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

Southwark Council (202209262)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209262

Southwark Council

31 January 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 property adaptations.
  2. The Ombudsman has also decided to investigate the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has lived in the property as a secure tenant since January 2019. The resident, who has disabilities, told the Ombudsman that she moved to the property because her previous property was not suitable for her needs. The resident said she told the landlord before she moved that the new property needed adapting.
  2. An occupational therapist (OT) assessment took place in November 2019. The OT said a referral would be made to install an integrated oven, but the resident would need to purchase the oven. The OT recommended additional kitchen storage, a trial of a specialist toilet, lever taps, and a door access system. They advised the resident to contact the landlord about work on the bathroom and kitchen windows. During 2020, the landlord fitted lever taps and the specialist toilet, but other work was not carried out.
  3. On 25 February 2021, the resident told the landlord the newly fitted lever taps did not meet her needs. On 17 May 2021, the landlord contacted the OT for information about outstanding adaptation work. As a result, a second OT assessment was done on 20 May 2021. This recommended work on a new kitchen design and appliances. The OT again recommended a door entry system and further discussions with the landlord on options for the windows. Following these discussions, work on the kitchen, door entry system and windows was approved by the landlord on 15 July 2021.
  4. On 25 February 2022, the resident complained about delays with the adaptations. She said it was over 3 years since she moved to the property and over 2 years since the original OT assessment. She wanted the landlord to do outstanding work and acknowledge that she had been living without basic amenities, which she said caused distress and had a detrimental effect on her health and wellbeing.
  5. In its first response on 29 April 2022, the landlord apologised for the delay in responding. It said kitchen works were due to commence but it was seeking clarification on design. It said the window work was with contractors and the resident would be contacted shortly. The landlord said concerns had been raised about the practicability of the door entry system and had been passed back to the OT for guidance. It said some issues raised by the resident were out of scope of the adaptations work and needed to be raised as repairs. The landlord apologised for the frustration caused by the delays and for not keeping the resident updated.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 9 May 2022. She said the landlord had not confirmed when the work would be done. She also said that the landlord was now saying that some work was out of scope, which had been recommended by the OT. She said she was not being listened to, and the landlord had not acknowledged the impact the delays had on her life. The resident wanted the landlord to apologise and compensate her for the delay and distress caused. Between June and August 2022, the resident chased the landlord for a response.
  7. In its final response on 25 August 2022, the landlord apologised for the delay in responding. It said kitchen works were taking longer than anticipated and finalised designs would be sent to the OT for approval and then to the resident. It said it could not give an installation date. On the windows, it said because of specifications it was having difficulties getting a contractor and could not confirm a start date. On the door entry system, it said it was reviewing requirements with the OT. It confirmed other works were part of the adaptations work and said they would be progressed. It acknowledged the impact the delays were having on the resident. It offered £140 compensation (£100 for the delay in responding to the complaint and £40 for the delay in carrying out repairs). However, it said it was unable to assess compensation for delays to adaptations as there was no set timeframe for adaptations to be completed.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman. She did not accept the landlord’s explanation for the delays. She said there was a lack of transparency, communication was not good, and she felt excluded from the process. She said the landlord was prioritising other residents over her and the amount of compensation was an insult.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In investigating this complaint, the Ombudsman has noted that there was a lengthy period between the resident moving to the property and the first OT assessment. There was then a significant period until the second OT assessment. The Ombudsman has also noted that the landlord referred to a lack of detail in the first OT assessment. While the actions of the OT may have contributed to any delays, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to investigate OT services, as this is better suited to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
  2. Because of this, the Ombudsman will only investigate the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s handling of adaptations in its role as a social landlord, including whether it acted reasonably on the recommendations made by the OT.
  3. The resident complained that the landlord prioritised other residents, who had life limiting conditions, for property adaptations. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to investigate how the landlord prioritises adaptations work or consider what it did to other resident’s properties. Instead, the Ombudsman will consider how the landlord dealt with adaptations in the resident’s property and whether it met its obligations to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of property adaptations

  1. The Regulator of Social Housing’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard 2017 requires landlords to treat residents with fairness and respect. It says landlords will provide choices, information, and communication appropriate to the diverse needs of residents.
  2. Local housing authorities have a statutory duty under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 to provide adaptations for eligible people with a disability.
  3. Government guidance on the delivery of disabled facilities grants (March 2022), sets out the timescales for delivering adaptations. It says the time taken will depend upon the urgency and complexity of the adaptations required. Urgent cases should be prioritised, but larger and more complex work will take longer to complete. The guidance says the time from approval of the adaptations to completion of the work is: 20 working days for urgent and simple adaptations; 40 working days for non-urgent and simple; 60 working days for urgent and complex; and 80 working days for non-urgent and complex. The guidance also says it is important to keep the resident updated on progress and any delays. It is the Ombudsman’s view that it would be reasonable for the landlord to follow these timescales and principles when carrying out adaptation work.
  4. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with its adaptation policy. However, it has provided a process diagram which sets out timescales for completing adaptation work following an OT assessment. The process diagram says the time from the OT assessment being referred to the Housing Adaptation Team to the completion of work should be no more than 111 working days. The diagram shows the landlord will arrange a pre-start meeting to go through the works with the surveyor, contractor, and resident. Following this meeting, work will start within 2 weeks. The landlord says the timescale from the pre-start meeting to completion of works will be 8 weeks.
  5. When carrying out any adaptations, the landlord should do work in line with the recommendations made by an OT. This is because OTs are qualified to make recommendations on what is required. The Ombudsman would not expect the landlord to carry out adaptations that had not been recommended by an OT. However, the Ombudsman accepts there may be things the landlord needs to consider when carrying out adaptations. For example, the landlord must consider whether the recommended adaptations are practical, considering the layout of the property. The landlord would not be obliged to carry out adaptation works if it would not be reasonable to do so.
  6. The resident told the landlord the property needed adaptations before she moved there in January 2019. Records show that an OT assessment was carried out in November 2019. It is unclear why there was a 10-month period between the resident moving to the property and the OT assessment being carried out. However, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to investigate any delays to the OT assessment.
  7. The November 2019 OT assessment identified a requirement to fit lever taps and install a specialist toilet. The OT also recommended limited work to the kitchen and the installation of a door entry system. Work to fit lever taps and a specialist toilet was then carried out by the landlord.
  8. When the resident told the landlord on 25 February 2021 that the lever taps did not meet her needs, records show the landlord contacted the OT about the outstanding adaptation work. It said the first OT assessment lacked specifications and asked for more information about requirements. Records show a second OT assessment was carried out on 20 May 2021. This identified the need for adaptation work in the kitchen, confirmed the need for a door entry system, and suggested work to look at options for the windows. These recommendations were approved by the landlord on 15 July 2021.
  9. The Ombudsman has found that it was reasonable for the landlord to seek further information from the OT in February 2021. However, the original OT assessment was carried out in November 2019, with the OT referral sent to the Housing Adaptations Team in January 2020. The landlord completed some works, but it is not clear why the landlord did not seek further information about the kitchen works and door entry system sooner. Based on information provided by the landlord, it was not until the resident said the lever taps were not suitable in February 2021 that the landlord contacted the OT. This was over a year after the referral was made. The Ombudsman has found there was a failure by the landlord to follow up some aspects of the OT referral and seek information sooner. This was maladministration by the landlord.
  10. On 25 February 2022, the resident complained about delays to the adaptation work and described how she had been living without basic amenities, which she said created distress and were affecting her health and wellbeing.
  11. The landlord has provided no evidence of communication with the resident between the approval of the work on 15 July 2021 and when the resident complained about delays on 25 February 2022.
  12. It is clear from the records provided that the landlord sought to progress the adaptations work after the resident complained. The Ombudsman has been provided with records from March and April 2022 showing the landlord looked for solutions on how to meet the recommendations in the second OT assessment. These records show that work on the door entry system was complex, and the OT proposal was not viable without incurring significant costs. The Ombudsman finds that it was reasonable for the landlord to seek cost effective solutions to the OT’s recommendations.
  13. Records also show the landlord had difficulty finding contractors to carry out some of the works and that in part this was linked to wider supplier issues following the COVID-19 pandemic. The Ombudsman accepts that this contributed to delays.
  14. In its stage 1 response on 29 April 2022, the landlord apologised for the lack of communication the resident had experienced, and said it was not its usual standard. The landlord acknowledged how frustrating and time consuming this was for the resident. However, when the resident escalated her complaint on 9 May 2022, there was no evidence of any meaningful engagement with the resident about the adaptations work until the landlord issued its final response on 25 August 2022.
  15. Government guidance on disabled facilities grants sets out the importance of keeping the resident updated. The Regulator of Social Housing’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard 2017 says landlords will provide information and communication appropriate to the needs of residents.
  16. The Ombudsman has found that the landlord did not meet its obligations to keep the resident informed. There was a lack of communication with the resident between the OT assessment in July 2021 and the resident’s complaint in February 2022. Other than responses to the complaint, there is limited evidence of the landlord discussing delays, options, and requirements with the resident after February 2022. The lack of communication and engagement caused unnecessary distress and amounted to maladministration.
  17. The Ombudsman has noted that there was a lack of clarity by the landlord over what was included in the OT recommendations. In its first complaint response, the landlord referred to works in the bathroom, which it said were out of scope, and told the resident she needed to raise a repair. When the resident questioned this in her escalated complaint, the landlord said in its final response that the bathroom works were in scope, apologised and offered compensation. It was reasonable for the landlord to correct its earlier position.
  18. Considering the nature of the work involved, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the adaptation work at the resident’s property would be classed as urgent and complex under the Government’s guidance. This means the resident should expect adaptations to be completed within 60 working days from when the works were approved. The landlord’s adaptations process diagram says the timescale from OT referral to completion of works should be 111 working days.
  19. In January 2024, the resident told the Ombudsman that the kitchen work was completed in May 2023, and work on the windows was done in October 2023. She said work on the door entry system had not been carried out.
  20. Based on this information, the landlord failed to meet its obligations to carry out adaptations in line with its own process or Government guidance. From the time of the approval of works on the kitchen, windows, and door entry system in July 2021, it took 22 months to complete work on the kitchen and over 2 years to complete work on the windows. Work on the door entry system remains outstanding. It should be noted that these times do not take account of the delay between the first OT assessment in November 2019 and the second OT assessment in May 2021.
  21. Because of the delays, the resident was significantly disadvantaged over a long period of time. The resident told the landlord that she was living without basic kitchen amenities as she was unable to use the existing appliances, and she was not able to live a normal life. This caused her distress and inconvenience. The Ombudsman has found that the failure to deliver adaptations within a reasonable time was a significant failure by the landlord, which amounts to maladministration.
  22. The Ombudsman has found that the landlord consistently failed to deal with adaptations in line with its obligations. There were 3 separate failures over a 3-year period:
    1. A failure by the landlord to follow aspects of the November 2019 OT referral and seek information sooner.
    2. A failure to engage with and keep the resident informed.
    3. A failure to meet its obligations to carry out adaptations in line with its own process or Government guidance.
  23. Individually, each failure was maladministration. Combined, these were serious failings that had a significant detrimental effect on the resident. The failings caused distress, inconvenience, and affected the resident’s enjoyment of her home over a significant period. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, severe maladministration is identified in cases where the Ombudsman has found a serious failure. Because of this, the landlord is ordered to compensate for its failings as follows:
    1. £300 in recognition of the landlord’s failure to follow aspects of the November 2019 OT referral and seek information sooner.
    2. £200 in recognition of the landlord’s failure to engage with and keep the resident informed.
    3. £1,300 in recognition of the landlord’s failure to meet its obligations to carry out adaptations in line with its own process or Government guidance, and the consequent loss of enjoyment by the resident of her home. This is based on £16 per week for 78 weeks. The 78 weeks is from 111 working days after the OT’s referral in May 2021 to when the resident told the Ombudsman the work was completed in May 2023. This is inclusive of the £40 previously offered.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s approach to complaints is set out in its complaints policy. This says it will acknowledge receipt of a complaint within 3 working days. The landlord says it will then provide a full response within 15 working days. Where the resident escalates their complaint, the landlord says it will provide a response within 25 working days. The Ombudsman has noted that these timescales are not consistent with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which sets out 10 working days to respond at the first stage and 20 working days at the second stage.
  2. The resident first complained on 25 February 2022. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 2 March 2022, and the response was sent on 29 April 2022. This was after the resident chased a response several times. Overall, it took the landlord 44 working days to respond. The Ombudsman has found that the delay in responding to the complaint was a service failure by the landlord.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint on 9 May 2022, and chased a response several times. The landlord did not acknowledge the escalation until 21 July 2022. This took 51 working days and was a service failure. The resident contacted the Ombudsman as she had not received a response, and on 9 August 2022, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide a response. The landlord sent its final response on 25 August 2022. This was 76 working days after the resident escalated her complaint. This was a further service failure.
  4. The Ombudsman has found that the delay in responding to the initial complaint and the escalated complaint was maladministration by the landlord. The landlord’s failure to follow its complaints policy resulted in the resident being inconvenienced as she had to spend time and took trouble chasing the landlord for a response. It is the Ombudsman’s view that these delays contributed to the delay in completing work on the adaptations. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, maladministration is identified in cases where the Ombudsman has found a significant failure. The landlord is ordered to compensate the resident an additional £150 for the failure to follow its complaints policy and the Complaint Handling Code.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of property adaptations.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, a senior manager from the landlord is ordered to personally apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report, acknowledging its failures and the way the resident was treated.
  2. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £1,950 in compensation for distress, inconvenience caused, and loss of enjoyment of her home. This is inclusive of the £140 previously offered by the landlord for delays in carrying out work and responding to the complaint. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
    1. £300 in recognition of the landlord’s failure to follow aspects of the November 2019 OT referral and seek information sooner.
    2. £200 in recognition of the landlord’s failure to engage with and keep the resident informed.
    3. £1,300 in recognition of the landlord’s failure to meet its obligations to carry out adaptations in line with its own process or Government guidance, and the consequent loss of enjoyment by the resident of her home.
    4. £150 for the failure to follow its complaints policy and the Complaint Handling Code. This is inclusive of the £100 previously offered.
  3. The landlord is ordered to review its procedures to ensure that adaptations are carried out in a timely manner.
  4. The landlord is ordered to review how it communicates and engages with residents during the adaptations process.
  5. The landlord is ordered to conduct a review of this complaint to identify how it can improve complaint handling. In carrying out a review, it should consider the delay in responding, the delay escalating the complaint, and communication with the resident while it dealt with the complaint.
  6. The landlord is ordered to contact the resident to discuss outstanding adaptations work and provide her with details on how it proposes to complete this work.
  7. The landlord is ordered to confirm to the Ombudsman that the above orders have been complied with within 6 weeks of this report.