Sovereign Housing Association Limited (202203493)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203493

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

22 November 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 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for disability adaptations to her bath recommended by her occupational therapist (OT).
1. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a house with a bathroom that has a shower located over the bathtub. She has disabilities which impact her mobility, and she has an autistic daughter, of which the landlord is aware.
An OT conducted an assessment of the resident’s property’s suitability for her needs on 26 October 2021. The assessment report recommended that a level access shower be installed at the property, as a result of her mobility conditions making it difficult for her to use the over-bath shower there, which was due to the pain and fatigue that this caused her. It was found that the resident would need to apply for a disabled facilities grant (DFG) to fund this adaptation, for which the approval time was up to 12 months. The OT therefore also recommended the installation of an adapted bath, which was wider in standing and had a lower level entry that the existing bath, to help her bathe in the meantime while awaiting the DFG for her shower adaptation.
The landlord’s records showed that it received the OT’s request for the resident’s level access shower on 1 December 2021, and that it and the OT then liaised about obtaining approval and funding for this. It went on to communicate internally on 8 December 2021 that it approved the request that would have to be funded by a DFG, but that it was awaiting authorisation to inform the OT of this. The landlord subsequently confirmed to the OT that it had approved the request for the shower, but that the OT would have to apply for a DFG for this, on 6 January 2022. The OT then requested a larger adapted bath for the resident from it in the meantime on 12 January 2022.
The resident previously made a stage one complaint on 9 December 2021, however, about the landlord’s delays in installing the adapted bath in the property, reporting that her bath had broken over six months earlier and seeking for this to be removed and for the level access shower to be fitted. She highlighted the time and trouble that she had spent pursuing the complaint, citing the lack of communication from it, and its poor complaint handling. The resident also attributed the stress of the landlord failing to install the adapted bath as having impacted her mental health and wellbeing since the OT’s assessment for this and the level access shower in October 2021.
The landlord did not issue a stage one complaint response, for which it updated her on 10 December 2021 and 6 January 2022 and measured her bath on 6 April 2022, before the resident requested that her complaint be escalated to the final stage of its complaints procedure on 6 April 2022. She complained that the measurements for the bath had already been taken and sent to it through the OT, and that it had previously told her that the adapted bath was in stock and awaiting collection, before it told her that this was incorrect on that date. The resident added that the landlord had not responded to her stage one complaint, and that her and her daughter’s disabilities and mental health were being affected by the resident’s need for help to bathe regularly, for which it apologised on the same day but she declined its offer of its housing team’s support.
The landlord issued its final stage complaint response on 12 May 2022, apologising for the delays in its response as the case reviewer was away on annual leave. It highlighted that, as it had now booked for the resident’s adapted bath to be fitted on 20 May 2022, it would look to close the complaint. The adapted bath was then re-measured for on 20 May 2022, ordered on 23 May 2022, and installed on 13 June 2022, with no further works being identified by the landlord as having been required to this.
The landlord instead assessed the previous bath as having not been damaged or broken, but only needing to be replaced for the disability adaptations recommended by the OT. The OT then continued to liaise with it and the resident about the level access shower in the meantime and subsequently, for which it confirmed on 21 October 2022 that the DFG had been completed.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s outcome to her complaint, complaining to this Service about it poorly handling her complaint and her requested adaptations to her bathroom that were recommended by her OT. This was as well as having to bathe elsewhere due to the condition of her bath, its miscommunication, and a lack of customer service from it. The resident sought an explanation as to why the landlord had taken so long to install the adapted bathtub, and raised further concerns it had not considered her vulnerabilities throughout her complaint. She also requested that her bathroom radiator be moved to allow her to keep her bathroom cupboard for the larger adapted bath, and that the bathroom’s heated towel rail be changed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has described how the landlord’s handling of her requests for adaptations to her bath have affected her and her daughter’s health and wellbeing. While of concern, under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service cannot determine liability or award damages for the impact on health and wellbeing in the way that the courts or an insurer might because we do not have the authority or expertise to do so. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident and her daughter.
The resident has also asked for the landlord to move her bathroom radiator and change the heated towel rail, due to having limited storage space for her bathroom cupboard because of the larger adapted bath. This is outside the scope of this investigation, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, because we may not consider complaints which have not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure yet, and there is no evidence that a complaint about this has done so. It is recommended below, however, for the landlord to contact the resident regarding this matter to progress this further.

Policies and procedures

In accordance with the landlord’s website regarding aids and adaptations, residents can request adaptations to their properties either in writing, in person or through an OT. For major adaptations, such as level access showers, these must be applied for to be funded through a DFG from the local authority, for which work should be completed within 12 months of the grant being approved. For minor adaptations, an OT will need to request these, but the landlord is responsible for the cost and fitting of the adaptations within up to six months.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that, upon receiving a stage one complaint, it aims to respond within ten working days. If this is not possible, it may take up to a further ten working days to respond to a stage one complaint. When escalated to the final stage of its complaints procedure, the landlord aims to respond within 20 working days. Where this is not possible, it aims to respond within a further 30 days. Where delays have occurred, the landlord may offer residents a small gesture of goodwill, and it will consider how much they have been impacted, how long it has taken to put things right, and if there has been any significant distress caused.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for disability adaptations to her bath recommended by her OT

The landlord was responsible for making the adaptations recommended to the resident’s bath following the OT’s assessment of this for her needs on 26 October 2021, as its website made it responsible the cost and fitting of these within six months as minor adaptations. It was therefore expected by the website to act in line with the recommendations made by the OT by, upon receiving such a report for adaptations, contacting both the resident and the OT to arrange the assessment of the property for, the ordering and the installation of the adapted bath within six months.
This is to ensure that the adaptations were suitably installed to meet the needs of the resident as specified by the OT in a timely manner, for which the landlord was also expected by its website to help to progress the DFG so that work to her level access shower was completed within 12 months of the DFG being approved. Therefore, while it was appropriate that it responded to the OT’s report by approving the adaptation works for a level access shower, it had unexplained delays in communicating this to the OT. The landlord received the report on 1 December 2021, confirming its approval on 6 January 2022 of the level access shower. It also confirmed on the same day that, as it was unable to cover the cost of this, the OT must apply for a DFG to do so, in accordance with its website’s requirements for such major adaptations.
This was nevertheless preceded by the landlord’s internal confirmation of its approval of the level access shower and the OT’s need to apply for a DFG to fund this on 8 December 2021. Its subsequent wait for authorisation to inform the OT of this resulted in a delay of almost one month in progressing the resident’s case until 6 January 2022. This would have directly impacted her, as she struggled to bathe given her mobility condition, of which the OT had made the landlord aware since 1 December 2021.
While the landlord updated the resident on the progress of her case on 10 December 2021 and 6 January 2022, it would have been more appropriate for it to have responded to the level access shower request within a quicker timeframe, such as ten working days from the request. This is especially because it was aware of the resident’s difficulty bathing, and that DFG works could take up to 12 months to complete after the DFG was approved. However, this was not forthcoming in this case, which was unreasonable given the circumstances.
Following the OT’s subsequent request of 12 January 2022 to install an adapted bath within the property to help the resident bathe in the meantime, it appropriately agreed for the works to take place as a minor adaptation, for which its website had a six-month timeframe for completion. While it appropriately completed the works within this timeframe on 13 June 2022, it there were communication failures on its part in respect of this, and several unexplained delays.
Following the request for the adapted bath to the landlord on 12 January 2022, it would have been reasonable to have expected it to have contacted the resident to book any necessary works, as well as to have confirmed an estimated completion date for the works, keeping all parties updated accordingly until the work was completed.
It is therefore concerning that there is no evidence of further communication to the resident until the landlord attended the property on 6 April 2022, to measure for the new adapted bath fitting. As a result of the lack of communication, she was expecting her new bath to be fitted on that date, which she complained about in her final stage complaint to it. The resident’s concerns were understandable, especially given the delays and lack of communication from the landlord in this case, and she complained that these had affected her and her daughter due to the resident’s need for help to bathe regularly and their disabilities, of which it was aware.
Therefore, it would have been reasonable to have expected the landlord to ensure that it had clearly booked the adapted bath installation appointments in advance, and to have followed up with the resident to ensure that this was appropriate, to show that it had considered any disabilities or vulnerabilities of the household. However, it failed to do so in this case, resulting in distress and inconvenience to the resident.
Although the landlord contacted the resident on 6 April 2022, offering an apology for the delays in its communication and offering her its housing team’s support, which she declined, it did not appropriately explain the cause of the delays in communicating the approval of the level access shower, or why it had not attended to fit her adapted bath earlier. This was unreasonable, especially given her and her daughter’s vulnerabilities, which impacted them as a result of her difficulty to bathe in her current bathtub. Therefore, while it was appropriate that the landlord apologised for its delays in its final stage complaint response on 12 May 2022, it had not appropriately addressed resident’s concerns over the adaptation delays, instead stating that the bath would be fitted on 20 May 2022.
However, this was not the case, with the landlord’s records showing that the resident’s old bath was remeasured on 20 May 2022, while the new adapted bath, due to the OT’s recommendations, had to be specially ordered and would require additional parts before this was ready to be installed. Its records showed that the bath was confirmed as ordered on 23 May 2022. It is concerning that this therefore suggests that the resident continued to have difficulty bathing in her bathroom until 13 June 2022 when all of the works to install her adapted bath were completed. This also further highlights that the landlord’s communication failings were detrimental to the landlord/tenant relationship in this case.
Where failings have been identified, this Service’s role is to consider whether the landlord has acted appropriately by offering redress and, if so, if this has put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. This is in accordance with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. It is therefore of concern that the landlord offered no compensation or other remedies to the resident for its delays and lack of communication, and offered no appropriate explanation or investigation before closing her complaint with works still outstanding. This was therefore a further failure by the landlord, as this was contrary to its complaints policy.
As such, the landlord has been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs in respect of aids and adaptations to ensure that all adaptation requests are responded to in a timely manner to prevent further delays in the future. It has also been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs regarding compensation to ensure that all complaints involving vulnerable residents reporting difficulties are appropriately considered for compensation following delays and communication issues. This should be in line and proportionate to their circumstances and this Service’s remedies guidance.
The landlord’s delays in this case, and its lack of communication with the resident, resulted in multiple failures in its handling of the matter, particularly given the resident’s and her daughter’s vulnerabilities. It has therefore been ordered below to pay her £400 compensation in recognition of these failures. This has been calculated using this Service’s remedies guidance, which recommends payments in this range for failures that have adversely affected the resident, which the landlord has either not acknowledged and made no attempt to put right or its attempts to do so did not address the detriment caused to her and were not proportionate.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

This Service’s complaint handling code and the landlord’s complaints policy require it to follow a two-stage complaints procedure. Upon receiving a stage one complaint, it is expected to issue a stage one complaint response within ten working days. Where this is not possible, the landlord is expected to communicate any delays to the resident, and respond no later than a further ten working days. Where complaints are escalated, it is expected to issue a final stage complaint response within 20 working days.
Therefore, the resident’s stage one complaint of 9 December 2021 was followed by significant unexplained delays in issuing a response, before she asked to escalate the complaint on 6 April 2022. It was contrary to its complaints policy, and this Service’s complaint handling code that it did not issue her with a stage one complaint response prior to her requesting that her complaint be escalated, for which the code first requires the completion of stage one.
This resulted in the resident only being issued with a final stage complaint response on 12 May 2022. Although it responded to her almost within its complaints policy’s 20-working-day timescale at this stage, being three working days late, it failed to explain its delay in responding to her complaints, as well as unreasonably closing the complaint on the same day while works remained uncompleted.
Although it was appropriate that the landlord offered an apology for its delays in its final stage complaint response, it did not respond appropriately to the resident’s escalation request on 6 April 2022. This is because it did not respond to her stage one complaint or offer her any compensation that was proportionate to the impact that this had on her.
This would have resulted in the resident experiencing unnecessary distress, as well as time and trouble spent pursuing the complaint. It would therefore have been reasonable, given the complaint handling failures identified above, for the landlord to have looked to compensate her in line with its complaints policy and this Service’s remedies guidance. However, it is of concern that no compensation was offered to the resident for this, as well as no clear indication of further communication with her about her complaint moving forward.
The landlord’s failures to adhere to its complaints policy and this Service’s complaint handling code mean that it has therefore been ordered below to carry out a case review. This is to show what it has learnt from the outcome of this complaint, and how it proposes to prevent these failings from occurring again in the future.
As a result, the landlord has additionally been ordered below to pay the resident a further £200 compensation in light of its complaint handling failures. This has been calculated using this Service’s remedies guidance, which recommends payments from £100 for such failures that have adversely affected the resident, for which the landlord did not address the detriment caused and made no attempt to put things right. It has also recommended below to review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its complaints policy and our complaint handling code.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s requests for disability adaptations to her bath recommended by her OT.
2. The associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident a total of £600 compensation within four weeks. This is broken down as follows:
  1. £400 for the failures identified in respect of its handling of the resident’s requests for adaptations to her bath recommended by her occupational therapist.
  2. £200 in respect of its complaint handling failures identified in this case.
2. Carry out a case review within four weeks in respect of the resident’s complaint, outline in a report its learning from this case, and specify how it proposes to prevent its failures in the case from occurring again. A copy of this report is to be sent to the resident and to this Service.
It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Contact the resident to respond to her reports regarding her bathroom radiator and heated towel rail.
1. Review its staff’s training needs in relation to aids and adaptations to ensure that all such requests are dealt with in a timely manner, and that these are appropriately followed in relation to residents’ disabilities/vulnerabilities.
2. Review its staff’s training needs regarding compensation to ensure that all complaints involving vulnerable residents reporting difficulties are appropriately considered for compensation following delays and communication issues. This should include consideration of this Service’s remedies guidance at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/corporate-information/policies/dispute-resolution/policy-on-remedies/.
3. Review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its complaints policy, and this Service’s complaint handling code at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/complaint-handling-code/, to ensure that these are followed so that timely and appropriate responses are issued at both stages of its complaints procedure in every case.
The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders, and whether it will follow the above recommendations.