The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Platform Housing Group Limited (202218151)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218151

Platform Housing Group Limited

1 September 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. request for permission to carry out a major adaptation to his home;
    2. associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a three-bedroom property owned by the landlord. The resident has some health conditions, which the landlord has recorded.
  2. On 28 June 2022, an occupational therapist (OT) visited the resident’s home. In an email to the landlord on 4 July 2022, the OT confirmed they would support the relocation of the resident’s downstairs bathroom to one of his upstairs bedrooms. The OT stated that thiswould help the resident manage his health conditions if his bathroom was no longer located so closely to his kitchen, although additional disabled facilities grant (DFG) funding would be needed to complete the works.
  3. The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 October 2022 and stated that it would not give the resident permission for the relocation of his downstairs bathroom. The landlord said this would negatively impact on its ability to let the resident’s property in the future due to the loss of a bedroom. It suggested an alternative option of relocating the toilet only, although it understood that the resident did not wish to consider this. The landlord stated that while it could not give permission for the adaptation via DFG funding, the resident could consider funding the adaptation himself. However, the landlord would then require the resident to reverse the works should his tenancy come to an end. This option would also not affect the current classification of the resident’s home as a three-bedroom property for rental purposes.
  4. On 21 October 2022, the resident complained to the landlord. He queried whether the landlord was complying with the Consumer Rights Act 2015. He stated that the landlord had unlawfully attached “unfair terms” to any permission it gave for his adaptation, such as its requirement of him to reverse any works at the end of his tenancy. He said he wanted the landlord to stop all attempts to place restrictions on his use of his home.
  5. On 11 November 2022, the landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident. It confirmed its position as it had set out in its letter of 14 October 2022. The landlord disagreed with the resident’s statement that it was unlawful to require him to reverse the adaptation at the end of his tenancy.
  6. The resident asked the landlord in emails dated 11 November 2022 and 15 November 2022 to escalate his complaint to stage two of its complaints procedure. He asked the landlord to give a more thorough explanation of its view that it was not breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015 by attaching unfair conditions to its permission. He said the landlord had failed in its stage one complaint response to address his allegation that the landlord was harassing him.
  7. On 20 December 2022, the landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint. It confirmed that the landlord had now agreed, subject only to further minor checks and confirmation of the DFG funding, to the relocation of the resident’s downstairs bathroom to his third bedroom. This permission came without any requirement for the resident to reverse the works at any time, which the landlord accepted should not have been attached as a condition. The landlord had also accepted that meeting the resident’s needs through a move to alternative accommodation would not be a reasonable course of action. The landlord apologised for failing to provide sufficient justification for the commercial considerations of its initial decision. It refused to engage with the resident’s legal arguments as it stated that they “were not considered coherent or relevant”. However, it acknowledged that a letter sent to the resident by the landlord’s solicitor on 11 April 2022 had unnecessarily escalated the issue.
  8. The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman to investigate. He remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of his adaptation request and of his complaint. He feels the landlord admitted to maladministration in its stage two complaint response but did not offer redress for this. The resident would also like the landlord to reimburse him £100 towards the cost of ink cartridges and paper that he had bought in order to pursue his request for a bathroom adaptation and subsequent complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident’s request for permission for this adaptation to be carried out to his home dates back to 2019. The Ombudsman issued a determination in February 2020 on a related complaint of the resident’s that had completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme (‘the Scheme’) states that we may not investigate issues that the Ombudsman has already determined. Therefore, this investigation will not cover the full history of the resident’s adaptation request but will focus on the resident’s reasons for making and escalating his complaint of October 2022 and the landlord’s responses to this.
  2. The resident has also brought the Ombudsman’s attention to his correspondence with the landlord dating back to 2020, after the Ombudsman’s original determination on this issue. While this service will take into account any additional context this evidence provides to this current complaint where appropriate, the Scheme sets out that complaints should reasonably be brought to the attention of the landlord within six months of the matter(s) arising. Therefore, this investigation will focus on the issues that the landlord has had the opportunity to respond to through its complaints process, dating back to approximately six months before the resident made his formal complaint in October 2022.
  3. The resident has stated that the landlord had not acted in accordance with equalities legislation. As set out in the relevant legislation, it is for a county court to decide if there has been discrimination or other prohibited conduct. This service cannot make a binding decision that the landlord discriminated against the resident as this would be better suited for a court to decide. The Ombudsman has the jurisdiction to consider complaints about housing management. We will therefore investigate whether the landlord treated the resident fairly and whether its actions were reasonable in the circumstances in line with the landlord’s relevant policies and procedures and industry best practice.
  4. The resident has explained in detail how the landlord’s response to his adaptation request, and its delay in giving permission for it, had negatively affected his mental health. This service sympathises with the difficult situation the resident experienced. However, it is outside our remit to establish if there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and the resident’s health. This would be a matter of legal negligence which is also better suited for a court or liability insurer to decide. The Ombudsman has considered any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result of the landlord’s handling of his adaptation request. We have also considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his health.
  5. The resident has indicated to this service that a desired outcome from the Ombudsman’s investigation would be the landlord refunding him a proportion of the rent he has paid. The resident has stated that if the landlord had given permission for his adaptation at an earlier stage, he would not have had to continue paying a three-bedroom rent liability for as long as he has been, as his home would only have had two bedrooms. He would like the landlord to reimburse the difference between a two-bedroom rent liability and a three-bedroom rent liability for the relevant time period. This service accepts the resident’s frustration on this matter, but we will not investigate this element of his complaint. This is because paragraph 42e of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider issues that concern the level of rent set by the landlord. It would be appropriate for the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) to assess the rent level set by the landlord at any given time and the Ombudsman cannot make findings on the Tribunal’s behalf. The resident may be able to contact the Tribunal if he wishes to pursue this aspect of his complaint further.

     The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for permission to carry out a major adaptation to his home

  1. The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy sets out its approach to requests from residents for minor or major adaptations to be carried out to their homes. The policy states that the landlord reserves the right to refuse permission or funding for adaptations and it sets out a non-exhaustive list of possible reasons why this might happen. Possible reasons for refusing permission include where the adaptation appears to be inappropriate for the property or unreasonable, or where the resident’s needs could be better met with a move to alternative accommodation.The policy states that the landlord, within seven calendar days of receiving an OT or doctor’s report, will write to the resident and confirm that it has received the report. The landlord will then contact the resident again within a further seven calendar days to discuss the resident’s needs and the options available. Following that, the policy states that the landlord will carry out a survey of the resident’s home to assess the nature, suitability, and cost of the required work. The landlord would then add the request to the waiting list and the policy states it may be “quite a while” before residents hear anything further.
  2. The aids and adaptations policy also states that a “feasibility assessment” will be carried out where the resident’s requirements are of a complex nature or where the proposed adaptation will have a significant impact on the resident’s home. The assessment will consider various matters, such as whether the proposed adaptation is achievable considering the layout of the property and the possible impact on the landlord’s ability to let the property in the future. The policy also states that “under the DFG scheme, the local authority will be required to seek the approval from the association to undertake the works, which will not be unreasonably withheld”.
  3. Following an OT visiting the resident’s home, the OT contacted the landlord on 4 July 2022 supporting the resident’s request for his downstairs bathroom to be relocated upstairs to the third bedroom. This service has not seen any evidence that the landlord made any attempt to contact the resident within the seven days as set out in its policy or for a significant period of time after that. An email dated 16 August 2022 from the OT to the landlord suggests that the landlord may not have been aware of the OT’s email of 4 July 2022. It is clear that the landlord was discussing the resident’s request at a high level towards the end of August 2022. However, the landlord did not write to the resident about his request until 14 October 2022, over three months after the OT had contacted it giving their support. Considering the landlord had been informed by a qualified medical professional that the resident’s property needed an adaptation in order to help the resident manage his medical conditions, the landlord failed to respond within a reasonable timescale. The landlord did not act in accordance with its aids and adaptations policy and this caused the resident distress and inconvenience. It will be appropriate for the landlord to apologise and pay the resident financial compensation as a remedy for this delay.
  4. The evidence shows that the resident attempted repeatedly to contact the landlord throughout July 2022, August 2022 and September 2022, asking that it returned his calls or arranged a meeting with him. This service has seen no evidence of any proactive communication from the landlord to the resident in the time period between June 2022 to 14 October 2022 and no significant attempt by the landlord to engage meaningfully with the resident where he made contact. It had been necessary for the resident to go to significant time and trouble to engage with the landlord and get a reasonable response to his request for a service. It will be appropriate for the landlord to apologise and make an award of compensation to recognise the time and trouble it was necessary for the resident to go to due to the landlord’s failure to adequately communicate with him.
  5. On 14 October 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident and informed him that it could only grant permission for the adaptation to go ahead on the condition that the resident reverse the works upon the end of his tenancy. The landlord repeated this position in its stage one complaint response of 11 November 2022. However, in an email dated 16 August 2022, the landlord acknowledged that where DFG funding (which is provided by the local authority) was in place, there would be no requirement for the resident to reverse the adaptation. The landlord imposed an inappropriate condition on the resident that meant he would potentially be required to spend a significant amount of his own money to reverse an adaptation that he had a medical need for. Having a medical need is not within the resident’s control, which meant the landlord’s decision was unfair. The landlord demonstrated that it had considered “reasonable adjustments” that might mean a compromise could be reached, such as suggesting that only the toilet was relocated upstairs. This would have been an appropriate approach if the landlord’s decision to attach the condition had been fair in the circumstances. However, the landlord acknowledged that it was aware that the resident would not consider this to be an acceptable resolution as it would not entirely meet his need.
  6. The landlord was entitled, as set out in its aids and adaptations policy, to refuse permission or funding for adaptations for various reasons. However, it has a legal duty to ensure those reason(s) are fair and take into account any protected characteristics, such as disability. The landlord was also entitled to consider reasonable alternative outcomes, such as a different adaptation, or offering suitable alternative accommodation to the resident. It was entitled to consider commercial issues and the best use of its housing stock. However, the landlord agreed in its stage two complaint response that its original decision had been inappropriate and there had not been a reasonable alternative available which could meet the resident’s needs. The landlord admitted it had unreasonably failed to use the discretion it had available to it. The landlord also acknowledged that it had not given sufficient weight to the fact that it would be unable to find suitable alternative accommodation to offer the resident within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord did not apologise for these particular failings in its complaint responses. The landlord’s initial decision caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience which this service will take into account when considering an appropriate remedy.
  7. The resident received a letter dated 11 April 2022 from a legal firm who were acting on behalf of the landlord. He has indicated that the contents of this letter caused him significant distress and he believed that the landlord had intended for it to intimidate and harass him. The letter reminded the resident of his legal responsibilities as a tenant. It also stated that the landlord may take legal action against the resident if he made alterations to the property without appropriate permission from the landlord. It recommended that the resident sought legal advice if he was in any doubt about his legal position. In its stage two complaint response, the landlord stated that it had been asserting its own legal rights as it felt the resident’s legal arguments did not acknowledge these rights. The landlord accepted that this letter had unnecessarily escalated the situation. The landlord was entitled to remind the resident of his responsibilities as a tenant. It was also appropriate for the landlord to let the resident know in advance what steps it may take if the resident carried out alterations to the property without its permission. The landlord could have considered if there was a more appropriate way it could have conveyed this message, but it acknowledged this in its final complaint response to the resident, which was the appropriate response to this issue.
  8. The landlord did not offer any compensation to the resident as remedy for its handling of his adaptation request. The landlord reversed its original decision in its stage two complaint response and awarded permission, which was what the resident wanted it to do. However, it failed to acknowledge the delays the resident had experienced throughout the process for various reasons or the occasions where the landlord’s communication with the resident fell short of reasonable standards. The landlord apologised only for failing to adequately explain its justifications to the resident for its original decision on the adaptation request.
  9. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published online) sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to putting things right for the resident where appropriate to do so. The guidance suggests that awards of £500 would remedy considerable maladministration from the landlord. Examples of such maladministration include a resident repeatedly having to chase responses, seek correction of mistakes, and a landlord failing over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy. This award also reflects that the resident likely experienced more distress and inconvenience as a result of his health conditions than individuals without the same health conditions may have experienced in the same circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints procedure states that the landlord will respond to complaints at stage one of the procedure within 10 working days of receiving it. It aims to respond to complaints at stage two of the procedure within 15 working days. Where complaints are complex and the landlord requires more time to adequately respond, the policy states that it will discuss this with the resident and keep in regular contact thereafter. The landlord responded to the resident’s formal complaint of 21 October 2022 after 15 working days, which was outside of the timeframe set out in its procedure. This service has not seen evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to discuss its requirement for more time. The landlord’s complaint acknowledgement to the resident stated it would issue a stage one response by 28 November 2022, which would have been significantly longer than 10 working days since the resident made the complaint. The landlord should ensure it issues complaint responses in accordance with its published procedure and when it is unable to do so, it explains the reasons for the delay and informs the resident of an amended response time. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident after 25 working days, however it did contact the resident on 15 December 2022 to let him know it needed further time to adequately respond to the issues he had raised. The landlord handled the complaint at stage two appropriately and in line with its complaints procedure.
  2. The resident had stated his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s refusal to engage with the legal arguments that he had submitted as part of his complaint. He told this service that he was offended when the landlord did not respond to these arguments in its stage two complaint response and instead said they were “not considered coherent or relevant”. It is likely that many of the landlord’s members of staff, including those who work in housing management, adaptations, and complaint handling, are not legally trained or qualified as this would not be a requirement for their roles. Therefore, they may not be in a position to respond to the resident’s legal arguments in detail. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain its position clearly to the resident and set out the reasons why it would not agree to his adaptations request. However, it was not obliged to respond to each of the resident’s complex legal arguments. That may have been better suited for a legal process via the landlord’s legal team rather than the complaints process.
  3. However, it is understandable that the landlord’s comment offended the resident and this service takes the view that the landlord should have considered a more appropriate way to state its position on this matter. It could have suggested that the resident sought legal advice or it could have provided the contact details of its legal team so that the resident could contact them directly. The landlord could also have signposted the resident to organisations such as Shelter or Citizens’ Advice for legal assistance. Much of the resident’s legal argument focused on his interpretation of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. As this legislation only applies to tenancies that were signed on or after 1 October 2015, and the resident’s tenancy began in 2006, it would also have been reasonable for the landlord to have explained in its complaint response that this legislation did not apply instead of using the phrasing it chose. The landlord should apologise to the resident for any offence it caused by referring to his arguments in this way.
  4. This service accepts that the landlord made an inappropriate decision initially regarding the adaptation and this caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident as addressed earlier in this report. However, this service takes the view that the landlord’s complaints procedure is the appropriate forum for the resident to challenge the landlord’s decisions. The two stage complaints process gave the landlord adequate opportunity to listen to the resident’s concerns, assess his arguments, and respond accordingly. An appropriate response could then reasonably include the landlord changing its original position on the complaint issue(s). The landlord changing its decision at stage two of the process demonstrated its complaints procedure working as it is intended to do. It would be inappropriate and unfair for the Ombudsman to discourage landlords from reversing inappropriate decisions during its complaints process by suggesting that doing so is a form of maladministration. However, as explained above, the landlord should have offered compensation to the resident for making an incorrect decision initially and because the landlord did not offer compensation through its complaints process (as well as its other errors), the Ombudsman finds there has been maladministration in its complaint handling.
  5. The resident has indicated to this service that he would like the landlord to reimburse him £100 to contribute towards the costs of the printer ink cartridges and paper that he had bought in order to pursue his adaptation request and complaint. This service expects that there may be some costs involved in making a service request or complaint, such as making phone calls or sending letters, and we would not award compensation for this automatically. Therefore, we would not order the landlord to pay the resident’s printer ink costs in full. However, this service has taken into account that the resident may have incurred some additional printing costs as a result of the landlord’s errors in communication and this has been considered as part of the overall compensation award for distress and inconvenience, as set out above.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for permission to carry out a major adaptation to his home.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord must pay £500 in financial compensation to the resident. This amount is to recognise the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of the landlord’s handling of his adaptation request and complaint. It also recognises the time and trouble it was necessary for the resident to go to and the specific impact this had on him considering his personal circumstances.
  2. The landlord must apologise to the resident for the failures in its handling of his request for permission to carry out a major adaptation to his home, including delays and poor communication. It must acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the maladministration identified in this report.
  3. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.