London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202301941)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301941

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

24 July 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about wheelchair accessibility and request for adaptations.
   2. Reports of delays in repairing a gate.
   3. Associated formal complaint.

Background

2. The resident is the assured tenant of a 2-bedroom house, owned by the landlord, where she resides with her husband. The landlord has recorded that the resident’s husband is a wheelchair user.
3. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord, via this Service, on 3 May 2023. She reported that the installation of new doors in January 2023 had restricted her husband’s access to the property. This was due to a 2-inch threshold preventing easy glide wheelchair access and the entrance being narrower. She had been trying to resolve the matter since January 2023, along with repairs to the gate at the rear of the property.
4. In its stage 1 response on 22 May 2023, the landlord stated that it had received an Occupational Therapy (OT) report confirming the adaptations required. This was to install a ramp with level access door thresholds to the rear and front doors, along with an automatic door entry system to the front door. The report had been sent to its dedicated team to deal with the works, and an administrator would be in touch to confirm when the work would be completed. It apologised for the delay in completing the gate repair and had raised an order to attend on 12 June 2023. It offered £50 compensation for the delay.
5. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 19 October 2023, via this Service. She reported that the adaptation work had not been completed and there had been numerous cancelled appointments without explanation.
6. In its stage 2 response on 16 November 2023, the landlord acknowledged that the new front door did not meet the resident’s husband’s wheelchair requirements. Its contractor should have completed a more in-depth pre-works survey prior to installation of a new door. It assisted in arranging an OT assessment which was completed on 3 May 2023. It had incorrectly assessed the work as a minor adaptation, which caused delays, and it should have been managed as a major works adaptation. It apologised for the delay in arranging the works and for its service failures. It offered £1,994.21 in compensation comprising of:
   1. £240 for distress.
   2. £240 for inconvenience.
   3. £240 for time and effort getting the complaint resolved.
   4. £390 for poor complaint handling and communications.
   5. £398.56 for full or partial loss of a room or outdoor from October 2022 to March 2023.
   6. £485.66 for full or partial loss of a room or outdoor from April 2023 to November 2023.
7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to this Service. She stated that some work had been undertaken to ease the front door threshold by resurfacing the driveway, however, the work to the thresholds and automatic front door was still outstanding as of 16 July 2024. Her husband was a double amputee, had a heart condition, and the situation was causing distress.

Assessment and findings

8. In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances.

Scope of investigation

9. In the resident’s correspondence she advised that access issues to her home had caused distress to her and her husband. In attempts to access the new narrower front door, and due to the 2-inch threshold, her husband had been injured and attended hospital. This Service has investigated how the landlord has responded to the resident’s concerns and can consider any inconvenience or distress caused, as a result of any service failure by the landlord. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health, nor can it calculate or award damages. Should the resident remain dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, she can consider making a personal injury claim via the landlord’s insurance, alternatively this would be a matter for the courts.

Concerns about wheelchair accessibility and request for adaptations.

10. The landlord’s aids and adaptation policy sets out how it will support the use of aids and adaptations to help its residents live independently in their homes. Minor adaptations are often requested by an OT, but an OT report is not required for them to be installed. It will normally fund minor adaptations without the need to apply for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG).
11. The landlord’s major aids and adaption standard operating procedure refers to wet rooms, stairlifts, ramps, and doors as eligible components. Following an OT recommendation it will check the request, carry out a home visit, and consult and refer the request to the building services team.
12. In her complaint, the resident stated that prior to the installation of new doors, her husband had been able to access their home. She had asked the contractor whether access would remain the same and stated that she was advised that it would be “like for like”. On completion of the installation there was a 2-inch threshold which was not wheelchair easy glide access, and the entrance was narrower. Her husband had been injured as a result of trying to access the property and his wheelchair had been damaged. The rear door was also an issue although the threshold was lower. She had been trying to resolve the matter since January 2023.
13. It is not disputed that there were delays in the landlord arranging works to the resident’s front door and in making adaptations. In its stage 2 response it acknowledged that its contractor should have completed a more in-depth pre-work survey prior to installing the new front door. It acknowledged the impact this had on the resident’s husband’s mobility and apologised for the delay in arranging the adaptations.
14. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and offer to complete repairs) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
15. The landlord’s records of 3 May 2023 referred to the OT report and scheme for ramped access. It was confirmed that the resident’s husband was eligible for a DFG and an assessment of need had been completed. The recommendation stated that the resident’s husband had difficulties accessing the front and rear threshold. In order to address the issue, it advised the landlord to install a ramp with a level access door threshold and install an automatic door entry system to the front door of the property. Based on the eligibility criteria, the difficulty had been prioritised as substantial.
16. In its stage 1 response the landlord stated that it had received an OT report confirming the adaptations required. It detailed the specification and recommendation and stated that it had passed the report to its dedicated team to review the required work. It would appoint a contractor to complete the work and an administrator would be in touch to confirm when the work would be completed.
17. The landlord’s response was reasonable in that it acknowledged the required adaptations and stated it would arrange for a contractor to complete the work. It would have been helpful to have provided the resident with an estimated timescale at this point, given that the assessment had identified the issues as substantial. Its response failed to acknowledge that the resident had been trying to resolve the matter since January 2023, when the new door was installed, or demonstrate any empathy for the situation.
18. The resident contacted this Service, in August 2023, stating that the matter was not resolved, and work remained outstanding. She had 3 appointments which had been cancelled with less than 24 hours’ notice. She was frustrated with the lack of communication and the way the matter had been handled.
19. The landlord’s records between 23 October 2023 and 2 November 2023 referred to the door entry system still not being completed and that it had been recorded as complete on its system. It looked like the job was cancelled with no update. The job required re-raising and marking as urgent. Records also showed that:
    1. There was confusion about which team, the minor or major adaptations team, should have been undertaking the work.
    2. The ramps had not been completed and the resident could not access the home via the front door.
    3. The wheelchair had been damaged on many occasions due to bumps relating to the entrance to the resident’s home.
    4. A contractor had attended but been unable to carry out the works due to the door and frame being unsuitable for a closer with the resident’s wheelchair.
    5. The composite front door was Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) compliant. However, the failing was that the contractor should have been asking more specific questions at the survey stage of the works. Once the works were completed it was not in its remit due to the extent of the works required regarding the level access ramp
    6. The OT assessment was never emailed to the correct team to implement the work.
20. In its stage 2 response of 16 November 2023, the landlord stated that:
    1. It had reviewed its responses of 3 May 2023 and 24 August 2023.
    2. Following the installation of new doors in October 2022, the resident advised that the new doors were not suitable for her husband’s wheelchair requirements, and he could only access the property via the back door. The door was DDA compliant, however, prior to the installation its contractor should have completed a more in-depth survey before installation.
    3. Following the door installation it had assisted in arranging an OT assessment which was sent to its housing lead and contractor. The works relating to the assessment had been managed by its minor adaptations team and should have been managed by its major aids and adaptations team. The confusion and error caused delays in arranging the works.
    4. It had spoken with the resident at length about the impact of the installation of the new doors, and its effect on her husband’s mobility. It provided its insurance department details should the resident wish to make a claim for injury or damage to belongings.
    5. The works had been approved by the major adaptation team and arrangements made for its contractor to attend, survey, and inspect the required works on 8 November 2023.
    6. Following the appointment, she had advised that she did not agree with the works recommended by the OT. It stated that it could only complete works that were recommended by the OT and confirmed this via email.
    7. On 13 November 2023 it had spoken with her husband who agreed to the works and requested that its contractor provide a plan of work with a further explanation to assist to fully understand the works to be completed. It asked the resident to confirm with the contractor that she wanted the work to go ahead once the plan had been received. Alternatively, she was to contact the OT directly to discuss the proposed work.
    8. Its contractor was considering commissioning a separate OT assessment to assess her husband’s requirements further and its contractor would provide an update.
    9. It apologised for the delays relating to the works and all service failures including any distress and inconvenience experienced. It offered £1,994.22 in compensation broken down as follows:
       1. £398.56 for full or partial loss of a room or outdoors from October 2022 to March 2023.
       2. £485.66 for full or partial loss of a room or outdoors from April 2023 to November 2023.
       3. £240 for distress during the period.
       4. £240 for time and effort in getting the complaint resolved.
       5. £240 for inconvenience during the period.
       6. £390 for poor complaint handling.
21. In its response, the landlord stated that the doors were replaced in October 2022, however, the resident advised this Service that the doors were not installed until January 2023 due to delays. While this demonstrates a record keeping failing, it also suggests that its offer of compensation, with respect to the amenity loss, actually exceeded the timescale of the impact described by the resident. It also referred to its stage 1 response of 3 May 2023 and a further response on 24 August 2023, however, the resident advised that she does not recall a second response, and no evidence was provided to this Service of this communication.
22. In the landlord’s response it acknowledged the difficulties caused by the installation of new doors and apologised for the delay in processing the adaptations. It also appropriately referred the resident to its insurance department in relation to her husband’s injury and wheelchair damage. It offered compensation for the loss of amenity, being unable to access the property via the front door, and for the period that the work remained outstanding. It confirmed that its contractor would undertake the work, following provision of a plan and explanation.
23. However, the landlord failed to demonstrate any learning from the complaint or demonstrate how it would prevent a similar situation from occurring in the future. Its offer of compensation, while acknowledging the amenity loss, was not proportionate to the delays, time and effort, and distress and inconvenience caused. More concerningly, the resident advised this Service that the work has still not been undertaken to the thresholds or the automatic front door system. While this Service appreciates that there was discussion about the suitability of the adaptations, and this may have caused some delay, the landlord has failed to appropriately monitor or resolve the matter. This does not demonstrate the landlord giving due regard to the resident’s husband’s vulnerabilities or its duties set out in the Equality Act 2010.
24. For the reasons set out above, this Service, finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about accessibility and request for adaptations.

Reports of delays in repairing a gate

25. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will complete routine repairs in an average of 25 calendar days. It is responsible for the structure and exterior of the home including walls, roofs, windows, external doors, boundary fences, and gates.
26. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it apologised for the delay in completing repairs to the gate and offered £50 compensation. It had raised an order to complete repairs on 12 June 2023. Its response was reasonable in acknowledging the delay and offering compensation.
27. The landlord’s records of 23 October 2023 referred to the resident advising that the gate was warped and scraped on the floor, making wheelchair access difficult. The resident’s husband was a wheelchair user and could only access from the back of the property as the front door was not safe for wheelchair use. The gate had been repaired on many occasions but not replaced and was very warped. It referred to having investigate in September 2023 to establish if it needed to be replaced.
28. The landlord’s stage 2 response stated that during its conversation with the resident, it discussed the rear entrance gate which she reported was warped. It confirmed that an operative attended to assess the gate in September 2023, and following some identified repairs, the gate was noted as works complete. During the conversation she had advised that she did not want to further escalate any repairs to the gate. It stated that if she experienced any further difficulties to report this in the normal way via its website. It acknowledged that it awarded £50 compensation in May 2023 but failed to credit the rent account until 23 October 2023. It apologised for the delay and awarded a further £30.
29. This Service’s dispute resolution principles are, be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. The landlord apologised for the delay in repairing the gate and offered compensation. It further acknowledged its error in crediting the resident’s rent account and offered further compensation for its error. Its response was appropriate given that the resident had stated she did not wish to further escalate her complaint. This Service, therefore, finds that the landlord has made an offer of redress, prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s reports about delays in repairing a gate.

Associated formal complaint

30. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days. Stage 1 complaints are responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
31. The resident approached this Service in March 2023, advising that she had been trying to resolve her concerns with the landlord since January 2023.
32. A formal complaint was raised, via this Service, on 3 May 2023. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 4 May 2023, 1 working day later, which was in line with its complaint policy timescale. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 22 May 2023, 12 working days later, and 2 working days later than its complaint policy timescale.
33. The resident escalated her complaint on 19 October 2023, via this Service, acknowledged by the landlord the same day. It responded at stage 2 on 16 November 2023, 20 working days later in line with its complaint policy timescale.
34. While there was a slight delay in the landlord response at stage 1 of its complaints process, the landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response its poor complaint handling and communication. It is assumed that this is in relation to the resident trying to resolve the complaint since January 2023. It apologised and offered £240 for time and effort in getting the complaint resolved and £390 for poor complaint handling and communication. Its compensation offer was in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for maladministration in the range of £100 to £600. This Service, therefore, finds that the landlord has made an offer of redress, prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated formal complaint.

Determination

35. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about wheelchair accessibility and request for adaptations.
36. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme the landlord has made an offer of redress, prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of delays in repairing a gate.
    2. Associated formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

37. The landlord is ordered to pay, directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears, £2,364.22 broken down as follows:
    1. £1,000 for distress and inconvenience, time and trouble for the failings in relation to the delays in completing the adaptation works.
    2. £1,364.22 offered in its stage 2 response (this can be deducted if already paid).
38. The landlord is ordered to contact the resident and provide a timescale for the identified works to commence to the front and rear thresholds, along with the front door entry system.
39. The landlord is ordered to send a written apology, by a senior member of staff, to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
40. Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

41. The landlord should ensure that its repairs records accurately reflect when work is undertaken.
42. The landlord should pay £630 offered in its stage 2 response for the identified complaint handling failures if not already paid.
43. The landlord should contact the resident to establish whether there are any further required repairs to the gate.