Places for People Group Limited (202122425)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122425

Places for People Group Limited

10 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to cupboards in the resident’s bedroom and hallway.
2. A request for minor adaptations to the resident’s kitchen by an occupational therapist.
3. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 23 July 2018. The property is a two bedroom bungalow.
The resident has arthritis, restricted mobility, and diabetes. The resident also has memory issues due to a previous head injury, and he is unable to read or write due to dyslexia. As such, the resident has protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.
There is a ‘do not visit alone’ (DNVA) alert on the landlord’s system restricting lone visits. This has been in place since June 2019.

Policies, procedures and legal obligations

The Equality Act 2010 (the Act) provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. Under the Act, the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled.
The Social Housing Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard requires registered providers to “treat all tenants with fairness and respect” and “demonstrate that they understand the different needs of tenants, including in relation to the equality strands and tenants with additional support needs”, with a specific expectation that providers will “demonstrate how they respond to those needs in the way they provide services and communicate with tenants”.
The Housing Ombudsman Complaints Handling Code 2020 states that landlords should comply with the Equality Act 2010, and may need to adapt normal policies, procedures, or processes to accommodate an individual’s needs. Landlords shall have a reasonable adjustments policy in place to address this.
The resident’s tenancy agreement says that the landlord will keep in repair the structure and exterior of the premises including:
1. Where the landlord has notice from the tenant, internal walls, floors and ceilings, doors and door frames, door hinges and skirting boards but not in any case including internal painting and decoration.
2. Plasterwork.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says that it has two categories of repairs. Emergency repairs are responded to within 24 hours. All other repairs are responded to within 28 days. Where possible the landlord will attempt to complete repairs in one visit. Where a repair cannot be completed during the first visit, a follow up appointment will be agreed with the customer before leaving the customer’s property.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints process in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. Stage one complaints are responded to within ten working days and stage two complaints are responded to within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will consider compensation or reimbursement in the following circumstances:
1. Where there is an unreasonable delay in the landlord resolving a query or issue and the customer has not been kept informed.
2. Other methods to resolve a complaint (such as an apology and/or resolution or explanation) are considered insufficient by the person investigating the complaint, or previous responses have been inadequate.
3. The overall experience of the customer requires some recognition to acknowledge that the landlord has fallen short of expected standards.
The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy states:
1. Where local authorities do not, or have insufficient grant available to, fund adaptations, the landlord will resource improvements, where applicable, up to a maximum value of £2500.
2. A budget will be set each financial year which will not be exceeded unless exceptional circumstances arise. The landlord will not contribute to any adaptations with a value of more than £2500 so 100% of the cost must be funded by a disabled facilities grant.
3. All aids and adaptations work will only be carried out as a result of an assessment by the occupational therapist to determine eligibility and both short and long term medical needs.
4. In the event the received quote exceeds £2500, the landlord will advise the customer they need to apply for a disabled facilities grant and advise the adaptations will need to be completed by the local authority.

Summary of events

On 15 July 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to report that there were holes and cracks in the walls where the old boiler had been removed. The landlord logged the repair on the system but did not allocate the work.
On 19 August 2021, the resident’s occupational therapist sent an email to the landlord. She explained that the local authority had planned to make a disabled facilities grant application to adapt the resident’s kitchen to better suit his needs. However, the resident had said that he planned to move within the next five years. This meant that the local authority was unable to proceed with the disabled facilities grant application, as he would no longer meet the required criteria.
The occupational therapist asked the landlord to consider a minor adaptation to the kitchen to facilitate the resident’s use in the meantime. She said that the resident had limited use in his right arm and hand, and he struggled with a right handed draining board, and the existing shallow sink and low taps. She asked the landlord to consider a minor adaptation, believed to cost less than £1000, and said that this would make a significant difference to the resident’s ability to wash up and access his tap. She asked the landlord to consider the following work:
1. Remove the existing sink/worktop and exchange for left hand draining sink with new worktop to suit.
2. Fit a mixer tap with lever controls.
3. Switch over the existing under sink cupboard and the washing machine positions (may need minor modifications to the adjoining cupboard if washing machine stands too proud).
On 25 August 2021, the landlord sent an internal email to request a quote for the minor adaptations to the resident’s property. The landlord raised a job to attend and inspect the resident’s kitchen on 21 September 2021. The inspection date was booked for 22 November 2021.
On 22 September 2021, the landlord contacted the local authority to request an update on the disabled facilities grant works to the resident’s kitchen. The local authority responded on 27 September 2021 and said that they thought the landlord was already aware that the resident did not want to proceed with the disabled facilities grant, as he believed that being rehoused somewhere more suitable for his needs would be preferable. The local authority said that they could not fund the adaption to the resident’s property as he did not intend to stay there for the five year grant period.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 19 October 2021 to chase the repairs to his cupboards. The landlord booked an appointment for 25 November 2021.
On 22 November 2021, the landlord visited the resident to inspect the kitchen and quote for the works requested by the occupational therapist under the landlord’s minor adaptations budget.
On 23 November 2021, the landlord sent an internal email which stated that, following the inspection, it believed that the cost would exceed the minor adaptations budget threshold and asked whether a full itemised quote was required. The internal response said that the resident had cancelled the kitchen works in September 2021. An assumption was made that the inspection request must have been a duplicate request in error and a decision was made to note ‘no further action’ on the landlord’s system in relation to the kitchen adaptations.
The landlord visited the resident on 25 November 2021 to repair the cupboards. On inspection, the required work was more complex than the landlord had initially thought and so it could not complete the work that day. A schedule of works was agreed and a further appointment was made for the follow on work to take place on 17 February 2022.
The local authority sent an email to the landlord on 26 November 2021 following a telephone call from the resident. The resident had told the local authority that workmen had arrived at his property on 22 and 25 November to do work, but they did not know what they had to do. The resident had told the local authority that there was a problem with his kitchen flooring as water was getting in. The local authority asked the landlord for clarification as to whether this was an issue caused by a leak, or due to the small sample of flooring that had been removed for asbestos testing before the resident withdrew from the planned major adaptations under a disabled facilities grant. The local authority said that, according to their records, they had not had any correspondence from the landlord since the minor adaptation recommendation was made in August 2021.
The landlord responded to the local authority on 1 December 2021. It said that it had been told that the resident had withdrawn the disabled facilities grant application as he was looking to move. The landlord said that it had since received a quote for minor adaptations, but the cost of the required works exceeded the minor adaptations budget, therefore the work would need to be done via the disabled facilities grant process.
The local authority responded and asked what had been quoted for and what the landlord’s minor adaptations budget was. The landlord said that the cost exceeded its threshold and said that it had quoted for:
1. Renew sink with left hand drainer.
2. New worktops to accommodate new sink.
3. Renew taps with swan neck and levers.
4. Move sink unit to right hand side.
5. Move washing machine space to left side.
6. Adjust all plumbing and electrics to suit.
7. Renew no slip flooring approx. 9m2.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 10 January 2022 as he was unhappy with the service he had received from the landlord. He said that the repairs to his cupboard were still outstanding and the recommendations made by his occupational therapist in 2021 had not been completed. The resident told the Ombudsman that he was dyslexic and so could not email or use the online complaint form. He stated that his preferred method of contact was by telephone.
Following the conversation with the resident, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord to inform it of the resident’s complaint. The landlord responded and said that it had logged a stage one complaint on 14 January 2022.
On 19 January 2022, the landlord attempted to contact the resident to discuss the formal complaint. The landlord noted that it had been unable to contact the resident.
The landlord’s internal stage one notes, completed prior to issuing its stage one response, state that the delays in arranging a further appointment, for the repairs to the cupboards, after the visit in November 2021 were partly due to the ‘do not visit alone’ (DNVA) warning on the resident’s address, which meant that two engineers must attend.
The landlord provided the resident with a stage one complaint response on 24 January 2022. It said:
1. It acknowledged that on 15 July 2021 a customer service representative failed to log the resident’s request for repairs to the cupboards and apologised for the unacceptable delays.
2. When the resident contacted the landlord again on 19 October 2021, an appointment was made for the landlord to attend the resident’s home on 25 November 2021. At this appointment, the landlord found that the required repairs could not be completed within the time allocated or by the operatives in attendance. A new appointment was arranged for 17 February 2022. Compensation of £85.00 was offered to the resident due to the delay.
3. The works identified in the occupational therapist’s report did not take place as the landlord received an email from the local authority on 27 September 2021. The email said that the resident did not want to proceed with the disabled facilities grant as he would prefer to be rehoused somewhere more suitable. Therefore, the local authority could not fund the adaptation as the resident did not intend to stay in his home for the five year grant period.
4. It had re-engaged with the local authority and informed them of the resident’s issues.
5. On 17 February 2022, it would complete an assessment to see if any minor alterations could be made to assist the resident.
On 31 January 2022, the resident contacted the Ombudsman and said that he had received a stage one complaint response, but he did not know what it said as he could not read or write. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord by telephone to request a copy of the stage one response and to ask that the landlord put a note on the resident’s address to highlight that he could not read or write and would need telephone calls. The landlord provided a copy of the stage one response on 1 February 2022.
On 17 February 2022, the landlord attended the resident’s property to complete works to the bedroom and hallway cupboards. The landlord noted that the resident appeared to be happy with the work to the cupboards, although he said that he was still unhappy with his doors not shutting properly. The landlord said that the doors were closing perfectly.
On 21 February 2022, the resident contacted the landlord by telephone to request that his complaint was escalated to stage two. He told the landlord that he was not available on the phone and that he had no email address. He also told the landlord that he could not read or write. The landlord said that it would send the resident a letter.
The resident also sent the landlord a letter to request that his complaint was escalated to stage two. He told the landlord that his response was delayed as he had to wait for assistance from the citizens advice bureau as he could not read the stage one response letter without help. The resident also told the landlord that the citizens advice bureau had helped him to write the escalation letter. He said:
1. He was not happy with the way his complaint had been handled.
2. He was not happy with the outcome of the appointment on 17 February 2022 as the cupboard doors still did not fit properly, as they were bowed, and the length of time it had taken to do the repair.
3. He asked the landlord to send an operative out to inspect the work, as it was making him anxious and stressed.
4. Communication issues were a serious concern due to his considerable difficulties, which the landlord was aware of. He said that his phone calls had not been returned and he had to make endless phone calls to get a reply to his queries.
5. The length of time he had had to wait for any resolution had been unreasonable.
6. He wanted the landlord to review its offer of compensation as the amount did not cover the distress and disappointment caused.
The landlord sent the resident a stage two response letter by post on 25 March 2022. It said:
1. It would have liked to discuss the issues directly with the resident via telephone or email, but as there were no contact details on the system, it had to rely on conversations and information from colleagues involved at earlier stages.
2. It had partially upheld the complaint as an error was made on 15 July 2021 when the resident’s report of repair was not recorded. It had increased the offer of compensation to £135.00.
3. It understood that although the resident was not completely satisfied at first, he had since informed the landlord that the work had been completed to an acceptable standard.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 11 April 2022 as he was unhappy with the landlord’s final response.

Assessment and findings

Repairs to cupboards in the resident’s bedroom and hallway

Under the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord was obliged to repair the walls within the resident’s cupboards in line with its responsive repairs policy.
It is not disputed that there were failings in the way that the landlord handled the repairs to the cupboards in the resident’s bedroom and hallway. The landlord has accepted that when the resident first contacted the landlord on 15 July 2021 the landlord failed to allocate the repair. This led to unreasonable delays and the resident having to make further contact with the landlord on 19 October 2021 to chase the repair.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on 25 November 2021. This was 133 days after the repair was first logged with the landlord, which was significantly outside of the landlord’s 28 day response time. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £85.00 for the recognised delay through its complaint process at stage one, in line with its compensation policy. This was then increased to £135.00 at stage two.
Once the landlord had established the extent of the works required to the cupboards at the visit on 25 November 2021, an appointment was made with the resident for the completion of the works to take place on 17 February 2022. Overall, this was 217 days after the repair was first logged by the resident. According to the landlord’s responsive repairs policy, the follow up appointment should have been agreed with the resident before the operatives left his property on 25 November 2021. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident was given the follow up appointment date before the operatives left his property, in line with the landlord’s policy, which is unreasonable and would have caused the resident frustration and distress.
The records provided by the landlord show that the resident’s property is subject to a ‘do not visit alone’ (DNVA) alert, which requires two operatives to attend each visit. The landlord has told this Service that the DNVA alert has been in place since June 2019, following an incident of antisocial behaviour when the resident made threats towards the landlord’s employees. The resident received a warning for a breach of his tenancy, and no further action was taken by the landlord. From the information provided, it appears that there have been no further incidents of this nature.
This alert is noted by the landlord as one of the reasons for the delayed follow up appointment. Although this Service does not condone threatening behaviour, it is not clear whether the resident is aware of the DNVA alert, or the potential consequences that the alert may have on the service that he receives from the landlord, which is unreasonable.
The stage one complaint response does not refer to the DNVA alert as a contributory factor to the delay between the first visit and the follow up work. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide the resident with a full and open explanation as to the reasons for the delay and the effect the DNVA had on the scheduling of his repair.
In summary, although the landlord accepted that there were failings in the way it handled the resident’s repairs and offered compensation for unreasonable delays, the offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified. The compensation was offered by the landlord for the initial delay up until the first visit on 25 November 2021. The landlord failed to compensate the resident for the further delay between 25 November 2021 and 17 February 2022. The landlord also failed to provide the resident with a reasonable and open explanation for the cause of the further delay.

A request for minor adaptations to the resident’s kitchen recommended by an occupational therapist

The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy says that it will fund adaptations, where applicable, up to the maximum value of £2500. Once the landlord was aware that adaptations under the disabled facilities grant were not going ahead, it arranged to visit the resident’s home on 22 November 2021 to quote for minor adaptations to the resident’s kitchen. Following the visit, the landlord said that the cost of the works exceeded its minor adaptations budget and therefore the work would need to be done via a disabled facilities grant. The landlord’s estimation of costs was significantly higher than the occupational therapist’s estimation of the cost of the works. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident was informed by the landlord that the works could not be completed via the minor adaptations process due to the cost of the required works. This was unreasonable and not in line with the landlord’s aids and adaptations policy.
From the information provided there appears to have been some confusion between the landlord’s internal departments on 23 November 2021. This led to an assumption that the request for the quote for minor adaptations was a duplicate request, relating to the disabled facilities grant, and therefore an error. The system was incorrectly updated as ‘no further action’ required. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to make proper and thorough enquiries to ensure that the request for the quote was a duplicate before updating the system, particularly given the resident’s vulnerabilities.
This Service has not been provided with a copy of the quote for the minor adaptations, so it is not possible to see how far the quote exceeded the minor adaptations budget, or whether it would have been possible for some of the work to be completed to assist the resident. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to discuss the quote with the occupational therapist to see if any amendments could be made to reduce the overall costs, allowing at least some of the adaptations to be carried out to the resident’s kitchen.
It is clear from the resident’s telephone call to the local authority on 26 November 2021 that the resident was having difficulties understanding why the landlord’s operatives had visited him on 22 and 25 November 2021 and that he had a problem with his kitchen flooring. Once the landlord was aware of this, it would have been reasonable to contact the resident. However, the landlord failed to either contact the resident to discuss his floor, or at least log an inspection request, which was unreasonable in the circumstances, given his vulnerabilities.
The local authority asked the landlord what had been quoted for and what the minor adaptations budget was. The landlord did not provide the local authority with the costs or the maximum budget and therefore missed an opportunity to revisit the possibility of adjusting the work, to reduce the costs, so that some minor adaptations could be made to the resident’s kitchen.
The landlord does not make any reference to the request for minor adaptations within its stage one response. It only refers to the original adaptations considered via the disabled facilities grant. The landlord’s stage two response fails to mention the adaptations at all. This is a significant failing on the part of the landlord.
In summary, the landlord failed to recognise the resident’s vulnerabilities and his needs and failed to consider the importance of making minor adaptations to the resident’s kitchen. The landlord missed opportunities to revisit the resident’s situation with the occupational therapist and treated the resident in an unsympathetic manner. The landlord also failed to address the resident’s concerns through the formal complaints process.

The associated complaint

The resident is vulnerable due to his physical disabilities and learning disability. This caused him considerable difficulties when attempting to communicate with the landlord during the complaints process.
Given the known vulnerability of the resident, the landlord would be expected under both the Equality Act 2010 and the Social Housing Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard, to demonstrate that it had taken steps to ensure that it understood the needs of the resident and to demonstrate that it had responded to those needs in the way it provided its services and communicated with him. Under the Equality Act 2010, the landlord also had the legal duty to make reasonable adjustments, such as in how it provided information to the resident and communication through a representative or intermediary.
The landlord has not provided a copy of its reasonable adjustments policy and this Service has been unable to locate a copy on the landlord’s website.
There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord has a vulnerability alert on its systems in relation to the resident. There is also no evidence to suggest that the landlord has considered or implemented any reasonable adjustments to assist the resident when in contact with the landlord, which is unreasonable and a clear failing on the part of the landlord. This is particularly evident throughout the resident’s formal complaint.
Following the stage one complaint, the landlord’s records show that it had attempted to contact the resident to discuss his complaint, however it had been unable to make contact. Considering that the landlord did not have a telephone number or email address for the resident, it is unclear as to how the attempt was made. It would have been reasonable, in the circumstances, for the landlord to arrange to visit the resident to discuss the complaint. This would have helped the landlord obtain a better understanding of the resident’s concerns, given that the complaint had come via this Service and not directly from the resident.
The landlord provided its response to the resident by letter, even though it was aware that he could not read. This meant that the resident had to contact this Service so that a copy of the letter could be obtained, and the content could be explained to him over the phone. When this Service contacted the landlord, it was asked to highlight on the resident’s records that he was unable to read or write. It is unclear whether the landlord complied with this request.
The landlord missed an opportunity to engage with the resident when he made contact on 21 February 2022 to escalate his complaint to stage two. The resident told the landlord that he was not available on the phone or by email, and he said that he could not read or write. This would have been an ideal opportunity to speak to the resident to establish what reasonable adjustments would be appropriate to assist him with his communication with the landlord. The landlord failed to discuss reasonable adjustments and informed the resident that it would send a letter. This is a significant failing on the landlord’s part.
The resident also confirmed his request to escalate his complaint to stage two in writing with the help of the citizens advice bureau. He clearly explained his difficulties when communicating with the landlord and raised this as part of his stage two complaint. The landlord completely failed to address the communication issues within its stage two response which was unreasonable and a significant failure. Paragraph 3.13 of the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (July 2020) clearly states that landlords should address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
In addition to this, the landlord stated in the response that it would have liked to discuss the issues directly with the resident yet it made no attempt to arrange to visit the resident in the absence of a telephone number or email address. The landlord also sent the stage two response by letter even though it was fully aware that the resident would not be able to read it.
In summary, the landlord has failed to comply with its statutory obligations to make reasonable adjustments to the way that it communicated with the resident during the complaints process. The landlord missed opportunities to put this right and treated the resident in an unfair and unsympathetic manner. The landlord also failed to address the resident’s concerns through its complaints process.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to:
1. its handling of repairs to cupboards in the resident’s bedroom and hallway.
2. its handling of a request for minor adaptations to the resident’s kitchen by an occupational therapist.
3. its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Reasons

It is not disputed that there were unreasonable delays to the completion of the work to the resident’s cupboards due to the failure of the landlord to log the initial repair. However, the offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified and did not take into consideration a further delay. The landlord also failed to provide the resident with a reasonable and open explanation for the cause of the further delay and failed to follow its responsive repairs policy.
The landlord failed to adequately communicate with the resident when considering adaptations to his kitchen via the minor adaptations process. The landlord missed opportunities to revisit and discuss the options available to the resident when the cost of the work exceeded the minor adaptations threshold. The landlord failed to recognise the importance of the requested adaptations and the positive impact they would have on the resident’s ability to use his kitchen. The landlord treated the resident in an unsympathetic manner and failed to address the resident’s concerns through its complaints process.
The landlord did not demonstrate that it understood the needs of the resident and failed to consider and implement reasonable adjustments to its complaint handling process to ensure that the resident was not at a significant disadvantage. The landlord missed opportunities to put things right and failed to address its failings through its complaints process.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks from the date of the report, the landlord must pay the resident total compensation of £1650 made up of:
1. £150 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in the landlord’s handling of repairs to cupboards in the resident’s bedroom and hallway.
2. £500 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in the landlord’s handling of a request for minor adaptations to the resident’s kitchen by an occupational therapist.
3. £1000 in recognition of significant distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures highlighted in this report.
Within four weeks from the date of the report, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures highlighted in this report.
2. Meet with the resident to discuss his needs and what additional support, consideration, or variation in its usual service provision might be appropriate in respect of his vulnerabilities.
3. Ensure that a vulnerability alert is added to the resident’s records.
4. Review the ‘do not visit alone’ (DNVA) alert and, if still applicable, inform the resident of the reasons for the alert, the impact that this may have on the services that the landlord provides and the option to appeal the decision.
5. Review the minor adaptations assessment of the resident’s kitchen with the occupational therapist and complete any achievable adaptations within the budget constraints.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord to pay the resident the compensation of £135 awarded through the complaints process.