reoffered the resident the £230 compensation it had offered in the previous stage 2 letter.
The resident replied to the landlord on 20 October 2020 and stated that the landlord had already received an OT report requesting the landlord to remove the trunking.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident wrote to the landlord on 30 June 2022 and to the Ombudsman on 6 July 2022 to say that she had experienced direct discrimination from the landlord based on her disability. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as this is a legal matter which is better suited to the courts to decide. Similarly, this Service is unable to provide a judgment on whether the adjustments requested by the resident were ‘reasonable’ as defined in the Equality Act 2010. The term ‘reasonable adjustment’ is a legal term and is dependent on a range of factors, including what is practical and affordable for the landlord. However, this Service can consider whether the landlord gave due regard to the resident’s requests for adjustments to be made.
The investigation has been limited to events that occurred after 24 June 2021. This is because the Ombudsman previously investigated a complaint about the resident’s lighting and trunking under reference 202104391, which covered events prior to 24 June 2021. This Service will not investigate matters which it has already decided upon and therefore any references to events prior to 24 June 2021 have been included in this report for context and background only.
The resident wrote to the landlord on various occasions to advise that her health had been affected by the trunking and the plans to decant her temporarily. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue this option.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for trunking to be removed from her property and the arrangements to decant her temporarily to carry out the work

The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy states that major adaptations are “works which are of a more complex nature and should be based upon the assessment and recommendation of a qualified Occupational Therapist”.
The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy states: “A temporary move may be required so that planned repair or improvement works can be completed in a resident’s home. In these circumstances we will encourage residents to stay with family or friends first…If the resident cannot stay with friends or family, we will consider [one of the landlord’s properties] or alternative temporary options”.
The landlord’s rehousing policy states that where residents are rehoused temporarily in hotel accommodation, the landlord will pay a meal allowance of £10 per day per adult and £5 per day per child.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 June 2021 and stated it was considering the request from the resident and the local authority’s OT service to remove trunking from the property. The landlord then wrote to the resident on 16 August 2021 to confirm that it would remove the trunking and had therefore raised an order for this to be done. It was a shortcoming on the landlord’s part that it had taken almost 2 months to advise the resident of its decision after initially writing to her in June 2021. The delay prompted the resident to write to the landlord on 11 July 2021 asking for a decision.
An electrician attended the property on 9 September 2021 regarding the trunking. The contractor had therefore attended within a reasonable timescale after the order had been raised. However, the electrician was unable to carry out the work because asbestos was found to be present in the covering on the ceilings. The landlord therefore arranged for an asbestos survey to be carried out and this was completed on 19 October 2021. As the disturbance of asbestos is potentially hazardous to health, it was appropriate that the work had not proceeded when the operative realised asbestos was present. The asbestos survey was carried out just over a month after the electrician had visited and therefore was carried out within a reasonable timescale.
Having received the asbestos survey report on 21 October 2021, the landlord’s internal records show that it decided on 4 November 2021 that the resident would need to be decanted for the work to be carried out. It is not clear from the evidence when the landlord advised the resident that she would need to be decanted.
The resident’s psychologist wrote to the landlord on 13 January 2022 and requested a clear plan with timescales for the decant. He also asked various questions about the decanting arrangements and the temporary accommodation the resident would be provided with. The landlord met with the resident in February 2022 to discuss the arrangements and wrote to her on 16 February 2022 to provide information about the decant. Given that the resident had chased the landlord in January 2022 for an update and was clearly anxious about the arrangements, it was reasonable that the landlord had met with the resident to discuss the decant and then followed this up in writing.
The landlord’s email dated 16 February 2022 was reasonable as it addressed various questions that had been raised by the resident’s psychologist.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 20 February 2022 and raised further queries regarding the decant, including the choice of hotel, the arrangements for meals, storage of the resident’s furniture and securing her property while works were in progress. The landlord replied promptly on 24 February 2022 and addressed the points raised by the resident. In particular, the landlord stated that it could only make hotel arrangements through its chosen provider but would work to ensure the hotel and room were sensitively chosen. It confirmed that the meal allowance would be £10 per day for adults and £5 per day for children. The landlord also stated that it would fit locks to the upstairs rooms, its surveyor would look at the security alarm when he visited and the landlord would place some of the resident’s furniture into storage.
In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord had responded reasonably to the resident’s queries by responding promptly and addressing the points she had raised. The resident replied on the same day and advised the landlord that she no longer wished to proceed with the work. She wrote again on the next day and stated that she had found the decant process too stressful. The specific reasons given for not wishing to proceed with the work were:
1. The meal allowance was inadequate to meet her dietary requirements.
2. She had previously been told that she could choose the hotel rather than a third-party provider doing so.
3. The landlord had failed to make the reasonable adjustments she had requested.
The evidence shows that the landlord had met with the resident to discuss the arrangements and had written to her on 16 February 2022 and 24 February 2022 with answers to the specific concerns she (and her psychologist) had raised. The landlord had pointed out that it was obliged to operate within certain policy constraints. For example, the hotel would be chosen by its third-party provider but the hotel and the room would be selected sensitively. This was reasonable as the landlord had to ensure that the temporary accommodation it used met its quality standards and value for money requirements. The landlord had advised the resident that the choice of hotel and room would be done sensitively, indicating a willingness on the landlord’s part to consider the resident’s needs.
The resident stated that the meal allowance offered by the landlord was insufficient for her needs. However, the Ombudsman can confirm that the amounts offered by the landlord were the allowances stipulated in its rehousing policy and the offer was therefore appropriate. However, it was a shortcoming on the landlord’s part that it had not mentioned the daily meal allowances in its earlier correspondence. For example, its email dated 16 February 2022 stated that bed, breakfast and evening meals would be paid for.
This Service understands the resident’s concerns that the daily meal allowances might not be sufficient to cover her dietary needs. However, the landlord offered the rate specified in its policy, which was reasonable.
Based on the information seen, the Ombudsman’s conclusion is that the landlord did not refuse to consider the resident’s requirements when arranging the decant.
Following the resident’s email stating she did not wish to proceed with the trunking removal, the landlord wrote to the resident on 2 March 2022 and advised that it would not be prepared to consider removing the trunking in the future. This was reasonable as the resident had chosen not to proceed with the works and, according to the landlord’s internal records, it had spent time and effort making the necessary plans for its contractor to carry out the work.
The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 9 June 2022, in which she stated that she had only been given 2 weeks’ notice to move. However, the evidence shows that the landlord had initially written to the resident on 16 February 2022 and advised her that the works would commence on or about 15 March 2022. The resident had therefore been given a month’s notice of when the work was scheduled to commence.
The start date for the work was later confirmed when the landlord wrote to the resident on 24 February 2022 and advised her that the decant would take place on 17 March 2022. The Ombudsman’s view is that the resident had been given reasonable notice of when the work would begin as she was given a month’s notice of when the work was scheduled to begin and was later given 3 weeks’ notice of the decant date.
The resident also included in her complaint a request for an FRA as she believed her property did not require 4 smoke alarms. The landlord delayed responding to the resident’s request and this is covered in the landlord’s complaints handling below. The landlord replied on 16 August 2022 and stated that its policy was only to carry out FRAs in communal areas. It then wrote to the resident on 6 September 2022 with its stage 2 reply in which it advised that its policy was not to carry out FRAs on individual properties.
The Ombudsman has reviewed the landlord’s fire safety policy and can confirm it states that FRAs are carried out on all properties containing “workplaces and communal areas”. Therefore, as the resident’s property is an individual house, the landlord would not have been obliged to carry out an FRA in relation to the property. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that it would not conduct an FRA in her property.
In terms of the resident’s request to remove some of the smoke alarms, the landlord had obtained advice from its Fire Safety Adviser and its maintenance team and concluded that it could not remove any of the alarms. The reason given by the landlord was that this was due to regulations and safety reasons. Having obtained advice from its experts, the landlord was entitled to rely on this advice and therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that it would not remove any of the smoke alarms.
In its original stage 2 reply, the landlord stated it would be willing to rearrange the trunking removal if the resident agreed. Following this offer, the evidence shows that the resident worked with the landlord during September and October 2022 to finalise the arrangements for the decant. This included the resident writing to her psychologist about various questions regarding the decant.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 October 2022 with a revised stage 2 letter. The letter stated that its senior managers had considered the resident’s requirements in relation to the decant and concluded that it would no longer be prepared to remove the trunking. It advised the resident that the removal of the trunking did not meet any of its health and safety thresholds and was a cosmetic issue rather than a repairs matter. The landlord also stated that it had reconsidered the matter following the appointment of a new supervisor. It referred the resident to its email dated 2 March 2022 which had advised the resident that it would not reconsider removing the trunking in the future. The landlord stated that it would only consider such a major adaptation if recommended by an OT and the works met its requirements.
The Ombudsman accepts that landlords may need to review planned works, for example, because of changing priorities, budgetary considerations or where new information casts doubt over the feasibility of works. However, in this case the Ombudsman’s view is that the reasons given by the landlord for rescinding its offer to remove the trunking were unsatisfactory and therefore unreasonable because:
1. The landlord stated it had considered the resident’s requirements and had decided not to proceed with the works. However, the landlord had not given the resident the opportunity to respond to any concerns it had about the requirements she had submitted.
2. The landlord stated that the removal of the trunking was not a health and safety matter and was a cosmetic issue rather than a repair. However, the landlord failed to mention that it had been requested to remove the trunking by the OT, who had advised the landlord that the trunking was triggering the resident’s PTSD.
3. The landlord referred to its previous letter in which it had advised the resident it would not reconsider removing the trunking because she had chosen not to proceed with the work. However, the landlord had chosen to override this earlier decision and agreed to remove the trunking in its letter dated 6 September 2022.
4. The landlord stated that as the removal of the trunking was a major adaptation, it would only consider the work if recommended by an OT and it met the landlord’s requirements. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge that an OT had previously recommended the work. Furthermore, the landlord did not elaborate on its statement that the works would need to meet its “requirements”.
5. The landlord apologised for any inconvenience and confusion caused by its final decision. However, it did not acknowledge the additional time and effort the resident had spent preparing for the decant following the landlord’s decision in its initial stage 2 letter that the work could proceed.
The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy states that the landlord must be satisfied the proposals for major adaptations are “viable and that it is reasonable and practicable to carry out the works, considering the age and condition of the building”. After offering to remove the trunking in its letter dated 6 September 2022, the landlord did not, in the Ombudsman’s view, clearly set out its reasons why it subsequently considered the removal of the trunking to be unjustified. This was unreasonable as the resident was entitled to a clear explanation of why the landlord considered the work to be non-viable, unreasonable, or impracticable having agreed to carry out the work in its letter of 6 September 2022.
Having received the landlord’s original stage 2 letter, the resident was entitled to expect the landlord to honour its agreement to remove the trunking. Therefore, having changed its position, it was incumbent upon the landlord to recognise the time and effort the resident had spent preparing for the decant and to acknowledge the disappointment its change of position would cause. The landlord’s failure to do so was therefore unreasonable because it had offered no redress to put things right.
The Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord should also have considered the impact that the change of decision would have on the resident due to her disability.
In summary, the Ombudsman has found there was maladministration by the landlord because it did not provide satisfactory reasons for reversing its decision and did not offer appropriate redress to put things right. The landlord had previously been advised by the resident’s psychologist that she needed clear information due to her autism. It was therefore incumbent on the landlord to have regard to her disability in accordance with the Equality Act 2010. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord did not provide clear or adequate reasons for its change of decision regarding the removal of the trunking.
This Service also considers that an offer of suitable financial redress would have been appropriate to recognise the resident’s disappointment and the time and effort she had spent during September and October 2022 preparing to be decanted. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £300, which is in addition to any sums already offered by the landlord.
The amount ordered is within the range specified in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for situations where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and/or has made no attempt to put things right. The Ombudsman has also ordered the landlord to write to the resident confirming whether it will remove the trunking and setting out the reasons for its decision. The letter should consider the original recommendations made by the OT.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process: stage one complaints are replied to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. If the landlord cannot meet either of these timescales, it will write to the resident within a further 10 working days to explain why.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 June 2022 to make a complaint about its handling of her request to remove the trunking. The resident then wrote to the landlord on 29 June 2022 chasing a reply to her complaint. The landlord sent its stage one reply on 30 June 2022, which was 15 working days after receiving the complaint. It was therefore a shortcoming on the part of the landlord that it took longer than the 10-working day timescale in its policy to reply. The delay had caused the resident to chase the landlord for a reply on 29 June 2022.
The landlord had initially allocated the stage one complaint to the officer who the resident had complained about. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code states that the complaint handler must act independently with an open mind and take measures to address “any actual or perceived conflict of interest”. In this case, there would clearly have been a conflict of interest if the person who was complained about was the person dealing with the complaint. The landlord therefore rightly corrected this error and reallocated the complaint to the officer’s manager.
The resident sent emails to the landlord on 30 June, 1 July, 7 July, 14 July, 15 July, 22 July and 1 August 2022 indicating she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her request to remove the trunking. Although the landlord wrote to the resident on 16 August 2022 specifically to address her request for an FRA, it did not reply to her complaint. This was inappropriate as the resident had indicated her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage one reply.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code states that if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage one, it must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure. It was therefore inappropriate that the landlord had not progressed the complaint to stage 2 as the resident’s stage one complaint had clearly not been resolved to her satisfaction.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 18 August 2022 and requested it to formally reply to the resident’s complaint. In response, the landlord met with the resident on 22 August 2022 to discuss her complaint and sent its stage 2 reply on 6 September 2022. The landlord had therefore taken 48 working days to respond to the resident’s email dated 30 June 2022. The time taken by the landlord was significantly longer than its 20-working day target for responding to stage 2 complaints and was therefore inappropriate. The delay meant that the resident had to chase the landlord for a reply on various occasions and contacted this Service for assistance in obtaining a reply.
There was a delay in responding to the resident’s stage one complaint and the landlord failed to treat the resident’s subsequent expressions of dissatisfaction as a stage 2 complaint. The resident explained in her email dated 1 August 2022 that she was unhappy because she had raised various complaints and these had not been addressed by the landlord. The landlord’s delays in replying and lack of response were therefore clearly a source of frustration and distress for the resident.
The Ombudsman also has concerns that rather than the complaints process helping to resolve the resident’s dispute, it added to the resident’s uncertainty due to the landlord changing its position. The landlord had stated in its stage one reply on 30 June 2022 that it would no longer consider removing the trunking (following the resident’s request not to proceed). The landlord then wrote in its stage 2 reply on 6 September 2022 that it would be prepared to remove the trunking. Finally, the landlord stated in its revised stage 2 reply on 20 October 2022 that it was no longer prepared to remove the trunking.
In the Ombudsman’s view, the changes in the landlord’s position during the complaints process indicate a failure of the landlord to thoroughly investigate the resident’s complaints. This created uncertainty on the resident’s part, which was particularly problematic due to the resident being autistic.
The landlord apologised in its stage 2 reply for its complaints handling and offered the resident compensation of £230, which included amounts for distress, inconvenience and the resident’s time and effort. The Ombudsman welcomes that the landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failings and offered compensation in its stage 2 reply. However, the view of this Service is that the offer of £230 was not proportionate to the complaint handling failures identified in this investigation and therefore the Ombudsman has found there was a service failure. An order has been made for the landlord to pay additional compensation of £100 to the resident, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where the landlord has made an offer of compensation but it does not reflect the detriment to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for trunking to be removed from her property and the arrangements to decant her temporarily to carry out the work.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in relation to its complaints handling.

Reasons

The landlord did not provide satisfactory reasons for reversing its decision to remove the trunking and advised the resident to contact an OT, even though the work had previously been recommended by an OT. It did not offer financial redress in relation to the time and effort spent by the resident during September and October 2022 in preparing for the decant.
The landlord failed to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of the process and delayed responding to the complaint. The landlord did not use its complaint process to thoroughly investigate the resident’s complaints and this led to it reversing its decision about the trunking. Although the landlord offered compensation for its complaint handling failures, the amount offered was insufficient to reflect the detriment to the resident.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of this report to:
1. Pay the resident £300 for its handling of the removal of the trunking.
2. Pay the resident a total of £330 in relation to its complaint handling (this includes the £230 already offered to the resident if this has not already been paid).
3. Write to the resident to:
  1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
  2. Confirm its decision regarding the removal of the trunking.
  3. Set out clearly the reasons for its decision in accordance with its aids and adaptations policy, taking into account the OT’s recommendations and the Ombudsman’s findings.