Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

North Northamptonshire Council (202013832)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013832

North Northamptonshire Council

31 March 2022


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 response to the resident’s application for disability adaptations to his property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, in a first floor flat.
  2. Following an assessment by the local authority’s occupational therapy department (OT), the landlord sent a letter to the resident on 19 December 2020. It advised him that in line with its aids and adaptations policy, it had declined to make adaptations to the resident’s bathroom, to include a level access shower, as it was uneconomical to do so. It said alternatively, it would assist him to move into a suitable one-bedroom ground floor flat, and he would be entitled to a £500 home move grant to assist with his moving costs.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 10 February 2021, as he was unhappy with the landlord’s decision to not install an accessible shower and said the process of finding an alternative property was taking too long. The landlord sent its response to the resident on 10 March 2021. It said the OT report had determined the adaptations were unfeasible, and the decision not to carry out the adaptations had been made in line with its aids and adaptations policy. It said the resident had been awarded priority C for a house move.
  4. This Service contacted the landlord to escalate the complaint, following communication with the resident. The landlord sent its stage two complaint response on 19 May 2021. It encouraged the resident to keep bidding on suitable properties, as he had withdrawn two of his bids. It advised him he was “granted a ground floor need with a level access shower and a Band B priority.” It advised the £500 grant would be awarded to him once he had moved. It provided a direct contact number for him to appeal the decision for not granting the adaptation to his current property.
  5. In his complaint to this Service, the resident said that he was unhappy that the landlord had denied to complete adaptations to his property. He also said he was concerned about the cost of moving.

Assessment and finding

  1. When carrying out any adaptations, the landlord would usually be expected to act in line with the recommendations made by OT, as OT are qualified to assess the resident’s needs and make such suggestions. Furthermore, in line with the landlord’s aids and adaptations policy, a level access shower, as required by the resident, is classed as a major adaptation, therefore OT have to carry out a full assessment to determine whether the adaptation is “both necessary and appropriate to the medical needs of the householder”.
  2. The landlord acted in line with its policy by writing to the resident to notify him of the occupational therapist’s recommendation. The OT report stated that the adaptation met two of the qualifying conditions for refusal, as the adaptation was potentially unfeasible due to practical constraints (due to the size and layout of the resident’s bathroom), and it was uneconomical. Therefore, moving the resident was deemed a more appropriate option. Furthermore, the landlord’s aids and adaptations policy, states that “Fitting level access showers in properties on the first floor or above does not represent the best use of our housing stock and they rarely meet the long-term needs of our tenants” and it “will only install a level access shower if it is satisfied all other options have been explored”. The consideration of costs, and use of the landlord’s housing stock, are reasonable factors for the landlord to consider in responding to applications for adaptations. As a social landlord it has a limited budget which it is required to use appropriately taking into account the needs of all its tenants. The landlord has demonstrated it considered these factors, and it maintained its position over the course of its communications with the resident.
  3. The landlord acted appropriately by explaining the alternative options available to the resident, including that it would support him to find suitable alternative accommodation, and that he was eligible for a £500 grant, towards the cost of moving. Whilst it is understandable that moving would not be the resident’s preferred option, given the disruption this would inevitably cause him, it was reasonable for the landlord to suggest this as an option to allow him to have the adapted bathroom he required. The landlord promptly responded to his queries regarding moving, and it informed him his housing priority had been increased to band B, in its stage two complaint response. The landlord supported the resident in securing a property, by advising that he should search weekly for eligible properties, advising on which properties he was eligible for, and it said it followed up his housing application on his behalf. In correspondence with this Service on 25 March 2021, the resident stated he had been offered a one-bedroom property to move to.
  4. The landlord’s aids and adaptation policy states that appeals can be made in writing on specific grounds. The landlord therefore acted appropriately as it provided the resident with a direct contact detail to appeal the decision made by OT, as he had expressed he was dissatisfied with the decision. If the resident disputes the decision made by OT, he can address this matter with OT, and ultimately approach the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman The LGSCO can look at complaints about local authority’s activities (aside from their responsibilities as social landlords), including complaints about OT. The Housing Ombudsman cannot comment on whether the OT recommendations were correct, as this is outside our remit and it is better suited for the LGSCO to consider.
  5. Although the distress the situation has caused to the resident has been acknowledged, the landlord acted in accordance with the recommendations made by OT and its aids and adaptations policy. It also gave the resident assistance in finding a new property, and informed him how he could appeal the decision made by OT.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s application for disability adaptations to his property.