North Kesteven District Council (202102564)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102564

North Kesteven District Council

29 December 2021

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 decision not to grant permission for adaptations at the property, specifically, an extension.
2. The complaint is also about the landlord’s handling of the request for permission to make adaptations at the property.

Background and summary of events

Policies and procedures

3. The landlord’s published information on adaptations states that it “… will work with you and the Occupational Therapist to find the most straightforward and cost-effective way of adapting your home. Sometimes we will need more information from other people, such as your doctor or Medical Consultant”.

Background

4. The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord, at the property, from November 2019 when she mutually exchanged into it. The property is a three-bedroom house.
5. The property was previously the resident’s parents’ property but following her father’s death, the resident and her husband and two children moved in with her mother who needed full-time care, in November 2019.
6. The mutual exchange, which was completed between the resident and her mother, allowing the family to live together at her mother’s home, was followed by the termination of the tenancy at the resident’s previous property.

Summary of events

7. In April 2020, following a stroke and a stay in hospital which rendered the resident’s mother frailer, her needs were assessed by an Occupational Therapist (OT) on 29 May 2020. The resident asked the OT if she could support the conversion of the side outbuilding and form a unit of accommodation for her mother.
8. Documentation provided by the landlord shows that on 3 June 2020, it was in discussion about the request to convert the side outbuilding to a separate unit for the resident’s mother. It did not deem this satisfactory on a practical level, however, as the floor levels and the ceiling heights of the outbuilding would not be suitable. Installing a stairlift at the property would not be suitable either. It concluded that it would be cheaper and better to knock the side outbuilding down and build an extension, although this would cost around £50,000 and was not something that it wanted to do.
9. On 20 October 2020, the landlord advised the resident that it was not practical to carry out the adaptations she wanted. Shortly thereafter, on 30 October 2020, the OT completed her recommendations in writing.
10. The requested adaptations and the OT recommendation that the resident’s mother required an additional bedroom were discussed at landlord meetings on 9 and 23 November 2020. The landlord noted in its discussion that the resident’s mother needed full-time care at the point the resident moved in with her and so nothing had changed in this regard. Had the family not moved in with the resident’s mother, no OT recommendation to build an additional bedroom would have been made. Consequently, the landlord made the decision not to carry out the requested works.
11. Actions from this meeting included asking the OT precisely what the resident’s mother’s needs were, what had changed since the resident and her family moved into the property and whether bungalow accommodation would meet those needs.
12. On 25 November 2020, a new OT assessment determined that the most appropriate solution would be for the resident’s mother to be offered a local ground floor property with a level access bathroom and wheelchair access throughout. This would enable the resident and wider family to continue to care for her.
13. On 15 February 2021, the resident chased the landlord as she remained awaiting a decision and the landlord advised it was unable to update her.
14. The following month, on 10 March 2021, the OT advised the resident over the telephone that her request for adaptations to the property were being declined and that she would be receiving a letter confirming this.
15. On 16 March 2021, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord that her mother’s needs were not being met. She described her mother’s needs changing following a stay in hospital in April 2020, with the toilet and bedroom facilities no longer being suitable and despite an assessment of need, nothing was being done to support her. She stated that the toilet was too high and described her mother as being without dignity with the way the situation currently was. She added that her mother could not move to a bungalow because of the level of care she required.
16. On 17 March 2021, the landlord emailed the resident, acknowledging her complaint and advising it should provide a response by 9 April 2021. In its stage one response, of 8 April 2021, the landlord stated that the resident’s case remained open with the OT and there was the option of requesting a further assessment of need.
17. The landlord conveyed that it recognised that the practicalities of living arrangements in the joining of households were not as the resident had envisaged, and as resolution to this, offered its assistance with securing bungalow accommodation for her mother in the same village.
18. On the same date, the resident requested escalation of her complaint through the complaints process, stating her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to it. The resident expressed that she did not want her mother to move to a bungalow as she needed to be with her to care for her 24 hours a day, 7 days per week. She wanted her mother to have her needs met and to be treated with dignity and respect.
19. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email, also on the same day, and advised it would review the complaint and provide a stage two response by 30 April 2021. In its stage two response, of 29 April 2021, the landlord found that its offer to assist in providing alternative accommodation by way of a bungalow in the immediate vicinity was a suitable alternative to installing a second bedroom. It added that this offer would remain open, and it would also be able to provide further assistance and an alarm system with fall detectors in the bungalow, should the resident change her mind.
20. The landlord explained that, should the offer not be taken up, it would be happy to make the minor adaptation requested to alter the toilet height. It asked her to contact it if this should be required.

Assessment and findings

Refusal to grant permission for adaptations

21. Complaints concerning the processing of and decisions regarding applications for Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs) and complaints about OTs and any recommendations OTs do or do not make, are matters for the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) and not for this Service. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, fall properly in the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body”. The particulars of this complaint concern the landlord’s decision not to grant consent to alter the property, however, which is a matter which can be considered by this Service, as it is a decision made in its capacity of a landlord.
22. Landlords are not required to fund adaptations but are responsible for providing permission for an adaptation or adaptations to be made. A landlord cannot unreasonably refuse permission for adaptations, but they can take into account factors including how much work is needed. Where an individual is considered to be disabled, the Equality Act 2010 states that they are entitled to “reasonable adaptations” to a property, although the law does not state what ‘reasonable’ is. Where a landlord refuses permission, it must provide reasons for this.
23. Consequently, the landlord was not obliged to follow any recommendations made by the OT, however, it was obliged to consider the recommendations. If its decision was to refuse to permit adaptations, it is required to provide reasons for this. In considering whether to grant permission for the work to be carried out, the landlord was entitled to consider the scope and cost of the works, which is also explicitly set out in its published information on adaptations, and it was appropriate that it did this.
24. Documentation provided to this Service indicates that the landlord appropriately considered the initial request to convert the side outbuilding to form a unit of accommodation for the resident’s mother, arriving at the decision that doing this would not provide suitable accommodation due to the floor levels and ceiling heights. It, thus, considered whether a stairlift would resolve the problem and similarly determined that it would not. The landlord appropriately took into account the resident’s mother’s needs and suitability of these adaptations in arriving at its decision around these things.
25. The landlord’s decision not to grant permission for adaptations by way of an extension to the property was reasonable. It took into account the scale and cost-effectiveness of the works, which it was entitled to do. It considered other factors, including the housing situation which was arrived at following the resident’s decision to move with her family, into her mother’s property, at the point where her mother already needed full-time care. Whilst the resident’s mother’s health had deteriorated, the fact of her needing full-time care had not changed.
26. The OT recommendation that the resident’s mother had her own bedroom was appropriately considered by the landlord and it offered an alternative solution which would meet this need; that being a local bungalow property. This suggestion was supported by the OT as meeting the needs of the resident’s mother. Whilst this was not her desired outcome, the landlord was not obliged to extend the property in the way she wanted, and it reasonably suggested an alternative which would provide her mother with her own room – indeed property. This included the level access needed, and other matters emphasised in her correspondence with the landlord.
27. The offer would also provide the resident the living room space for her and her family, that she was missing, with her mother using the living room as her bedroom. Its agreement to permit changes to the level of the toilet at the property, should the resident not wish to accept the offer of assistance in securing her mother a bungalow, was reasonable. It, again, considered the issues of necessity, scope of works and whether the works would specifically support her mother’s needs.
28. While the resident was not happy with the decision and felt that she was being discriminated against, the landlord was entitled to make the decision it did. The landlord was of the view that its proposed solution would also support continuity of care by the resident and the wider family. It reasonably offered to install a fall-alarm for additional peace of mind, and should this be insufficient, a package of care could be considered, which would not render the resident’s mother without the care she needed.

Handling of the request

29. Notwithstanding the fact that the landlord was entitled to make the decision it did, it took a lengthy period of time to arrive at the decision and did not sufficiently explain the reasons for its decision, as it was required to do. The delay and the lack of explanation undoubtedly aggravated the situation and contributed to breakdown of the landlord-tenant relationship. Stating that it was “not practical” to carry out the extension works was insufficient reasoning alone and the gaps in communication were unreasonable.
30. There is no explanation as to why it took so long to arrive at and communicate the decision made and nor has this been explained to the complainant. There was a lack of expectation management and whilst the landlord discussed the situation with the OT, there was a lack of a joined-up approach that its published information states it will take, specifically, that it will work with “… will work with you and the Occupational Therapist to find the most straightforward and cost-effective way of adapting your home”.
31. While the solution may have been the most straightforward one, this seems to have been reached more unilaterally than collaboratively. Although the resident was not guaranteed to have her wish for an extension met, the landlord did not include her in the discussions as much as it could have. This gave seemed to imply that the situation was not being fully considered or taken as seriously as the evidence indicates that it was.

Determination (decision)

32. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the complaint about the landlord’s decision not to grant permission for adaptations at the property.
33. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the request to make adaptations at the property.

Reasons

34. The landlord was not obliged to grant permission for the adaptations and fully considered the issue, while also offering reasonable options.
35. The landlord took too long to communicate its decision on the issue and did not explain reasons for the delay or its reasoning fully. It also did not sufficiently include the resident in the process.

Order and recommendation

Order

36. The landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation for the delay in communicating the decision, its failure to include the resident more in the decision and its lack of reasoning as to the decision reached.
37. The landlord to confirm compliance with the above within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

38. If not already done so, the landlord to re-offer to carry out the works to toilet height.