Two Rivers Housing (202209686)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209686

Two Rivers Housing

5 December 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of major adaptations to the property;
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The residents are assured tenants and their tenancy began on 2 March 2020. The property is a 4 bedroom, semi-detached house. The family’s 2 children both have complex additional needs. The eldest has vulnerabilities including life limiting muscular dystrophy, and autism. His mother (the lead complainant) cares for him full-time. For readability, this report refers to her as the resident throughout.
The tenancy agreement shows the resident’s weekly rent was £98.54 when the tenancy began. More recent statements show by it had increased to £102.72 and £106.92 by April 2021 and March 2022 respectively. Based on this information, the Ombudsman calculated her average weekly and monthly rent figures as £102.73 and £440.22 over this period.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. It aims to respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1. At stage 2, it aims to respond within 20 working days.

Summary of events

In September 2018 an occupational therapist (OT) recommended major adaptations to the family’s home. This was to ensure it met their eldest son’s needs. They included: widened doors (minimum 900mm), corridors and passageways to allow wheelchair access, level access door thresholds throughout and an external handrail. There was no reference to allocated parking or dropped kerbs. By 2019 it was decided the family’s home could not accommodate the OT’s recommendations.
In November 2019, the landlord told the OT it had found an alternative property (the property). It asked the OT for a joint inspection to confirm its suitability. The OT said this was unnecessary providing their original recommendations were used and the landlord’s architect was satisfied. Ultimately, the landlord moved the family to the property through its management transfer process. This was on the basis the property could be extended and adapted with the family in situ.
In September 2020 the OT asked the landlord for the architect’s final plans. Around the same time, the landlord’s surveyor was in contact with another OT about the project. During this correspondence, the surveyor said they had not dealt with large scale adaptions before. No information was seen to show the OT subsequently raised any objections to the landlord’s plans.
On 24 November 2020, the landlord and its appointed contractor held a pre-works meeting with the family. The minutes show the grant funded extension/adaptation works were expected to take around 6 weeks. Project management would be undertaken by the contractor. They also show the resident was notified that bedroom floor coverings were the family’s responsibility.
In early December 2020, the landlord asked the contractor for various information including construction and site plans, along with details of its working and safety practices. A notification document from around this time shows the project involved creating a ground-floor bedroom and wet room. The information seen indicates the project began around 10 December 2020.
The parties agree there were significant problems with the build. During its later correspondence with the resident, in November 2022, the landlord described the situation as a “total system failure”. On that basis, rather than detailing every issue, the following summary will address the key events.
On 14 December 2020 the landlord updated its contractor following a site visit. It said there was no safety fencing, site toilet, skip or signage. Further, muddy pathways were trailing dirt through the property and the resident was not being kept updated.
In a similar update on 22 February 2021, the landlord asked the contractor to address various issues highlighted during a recent site inspection. They included: site left unsecured, operatives not wearing safety boots, power tools and ladders missing safety testing information and pipework not capped as agreed. The landlord said its correspondence was a “fair warning”.
In internal correspondence on 2 March 2021, the landlord said the contractor had not revised its construction plan or provided an estimated completion date. Further, there were concerns about its level of oversight and safety certification had not been received. However, having checked on the contractor, “building control” were aware of the key project milestones. The landlord also said the family’s frustration was evident during every site visit.
The next day, the landlord told the contractor its vulnerable residents were living in stressful conditions. As a result, as well as addressing other issues, the contractor should share its plans for “ramping up labour and works”. Within days, the contractor submitted a revised construction programme. This was around 12 weeks into the build.
The landlord’s correspondence confirms the following events occurred in mid-late March 2021:
1. The contractor cancelled a joint site meeting.
2. The landlord told the contractor it had ordered the wrong doors and windows. It was primarily concerned the fitted doors were not level access.
3. The landlord told the resident its contractor was aware the front door was incorrectly fitted and correct glazing had now been ordered. Further, on completion, an OT would inspect the property and sign-off the works. Its correspondence also shows pathways needed levelling correctly.
4. A mobility specialist told the landlord its hoist installation works were complete. However, it reported a loft hatch had been cut out where a ceiling rail was running.
In April 2021 the landlord reported multiple snagging issues to the contractor. They included, uneven paving, poor plaster finish, a damaged ceiling and missing decoration. Its correspondence shows the front porch needed to be removed. The OT subsequently inspected the property at the landlord’s request. The landlord’s related correspondence shows that, following this inspection, remedial works were needed to 3 external doorways and a basin needed to be moved.
The landlord exchanged emails with the contractor between 9 and 10 June 2021. It said it was disappointed that works were outstanding “after such a ridiculous length of time”. Given its poor service to the resident, the landlord said it would halt the contractor’s payment. Further, if works were not complete within 5 days, it would instruct other operatives to complete them and “contra” charge the contractor. The contractor agreed to issue an apology and a small amount of compensation. It said it had already gifted the resident some materials for a patio.
In an email update on 15 June 2021, the resident told the landlord the contractor had completed all works apart from the shower. The same email also mentioned various unresolved snagging issues including a door threshold and external light.
The landlord’s contractor audit form, dated 7 July 2021, shows snagging works were still outstanding the following month. It said the quality of the contractor’s completed works were “poor throughout”. Further, pathways that were incorrectly laid had to be “ripped out and started again”. In addition, every site meeting had identified quality issues relating to the contractor.
On 2 August 2021, the landlord told the contractor the only outstanding issue was low water pressure to the wet room shower. However, the resident was unhappy with marks left on non-slip flooring in the wet room. The contractor subsequently disputed there was a pressure issue. The landlord replied the floor needed to be cleaned before it would release the contractor’s payment.
In September 2021, a neighbour reported fire doors installed during the build were banging and shaking their house when they were closed.
On 8 October 2021 the landlord told the contractor that installing a shower pump had not improved the water pressure (from the information seen, the contractor suggested this measure in June 2021). As a result, a more powerful electric shower likely needed to be installed.
In late November 2021, the resident reported the kitchen was draughty and its door frame was “very wobbly”. Within days, the landlord told the OT that the resident’s son was unable to use the fire doors following the installation of (noise limiting) overhead closers. It asked the OT to help specify an alternative solution. In late December 2021, the landlord told the contractor pooling water on external pathways was having a detrimental effect on the property. Further, frozen water would likely present a serious health and safety risk.
The landlord updated the OT in March 2022. They said the pooling water had been resolved. Further, after fitting a more powerful electric shower proved unsuccessful, the landlord had agreed to install a mixer shower. The landlord’s prior correspondence, between December 2021 and February 2022, suggests the contractor ultimately installed a drain after drilling holes in the path failed to remove the pooling water.
In an update to the landlord on 18 May 2022, the OT relayed their findings from a recent visit. They said the resident’s son was losing strength and an equipment trial at the property had highlighted access issues. Specifically, a path was incomplete and a doorway lacked turning space for a powered chair. In addition, there was no allocated parking or dropped kerb. Overall, the OT was concerned the project had failed to meet the recommendations from 2018.
The Ombudsman has seen a remedial works survey report dated 16 June 2022. It said the survey was undertaken to highlight issues arising from poor design and workmanship relating to the adaptations project. The report evidenced multiple issues with the build. The main points were:
1. Rather than supplying new doors and frames, the contractor seemingly adapted the frames originally supplied. When examined, doors to the rear garden had insufficient clearance and could present a fire hazard. They should be replaced with purpose built accessible frames.
2. The existing wet room “former” (assumed a type of shower tray) was too narrow and there was no shower curtain. The shower and a radiator should be relocated so a larger former could be fitted. Mains pressure to the shower should be checked. Elsewhere, a loft hatch was inaccessible due to the hoist mechanism.
3. The bedroom lacked privacy since there was no wall between the bedroom and the kitchen door. A section of the wall should be removed and a new partition created. Outside, a disabled parking bay was recommended.
4. Various items were either finished contrary to best practice, unfinished or damaged. For example, skirting boards were missing, kitchen flooring was damaged, doorways were undecorated and door furniture was missing. External concreting works appeared to have breached the property’s damp proof course and should be checked
5. “The design process was undertaken by a person with insufficient expertise to provide the best solution for (the resident)”. Further the project management process was inadequately overseen. The contractor was paid before the works were signed-off as satisfactory.
In an email to various parties on 25 July 2022, the resident said a move was discussed during a recent meeting. However, providing it could be adapted to meet their son’s needs, the family preferred to stay at the property. Further, any move should be arranged through the landlord’s management transfer process. She also said: the uncertainty should be removed as soon as possible, the stress had been “catastrophic” and daily life was “unbearable at times”. Further, the outcome would have been different if things were done properly.
The resident emailed her concerns to the Ombudsman on 5 August 2022. Three days later, she forwarded her complaint to the landlord. Her correspondence shows she also approached a local MP. It referenced several previous moves, delays and a lack of communication by the landlord from around 2018 onwards. The key points were:
1. The build was “a living nightmare”. There were numerous issues including a flood caused by uncapped pipework, incorrect glazing installed and operatives failing to turn up. When the landlord’s surveyor was sick for several weeks, the resident had to raise issues directly with the contractor.
2. A recent site visit decided the build’s design and layout did not meet the family’s immediate or future needs. Nevertheless, the landlord’s surveyor did not appear “overly concerned”. They agreed to correct some works but blamed various other parties including the family. There was no contact from the surveyor since then.
3. In the meantime, issues were outstanding and the family were unable to obtain grant funding for further adaptations. This was because it was uncertain whether they needed to move again. The “constant upheaval” was having a detrimental effect on both children.
4. The family’s time with their eldest was “extremely precious”. Nevertheless, his needs had not been met for the last 6 years. This was discrimination by the landlord. Ongoing housing issues had worsened his condition.
5. Each move involved a financial cost to the family. Money spent on removals, adaptations, and decorations had been wasted. There had been no apology from the landlord. The resident hoped her complaint would improve the family’s situation.
On 22 August 2022 the landlord issued a stage 1 response. This was 10 working days after the resident forwarded her complaint. It acknowledged the contractor’s “unacceptable” works and apologised. It also said it was sorry the resident felt she had not received an apology. The wording suggests the remedial works survey and previous email interactions with the OT were included with the response. The key points were:
1. The layout of the build was agreed by the resident and the OT. The project was delivered as promised and there was ample consultation prior to the works. The landlord’s adaptations role was passive in that it followed recommendations from the OT and architect.
2. The resident “agreed” she did not want the side and rear doors changing and the OT had not identified a fire risk. During a previous inspection, thresholds were found to be filled with dirt and debris. A damaged rubber seal was also identified. The newly formed bedroom was being used to dry laundry.
3. The landlord had agreed to make good poor plasterwork, but it did not carry out redecoration works. The resident previously agreed to address unfinished doorways and the contractor provided paint as a goodwill gesture. Flooring in all rooms was a resident responsibility.
4. The landlord did not intend for the family to move. It would continue to finish the outstanding works in line with the OT’s recommendations. Some issues from the remedial survey, such as missing skirting, would also be addressed. Any adaptions the resident felt were outstanding should be referred to the OT.
5. The landlord had done all it could to follow instructions from the relevant parties. Based on the resident’s experience, it had ceased working with the contractor. It appreciated this would not negate the resident’s experience.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint the next day. Her email detailed 19 separate build issues including safety and access problems. She said, unless the landlord was willing to pay for further adaptation works, the family would have to move since their needs were not met and no additional funding was available. She also said: the landlord’s architect and contractor were inadequate, there was no OT or building control sign off, and public funds had been misused.
The landlord responded to the resident’s escalation points at stage 1 on 26 August 2022. It disputed her conclusions about the architect and public funds. It said motorised wheelchair access was not a requirement in the OT’s original instructions. Further, building control sign off would be sought on final completion and orders had been raised for the outstanding works. It confirmed the resident could still request a review if she remained unhappy. The resident made a further escalation request on 1 September 2022. Her new points were:
1. The project was based on recommendations from 2018 (the email wording suggests the 2018 recommendations were attached). The landlord should have requested new recommendations from the OT.
2. The landlord said it did not intend to carry out extensive further works or rectify the access issues. This was contrary to the OT recommendations and the landlord was failing to make reasonable adjustments. Common sense dictated a disabled person would need access to their home.
3. Works were still outstanding despite recent repairs by the landlord’s own operatives. Overall, the property was still unsuitable after 22 months. This was unacceptable given the project was intended to create a suitable home for the family.
The landlord issued a stage 2 acknowledgement on 2 September 2022. It said the complaint had been allocated to a member of the landlord’s senior leadership team. Further, they would respond by 30 September 2022. The landlord subsequently told the contractor it had fitted the wrong size shower tray (images seen by the Ombudsman suggest the tray was located under the non-slip flooring). It asked if the contractor wanted to rectify the issue or receive an invoice for the remedial works.
The landlord completed a joint inspection with the OT on 27 September 2022. In a follow up email to the landlord later that day, the OT said the current property did not meet the family’s needs as outlined in the OT recommendations. As a result, the family wanted to move through a management transfer. Prior correspondence between the parties shows access issues and bedroom privacy were key concerns for the OT.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 30 September 2022. This was 19 working days after the resident’s second escalation request. The landlord said its stage 1 response failed to address the resident’s fundamental complaint point. It acknowledged significant failings and upheld the resident’s complaint. It said recent internal restructuring would ensure the landlord retained better control of major adaptations in future. Nevertheless, the landlord failed to offer the resident any compensation. The main points were:
1. The OT and a representative from the local authority had both advised the adaptations were not undertaken as required and did not meet expected standards. Further, works were still outstanding.
2. Whilst some issues were beyond the landlord’s control, most were caused by inconsistent and poor project management. The recent visit confirmed numerous repairs were required.
3. The landlord’s senior adaptations leader would undertake a full survey with the architect, before arranging to complete all outstanding works. Since discussions were ongoing with various stakeholders, the landlord could not confirm whether a move was required at this point.
The landlord circulated its stage 2 findings in an internal email the same day. It highlighted insufficient liaison with the OT and local authority. It referred to the landlord’s stage 1 response as “a typical (landlord) defensive one”. It said, as part of “ongoing chats about the future of adaptations”, the landlord should focus on control of its biggest projects, the skill sets required and stakeholder involvement. With regards to the resident’s specific complaint, it said:
1. The landlord should fund a remedial works report by the architect. This would allow the landlord to identify and address outstanding issues accordingly. If it was unable to invoice the contractor, the landlord would fund these works.
2. The architect should investigate whether access to the front of the property could be improved. If further adaptation was impossible, the landlord would consider a move.
3. The family’s faith in the landlord needed to be restored. The landlord should apply this approach to other stakeholders including the OT.
The landlord’s correspondence shows the following events occurred between 3 and 24 October 2022:
1. The resident acknowledged the landlord’s apology. She stressed her complaint should not be closed without an action plan. Further, the plan should include a repair timescale.
2. The landlord replied that all issues identified in the architect’s report would be rectified and works were ongoing. It said the OT had confirmed the property was unsuitable in the long-term, so no additional adaptation works were planned. Still, the landlord would support the family and it was committed to working with all parties. It also said the local authority had confirmed it would support grant funding for an alternative property.
3. The resident responded there had been no works or communication following the landlord’s recent visit. She emphasised the family needed to know whether they were going to move so they could plan accordingly. Her email shows a move would involve a financial impact on the family.
4. Following a number of chasers from the resident, the landlord replied on 18 October 2022. It said moving the resident was “not straightforward…very costly, and could take a significant amount of time”. On that basis, its adaptations leader would survey the property on completion of the outstanding works. This was with a view to meeting the family’s needs in their current home.
5. After requesting a further escalation, the resident expressed concern that another survey was a waste of time unless the landlord was prepared to complete additional major works. She said time was against the family.
6. The landlord told the contractor its remedial works to the shower were “badly executed”. It referenced broken tiles, and an uneven tray that was “flexing”. It said the family lacked washing facilities for their disabled son. Its related internal correspondence said the contractor had fallen “woefully short of even the most basic construction standards”.
7. The parties exchanged emailed emails. The resident reported a recent roof leak in the extension had been rectified by the landlord’s operatives. She said the landlord was in the process of arranging related repairs, including stain blocking and redecoration works. Further, the leak occurred because the contractor failed to mortar a section of the roof. She reiterated the family did not want to move.
In internal correspondence on 7 November 2022, the landlord said various works were now complete. Further, building control had been asked to complete a final inspection with a view to signing-off the build. This was around 23 months after the build began.
Two days later, the landlord updated the resident following a discussion with the OT. It said the property was still unsuitable in the long-term because the kitchen door was not wide enough. Further, this should have been picked up at the design stage by all involved. Since the OT felt the property was unlikely to ever meet the family’s needs, even with more works, the landlord had no option but to begin searching for another property. The main points were:
1. The resident should speak to the OT for guidance on suitable properties. In the meantime, the landlord’s local representative would get in touch about the moving process. The landlord was also liaising with its new build team.
2. If the landlord found a suitable property, major adaptations would again be completed with the family in situ. To expedite the move, the resident should consider other social housing providers in the area.
3. The landlord was sorry the family’s needs had not been met.
The parties exchanged further emails over the next few days. The resident highlighted inconsistency in the landlord’s approach to moving. She said it was unfair to expect the family to search for properties and the landlord should put things right. Further, it should compensate the family and cover their moving costs. She reiterated her disability discrimination concerns and said the family’s treatment was “disgusting”.
The landlord replied the OT’s decision (to move the family) was contrary to its preference, which had remained consistent. Though it was sympathetic to the resident’s situation, the landlord said it was not solely responsible for the project’s failure because the OT team and the local authority also signed off the works. Further, the original recommendations failed to envisage her son would eventually need a larger chair. It reiterated it would provide support but the resident should search for properties. It confirmed the complaint was closed.
An internal email on 28 November 2022 shows the landlord’s local representative had visited the family and discussed the moving process. It said the family wanted more information about a new build property the landlord had previously signposted to them. It also said they reported their son’s health was deteriorating and he may, eventually, need an overnight carer.
Less information was seen about events from December 2022 onwards. The following summary was based on the parties’ correspondence:
1. In mid-December 2022 the OT asked the landlord for an update. They raised a number of concerns including the suitability of the landlord’s proposed new build property.
2. The OT contacted the landlord again in early March 2023. With reference to a new build plot, they said they highlighted potential access issues from November 2022 onwards. Further, the situation was “extremely frustrating” and the landlord appeared to be passing ongoing issues around internally. Given their eldest son’s deteriorating condition, the OT was concerned the family would reach a “crisis point” where his needs could not be met in the property.
3. In late March 2023, an OT was in correspondence with the landlord about a different new build plot.
4. In July 2023 the local authority told the resident grant funding for additional adaptations to the property had been approved. They included level access to a wheelchair accessible vehicle and alterations to several rooms in the property.
5. In an internal case summary on 31 July 2023, the landlord’s surveyor mentioned progression issues that predated the family’s current tenancy. The surveyor said they were allocated the project since, due to long-term staff sickness, there was no-one else available. It also said, when the project began, lock-down restrictions increased the cost of building materials and restricted their supply. However, the contractor was the biggest overall issue. For example, wet room flooring had to be ripped-up to rectify the former problem.
6. On 6 September 2023, the architect told the landlord the build was a typical project and usual procedure was followed. Further, the only abnormality was COVID-19, which caused problems for the whole construction industry. Its email included a timeline and various supporting documents. Its correspondence confirms the landlord was conducting an internal investigation.
7. In an email to the landlord on 18 September 2023, the local authority’s grants team told the landlord there were no prior references to an entrance turning circle, handrails or parking in its case notes for the property.
8. In internal correspondence on 20 September 2023, the landlord confirmed it was funding: a new kitchen including worktops, tiling and flooring; 2 replacement external doors and, if necessary, corresponding window sections; a dropped kerb to the front of the property and gates; follow on repairs to the wet room including drainage and to the sliding door; a relocated loft hatch and a “3 bed decoration voucher”.
9. In internal correspondence 2 days later, the landlord asked its complaints team to arrange a £10,000 compensation payment to the resident. It said this amount had been approved by leadership and the complaint was with the Ombudsman.
The landlord submitted its case evidence to the Ombudsman in early October 2023. Its submission included a detailed summary of its final position on the complaint. It accepted that poor project management and contractor performance were key factors. It also accepted it was responsible for managing the contractor and appointing the architect. Nevertheless, it reiterated it was not solely responsible for the project’s failures. The main points were:
1. The original OT recommendations were not “future-proofed”. Once a power assisted wheelchair was needed, there was insufficient turning circle room in the main entrance. The landlord was not responsible for this omission.
2. Staff changes at the local authority’s grants and OT teams were a contributory factor. Three OT’s were involved during the planning and works. Combined with COVID-19, the situation was a “perfect storm”. The approval of all parties was needed to secure the initial project funding.
3. The landlord did not control the release of grant funds. The contractor was paid because the OT and the local authority signed-off its payment, with the landlord’s input. The OT visited the property multiple times during the build.
4. The landlord did not accept responsibility for any design flaws. Nor did it decide the property was unsuitable for the family. This decision was taken by the OT following further discussions between the parties.
5. Its surveyor felt retendering the works after the build began would increase the disruption for the family. Still, urgent formal meetings with the contractor should have occurred early in the timeline. The case was included in the landlord’s ongoing review of contractor performance. The landlord had also updated its relevant policy, which was pending sign-off.
6. The landlord checked all major adaptation projects it managed around the same time. All parties were satisfied and no related issues were identified. It accepted its stage 2 response could have been better/more detailed. At the time, the landlord was focussed on resolving the family’s immediate problems.
7. It was now going “over and above” by replacing the property’s kitchen early. This would prevent later disruption to the family. It was also funding a dropped kerb and gate at its own cost. The local authority would lead these works.
8. Compensation should have been part of the landlord’s stage 2 response. This issue was covered in its recent complaints training. The resident had accepted a £10,000 compensation package. The landlord’s calculation was based on a rent reduction of around 75%, from the project’s start until the works were signed-off (no date provided). It included a separate element to address delays resolving a protracted shower issue.
9. This award reflected the significant impact the landlord’s “poor performing” contractor had on the family. It also covered individual service failings including record keeping, the landlord’s failure to address all points at stage 2 and its previous lack of compensation. The landlord agreed the resident retained her right to an independent Ombudsman review.
10. The landlord had ceased working with the contractor. It did not want to find itself in a similar position again. It was undertaking a comprehensive review and making enquiries with other involved parties.
The resident updated the Ombudsman during calls on 6 and 9 November 2023. She acknowledged the landlord’s compensation, but asked us to review the case. She said her concerns were not restricted to the family’s current tenancy and went back several years. It was understood further adaptation works to the property had begun. She subsequently said the landlord’s compensation was not accompanied by a further complaint response. She felt its refusal to complete additional works following its stage 2 response was discrimination.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident and her family. The timeline shows it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress, inconvenience and loss of amenity. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. In other words, we cannot determine whether the landlord was responsible for any illness or injury.
Similarly, since we are unable to reach legal findings, it is for the courts to establish whether there was discrimination by the landlord. Nevertheless, we can consider a landlord’s response to allegations of this type. This will be considered further in the complaint handling section below. The resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue her concerns under the Equality Act (2010).
The landlord’s September 2023 case review, including its compensation award, cannot fairly be considered part of its internal complaints procedure. While the compensation was both welcome and significant, it postdated the landlord’s final response by around 12 months. It also appears to have been prompted by the Ombudsman’s involvement. As a result, the above delay is evidence of complaint handling failures. It was noted the landlord previously confirmed the complaint was closed.
Nevertheless, the landlord’s case review was a useful benchmark. It suggests the landlord’s approach to complaint handling has improved since its stage 2 response was issued. Further, the landlord is working to improve its processes by learning the family’s negative experience.

The landlord’s handling of major adaptations to the property

Though it involved issues predating her current tenancy, the landlord failed to address the historical aspect of the resident’s complaint. It was noted the surveyor’s July 2023 case summary referenced previous progression issues. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman has not seen sufficient evidence to make a fair assessment of the landlord’s handling before March 2020. That said, the topic will be covered further in the complaint handling section below.
Since extensive further adaptations to the property are underway, this assessment will focus on the landlord’s redress (including compensation). It will consider whether the landlord’s belated award was sufficient to put things right for the resident given the circumstances. The landlord has consistently said it was not solely responsible for the initial project’s failure. On that basis, its compensation calculation was largely based on its contractor’s performance. From the information seen, there was no conclusive evidence to undermine the landlord’s approach.
For example, no information was seen to show the project’s failure to meet the family’s needs was due entirely to the actions of the landlord or its agents (such as the architect). For example, it was noted the OT’s 2018 recommendations made 2 seemingly general references to a powered wheelchair, and did not explicitly reference entrance turning circle requirements. Overall, the evidence indicates the situation arose due to miscommunication between the various leading parties (not the resident or her family).
Still, the landlord’s role was significant. The evidence shows its failure to manage the contractor caused prolonged distress and inconvenience for the family. For example, external pathways were re-laid on a number of occasions and there was a similar situation with wet room flooring. Given the scale and duration of the works, it is reasonable to conclude the family also experienced a loss of amenity. In other words, they were unable to fully enjoy the property and they had limited respite from the situation.
On that basis, the landlord’s compensation calculation, broadly equivalent to a 75% rent refund, appears broadly appropriate given the circumstances. Though its case evidence to the Ombudsman outlined its underlying rationale, the landlord did not provide a breakdown of its£10,000 compensation award. For example, it did not confirm which sign off date formed the end point of its calculation (contractor, OT, building control). Further, though the landlord said its award covered other elements, we were unable to examine them in detail.
Nevertheless, we checked the landlord’s award, using our own average rent calculations, to ensure its 75% figure was applied to an appropriate timeframe. Having done so, the landlord’s calculation appears to cover the period from December 2020 until at least November 2022. It was noted the landlord mentioned a final building control sign off around this time. The evidence suggests this was a reasonable end point, and there was no evidence of further failures by the landlord afterwards. Though the evidence suggests the property was still unsuitable after this sign-off, there was no information to show this was entirely due to the landlord.
The above methodology indicates the other aspects of the landlord’s award amounted to around £2,400. On that basis, from the information seen, the Ombudsman was unable to fairly say that the landlord failed to consider the resident’s distress and inconvenience separately in accordance with our typical approach to remedies. In other words, having examined the landlord’s award, we were unable to point to any overlooked issues or calculation failures.
Given the above, the information seen suggests the landlord eventually took sufficient steps to put things right for the resident. It was noted its final award may amount to more than £10,000 given decorating vouchers were also mentioned during the landlord’s related internal correspondence. It was also noted the landlord is funding additional adaptations such as gates. The timeline shows it has undertaken various learning measures to prevent similar adaptation issues arising in future. Its senior leadership has previously apologised.
Overall, the evidence suggests the landlord offered the resident reasonable redress in respect of this complaint point.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s case review correctly identified significant issues with its complaint handling. They included a failure to award any compensation, even though the landlord accepted responsibility for serious failings and was aware of their impact on the family. The landlord has said its recent compensation award reflects the failures identified in its case review. For brevity, the below will largely focus on issues that the evidence suggests it has failed to identify or rectify accordingly.
No information was seen to show the landlord responded to either the resident’s historical concerns or her allegations around disability discrimination. Both matters were raised in her original complaint. The allegations were repeated at several points in the timeline. These were serious allegations and it is reasonable to conclude both matters were of key importance to the resident. Further, the fact they remain unaddressed is likely distressing for her.
For clarity, the Ombudsman expects landlords to promptly address allegations of this type through their internal complaints procedure. Given the above, the landlord’s failure to address them was inappropriate. It was also contrary to the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) as published in March 2022. Section 5.6 said, “Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions…”.
Having checked the case evidence for any information to support the resident’s concerns, we were unable to find any indication the family were treated unfairly based on their personal characteristics. Nevertheless, the allegations need to be formally investigated. There was no indication the landlord identified this issue in its review. If it did, the evidence suggests the landlord failed to raise a new complaint to investigate accordingly. Based on the timing of this assessment, the evidence suggests the above complaint issues remain unaddressed around 15 months later.
More recently, the landlord’s case review should have been more resident focussed. For example, the resident told us its compensation award was not accompanied by a further response letter explaining its updated rationale. This would have provided a useful record for the resident’s reference, particularly given the level of compensation awarded. The lack of an equivalent response was arguably contrary to the Code, which shows a detailed response must be issued on completion of each complaint stage. This includes stage 3 where applicable (section 5.20).
The evidence suggests this was a missed opportunity for the landlord. For example, it could have communicated its updated findings directly to the resident, with details of the measures being taken to improve its performance. Similarly, it could have clearly explained its compensation rationale for the resident to assess. It is reasonable to conclude this approach would allow her to raise any adverse findings with the Ombudsman if necessary. Given the above, the landlord’s case review handling was inappropriate.
Overall, there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord has subsequently acknowledged, correctly, that it failed to compensate the resident at stage 2 and this was a core failure. Nevertheless, the timeline points to other significant issues including: overlooked historical complaint points, unaddressed discrimination allegations and a failure to issue a formal response during the landlord’s case review.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of major adaptations to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

Having examined the landlord’s compensation award, the Ombudsman was unable to point to any overlooked issues or calculation failures. Instead, the information seen suggests the landlord eventually took sufficient steps to put things right for the resident. It has also undertaken various learning measures to prevent adaptation issues arising again.
The landlord has acknowledged, correctly, that it failed to compensate the resident at stage 2 and this was a core failure. However, the timeline points to other significant issues including: overlooked historical complaint points, unaddressed discrimination allegations and a failure to issue a formal response during the landlord’s recent case review.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to formally address the resident’s discrimination and historical concerns through its complaints process. The landlord should share its new complaint reference number with the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident an additional £400 in compensation within 4 weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. This is to address any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified complaint handling delays and failures.
With reference to its contractor performance review, updated policies and the specific circumstances of the resident’s case, the landlord to explain to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks how it would manage the contractor if the same situation had occurred in 2023. The landlord should also explain how its improved stakeholder liaison would prevent the same project outcome now. The purpose of this exercise is to confirm the landlord has appropriately embedded critical learnings from this case.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks.