West Kent Housing Association (202127583)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127583

West Kent Housing Association

9 November 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the:
1. Conduct of the landlord’s staff.
2. Landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for damage to a carpet when it removed the hearth.
3. Landlord’s handling of the resident’s subject access request and its delays in responding to it.
4. Landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to remove a partition wall.
5. Landlord’s response to the resident’s request to repair cracks in the property.
6. Landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments.
7. The related complaint.

Jurisdiction

When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the resident’s complaints about the below are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. Conduct of the landlord’s staff.
2. Landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for damage to a carpet when it removed the hearth.
3. Landlord’s handling of the resident’s subject access request and its delays in responding to it.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaint procedure. During the complaints process, the resident made a separate complaint to the landlord about the conduct of a customer resolutions officer responsible for the initial complaint investigation. From the evidence available to this Service, that complaint was not escalated to the final stage of the landlord’s complaint procedure. Therefore, the complaint about the customer resolutions officer will not be considered as part of this investigation as the landlord has not had a reasonable opportunity to respond and resolve the resident’s concerns.
Paragraph 42(c) of the Ombudsman’s scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. Evidence seen by this Service shows that the hearth was removed around September 2018. It is noted that the resident has informed this Service that a complaint was made at the time that the carpet in the lounge was damaged. The resident has said that she did complain to the landlord but the complaint was not progressed. This Service has not seen such evidence that a complaint was made at that time or that it was escalated to this Service. Given the amount of time that has passed, it is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider a complaint related to events that occurred over five years ago.
Paragraph 42(j) of the Ombudsman’s scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint handling body. The resident’s concerns regarding the landlord’s handling of her subject access request, including any delays, fall within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner. Therefore, any matters related to the subject access request will not be considered as part of this investigation.

Scope of investigation.

The resident has informed this Service that the landlord’s actions impacted on her health. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions, or lack of action, have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaints. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.
While the Ombudsman can consider the reasonableness of the actions taken by landlord, this Service is unable to make a legal finding of discrimination in that regard. This would be a matter for the courts to determine, where appropriate evidence could be examined and the relevant legislation applied to the circumstances. It is noted that the resident has informed this Service that she has sought independent legal advice and that her legal representatives were unable to provide her with representation. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman has considered how the landlord handled the resident’s requirement for reasonable adjustments and whether it dealt with her property improvement and repairs requests appropriately given her circumstances.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy. The resident is a tenant of the housing association. The tenancy started on 18 April 2011.
The property is described as a one bedroom first floor flat.
The resident has physical and mental health medical conditions, including a degenerative lumbar spine disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder.
The landlord’s tenancy agreement obliges it to maintain the structure and exterior of the property. It also obliges the resident to keep the property in good condition, including the decoration. After 12 months of occupation, the resident can request written permission to alter or improve the property.
The landlord’s customer alerts policy outlines when it will place a flag on a resident’s customer record to show that the resident has a special circumstance. It states that it will discuss with the resident their circumstances and their needs. Also, it will assess the reasonable and proportionate action it can take to tailor its service offer. The landlord has advised that the policy is under review.
Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010 places a duty on social housing providers to make reasonable adjustments in certain circumstances. It sets out that landlords are not necessarily required to alter or remove “physical features,” such as removing walls.
The landlord’s complaints procedure explains that it will not consider complaints that are made six months after the incident occurred unless there are exceptional circumstances. It will make reasonable adjustments to help residents make a complaint such as translation, interpretation and support services. It will review its contact arrangements and keep the resident updated on progress.
Also, it operates an informal stage “quick fix” to resolve issues within two working days. It will respond to formal complaints within 10 working days at its first stage and within 20 working days at its final stage.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out its approach to awards. These are divided into three categories: minor which is up to £100 payable, moderate impact is between £101 to £250 payable and severe impact is between £251 to £500 payable.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records show that the minor works team leader inspected cracks in the resident’s property on 13 May 2021. He advised that he had made good the cracks in the property and checked the structure of the property. The landlord’s submission to this Service did not include the inspection report of the visit to the property.
The resident informed the landlord in September 2021 that she wished to make improvements to the property, including the removal of a partition wall. On 17 September 2021, the resident called the landlord to speak to the surveyor handling her request for permission. The resident was informed that the surveyor was not available and that it would arrange for the surveyor to return the resident’s call. Later that day, the resident called again to speak to the surveyor. The resident advised that the purpose of the partition wall was to hide the back boiler and she wanted the wall removed to provide extra space in the lounge. Also, the wall in its current position was not necessary.
On 20 September 2021, the resident emailed the landlord regarding her request to remove the partition wall. In response, the landlord informed the resident that she was responsible for removing the wall and emailed the link to its home improvement request form.
With regard to a complaint submission about the request to remove the partition wall, the landlord informed the resident on 20 September 2021 and 21 September 2021 that it could not consider a complaint. It explained that its surveyor needed to consider the request and they had five days to respond to her call.
The resident called the landlord’s surveyor on 27 September 2021 regarding the home improvement request and was informed that the surveyor was not available.
The landlord agreed to the resident’s request to improve the property on 29 September 2021. The landlord agreed that the resident could:
1. Remove the false wall/enclosure in the lounge that previously enclosed the old back boiler.
2. Fit new internal doors (folding/sliding door to the kitchen refused).
3. Fit new/relocate/remove existing radiators.
The approval letter set out the conditions that the resident had to comply with, such as completing the work within six months. It also confirmed to the resident that she was responsible for rectifying any defects.
The resident complained to the landlord on 30 September 2021 that she had experienced delays in making contact with its surveyor by phone and by email. The resident outlined that the previous day, she had contact with the surveyor who had advised that he was on leave when she had previously tried to contact him but this information was not relayed when she made contact by phone. Furthermore, when she had emailed him, she did not receive notification that he was away from work. The resident advised that she had needed to speak to the surveyor about the additional costs charged by a builder. The resident requested that the landlord listen to the calls that she had made and that the partition wall needed to be removed as it was not required.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 1 October 2021, advising that it would provide its complaint response on 14 October 2021. Later that same day, the resident queried whether the landlord would call her to discuss her concerns.
On 3 October 2021, the resident provided more information about her complaint. She advised that since she had been granted permission to remove the partition wall, she had found a large hole behind it which she paid to fix. Also, she had not been given accurate information when requesting permission to remove the wall to enable her to make an informed decision. Consequently, she had experienced stress and inconvenience trying to board up and seal the investigative hole that had been made by the builders she had appointed. When the back boiler was being removed, she had requested that the landlord remove the wall and the landlord had not done so. Despite the landlord being aware of her physical and mental health difficulties, she had been left to resolve the situation she found herself in and the actions of the landlord had contributed to her self-harming and leaving her distressed.
The resident also advised that she had requested the extra space to her lounge due to her health needs. She expressed that she felt discriminated against and disadvantaged by her landlord. The resident also requested that the landlord contact her by phone to discuss the complaint.
The following day, the resident rang to speak to the complaint investigator. The complaint investigator was unavailable and a message was left requesting that she contact the resident.
On 5 October 2021, the landlord notes record that:
1. The complaints investigator contacted the resident on two separate occasions at 1pm and 8pm. As there was no answer, a voicemail message was left.
2. The resident advised that due to her mental health, her preferred method of contact was by phone.
3. The landlord informed the resident that the complaints investigator had tried to contact her on two separate occasions. The resident advised that she was having difficulty accessing her voicemail and another contact number was provided.
4. The landlord informed the resident that the additional issues raised would be responded to by 14 October 2021.
The following day, the resident rang to raise a complaint about the cracks in the wall. The landlord advised that an appointment had been raised for 19 October 2021. In response, the resident stated that she was unaware of the appointment and that she kept being passed between different people. Later that day, the resident also raised that she had been waiting for an appointment with the minor works team leader since April 2021.
The landlord’s records show that on 6 October 2021, the minor works team leader advised that an inspection of the resident’s property was carried out on 13 May 2021. The cracks had been checked and there was no evidence of structural damage. He concluded that the cracks were hairline cracks and the resolution was the responsibility of the resident.
On 14 October 2021, the following happened:
1. The resident contacted the landlord to advise that she wanted to include further information to her complaint. She advised that the surveyor had told her the removal of the partition wall was a simple job when it was not. The builder had found capped pipes behind the plasterboard which needed to be cut down. The resident advised that she had provided pictures and wanted the landlord to confirm that there was no escape of gas. Also, the landlord had the plans for the property, therefore, it should have informed her that the pipes were present behind the partition wall.
2. The landlord spoke with the resident about the partition wall. With regard to the reasonable adjustment and the assessment of the resident’s needs, the resident advised that she had contacted the surveyor as she needed additional information to be able to process the permission request due to her medical condition. The resident explained that she wanted the wall removed to install equipment to assist her with her disabilities as at times she could fall in the property.
3. The landlord advised that the inspection had assessed that the hairline cracks were the resident’s responsibility. In response, the resident advised that she could not get down on her hands and knees to repair the cracks, therefore she requested that the landlord carry out the work.
4. The resident made a new complaint about discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. She stated that the landlord had failed to provide her with information so she could make an informed decision about the work required to the property. Furthermore, she had already made a complaint about the delays experienced due to the actions of the surveyor. The resident stated that the complaint investigator had not shown any empathy or carried out a full investigation. The resident also stated that the complaints investigator had accused her of lying during the telephone call that had taken place that evening. The landlord had refused to remove the partition wall and if she had known about the cavity behind the wall, she would not have asked for permission to remove it. The complaints investigator was rude, dismissive and did not listen to all the calls that had occurred between her and the surveyor. Finally, the surveyor should have known what was behind the wall.
5. The landlord’s internal notes show that the surveyor advised that he had inspected the resident’s property following her request to have the wall removed. The resident was responsible for the issues arising from the work. Permission was granted to remove the ducting for the back boiler which was covering the plasterboard. The resident wanted to put her television on the ducting, however the cavity behind the ducting prevented this. The contractor had quoted between £800 to £900 for this and the resident wanted the landlord to complete the work. The surveyor concluded that the cracks in the hallway and stairs were hairline cracks and not structural.
On 18 October 2021, the resident rang the landlord to advise that the surveyor had told her he would repair the internal cracks in the property. Also, the surveyor had misled her about the cost of the works as he had told her the work should not cost more than £250 and she had been quoted in excess of that figure. The resident asked the landlord whether it thought that the quote was reasonable.
On 21 October 2021, the landlord acknowledged the complaint about the complaint investigator. It was allocated to someone outside the team to investigate.
The landlord apologised for the delay in providing its complaint response on 25 October 2021, advising that it had IT issues. It advised that it would provide its complaint response by 27 October 2021.
The landlord provided its complaint response on 27 October 2021. A summary of the key findings are:
1. It apologised that the email out of office for the surveyor was not set to say that he was not at work.
2. It advised that its website had the tenancy improvement request option which if completed would have reduced the delay experienced by the resident.
3. The phone call of 13 September 2021 was listened to and the removal of the partition wall was not mentioned. The removal of the partition wall was first mentioned in an email sent by the resident on 16 September 2021.
4. It requested further information about the removal of the partition wall on 20 September 2021 and permission was granted on 29 September 2021. It did not identify a service failure regarding the handling of the request.
5. It did not register a complaint about the surveyor’s response to her request for permission as it was handled within its service standards.
6. Its surveyors had advised that it did not investigate the cavity behind the plasterboard before permission was granted. It stated that its practice was for capped gas pipes to be left in place and it was not obliged to remove them. Therefore, it was not responsible to reimburse the resident for the additional £200 that she had incurred.
7. It had granted permission on 20 September 2021 and the approval letter informed the resident that she was responsible for any maintenance work and any further work was to be carried out at her expense. Furthermore, any additional costs were not its responsibility.
8. Its surveyor could not recall the exact quote for the costs of the works but did confirm that the resident’s works quote was excessive.
9. It confirmed that the cracks in the wall had been inspected and assessed as hairline cracks and not structural.
10. The landlord’s records did not show that the resident had any vulnerabilities and it would arrange for a visit to be carried out for its records to be updated.
11. Following the resident’s report on 14 October 2021 about the reason for the wall to be removed, it signposted her to the occupational therapy service for an assessment and offered that it could do so on her behalf.
12. It had concluded that though it had granted permission for the wall to be removed, it would agree for the wall to remain in place.
The landlord confirmed to the resident that it would not repair the cracks to the wall and signposted the resident to a handyman service on 16 November 2021.
The resident emailed the landlord on 16 November 2021 and 17 November 2021 to dispute that the cracks in the wall were hairline cracks. In response, the landlord agreed that its contractor would attend to assess and repair any cracks that fell within its responsibility. It informed the contractor that any hairline cracks were the resident’s to resolve.
On 17 November 2021, the resident rang to make a complaint that the landlord would not remedy the hairline cracks in the property. She had arranged for an independent surveyor to attend and he had advised that the cracks were the responsibility of the landlord to resolve. In response, the landlord advised that it would not consider a complaint about this matter and that it had already signposted her to the handyman service to remedy the hairline cracks in the property.
Later that same day, the resident requested that the landlord confirm its position regarding the cracks as its contractor had attended and repaired one side of the wall, which its surveyor had said was her responsibility. She said that the landlord’s decision had caused her inconvenience and delay due to her disabilities; therefore, it should log a complaint.
The landlord’s records show that its contractor had noted “work carried out: repaired blown plaster.”
The landlord’s records show on 23 November 2021 that it agreed to grant additional time for the resident to escalate her complaint as she was waiting for the outcome of a subject access request.
Between 23 November 2021 and 10 December 2021, the resident communicated with the landlord about the cracks to the property. The resident advised that the handyman service had attended and suggested that she obtain an independent report as the cracks were not hairline cracks and she had done so. The resident advised that she could no longer access the quotes on her phone to evidence the information she had received. The landlord maintained its position that it considered the cracks to be hairline and it would not raise a new complaint but would consider the information provided by the resident in its final complaint response.
The resident escalated the complaint on 13 December 2021. The resident’s main concerns were:
1. The landlord had discriminated against her as the information it considered from the minor works team leader and the surveyor was inaccurate.
2. The landlord did not listen to all of the calls or voicemails that she had made.
3. She disputed that the permission granted to remove the partition wall was in line with its service standard.
4. She had relied on its surveyor’s advice to remove the wall. Once the wall was removed, gas pipes were identified which protruded past the chimney and meant that the skirting board would not run flush against the wall.
5. The reason why the skirting board needed to be flush against the wall was to prevent her hurting herself if she fell.
6. If she had known about the redundant gas pipes, she would not have carried out the work.
7. She disputed that the cracks were hairline cracks and complained that the landlord had said that she would be charged for an independent report.
8. The landlord was aware of her disabilities and vulnerabilities. It was aware that she had already used the occupational therapy service as it had received reports from them and from adult social care about her needs.
On 16 December 2021, the landlord informed the resident that it had reviewed the photos that she had provided. It advised that the cracks were in the filler between two different materials and not cracks in the wall. It confirmed that the cracks were not structural and that the cracks were due to thermal changes. The landlord gave advice to the resident on the action to be taken and confirmed that the repair was for the resident to undertake.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 5 January 2022. It advised that it would supply its complaint response by 2 February 2022. In response, the resident informed the landlord that she had escalated her complaint on 19 December 2021 and requested an earlier response.
The landlord contacted the resident on 24 January 2022 to obtain more information about her complaint about discrimination and reasonable adjustments.
In response, on 25 January 2022, the resident set out her dissatisfaction with the landlord. These were:
1. The landlord did not consider her disability when it assessed her complaint as she struggled to complete simple tasks.
2. It had provided inaccurate information about the ease in which she would be able to remove the partition wall.
3. Communication failures were described as calls that were not returned, calls returned late and the landlord’s failure to issue a consent letter to remove the partition wall.
4. The call with the complaint investigation officer had affected her mental health and caused her to self-harm. Also, there was a lack of understanding of how the issues had affected her as she was a person with disabilities. The complaint investigation officer demonstrated a lack of fairness as she had accepted the word of the minor works team leader without considering hers.
5. She had requested that the landlord remedy the cracking to the property as the affected area was difficult for her to reach. Also, she experienced physical pain and her mental health conditions meant that she did not like touching things or doing things out of her routine.
6. She disputed that the cracks were hairline and had provided images to show that the cracks to the property were deep.
7. The landlord had not agreed to her request to expedite the complaint process.
On 2 February 2022, the landlord contacted the resident to obtain clarification about the partition wall. The resident advised that, at her own expense, the wall had been repaired and plastered. The resident also provided information of the labour and material costs.
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 2 February 2022. A summary of the findings are:
1. The request for a tenant improvement was handled within its service level agreement of 15 working days on 29 September 2021 and therefore it had not identified a service failure. The resident was provided with the approval and conditions that applied.
2. It apologised that the surveyor did not respond to her calls within its service level agreement of five working days.
3. It acknowledged that the resident was not informed that there was pipework behind the partition wall. It recognised that the resident had not received a good service and as a gesture of goodwill, it agreed to pay the costs that the resident had incurred regarding the removal of the partition wall. It advised that on receipt of the invoice, it would reimburse the resident.
4. In light of the resident making it aware of her ability to fall within the property, it signposted the resident to the occupational therapy service to obtain an assessment.
5. It clarified that its surveyor was not responsible for providing quotes to residents for work that they had received permission to carry out. It apologised to the resident for any confusion that she had experienced.
6. It confirmed that the minor works team leader had inspected the cracks on 13 May 2021 and its surveyor had done so on 13 October 2021. It was satisfied that the cracks were hairline cracks and the resident’s responsibility to resolve. However, in light of the resident’s concerns, it had arranged for a clerk of works to inspect the cracks and agreed to carry out further work that was required, including decoration.
7. It had considered the resident’s medical condition and maintained that she was responsible for remedying the cracking to the property. It had given advice on how the work could be completed and signposted her to agencies that could help.
8. Its records did not note the resident’s vulnerabilities; therefore, its officers had attended to understand her needs.
9. There was no evidence of discrimination to the resident with regard to the advice that it had offered regarding the cracking in the property. It had considered her disability, offered advice to get the works completed and signposted her to agencies to provide assistance.
10. It had made reasonable adjustments in handling her complaint; it had tried to call her to discuss the complaint. It had delayed in providing its complaint response as an inspection was required to the property and it had kept the resident updated. It had agreed to the resident’s request to extend the time to escalate her complaint until she had received the response to her subject access request. It stated that it was not able to provide a quicker complaint response due to the amount of evidence that it had to review.
11. It acknowledged that the resident could have received a better customer experience throughout the improvement process.
After the complaint process was exhausted, the following occurred:
1. The landlord confirmed on 9 February 2022 that it would not be offering additional compensation for distress and inconvenience. It explained that it had taken into account its communication failures when calculating the gesture of goodwill.
2. On 18 February 2022, the clerk of works visited the property and assessed that the cracks to the property were hairline. Also, there was no structural cracking to the property. The landlord informed the resident of the outcome of the inspection on 21 February 2022.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by adhering to its policies, procedures, and any agreements with the resident. The Ombudsman also assesses whether the landlord acted reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.
It is clear from the resident’s submission to this Service that she has been distressed by the landlord’s refusal to carry out repairs to her property. This is duly noted and acknowledged.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to remove a partition wall.

Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to remove the wall was appropriate. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the resident was entitled to request for permission for improvements to be carried out at the property. Permission cannot be unreasonably withheld and within 12 working days the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that permission was granted. This was appropriate as it fell within its service standard and allowed the resident to make the improvements she wanted to.
The landlord appropriately considered the representations made by the resident regarding the need for the wall removal. The resident advised that as the landlord had the plans for the property, it should have been aware of the presence of capped pipes and that she had relied on the advice given by the surveyor around the costs of the works. The permission approval documents inform the resident that any additional costs incurred while undertaking the works are her responsibility. Therefore, the resident was reasonably informed that any unforeseen costs arising from the works to remove the partition wall were her responsibility.
The resident has stated that she relied on the surveyor’s advice regarding the quotes that she had received to remove the wall. While it is understandable that she did so, it was not the role of the surveyor to provide the resident with advice about quotes she had received. The approval documents inform the resident that such advice regarding the removal of walls should be obtained from the Council or the building control team.
The landlord’s submission shows that the landlord first became aware of the resident’s medical reasons for the removal of the wall on 3 October 2021, when she provided further information to it when making her complaint. In its February 2022 final complaint response, the landlord agreed to rescind the permission that it had authorised and also to reimburse the costs that the resident had incurred. This was reasonable as the resident had used her statutory right to request permission from the landlord to remove the wall. The landlord demonstrated that it acknowledged that the resident no longer wished to proceed with the removal of the wall as it would not give her the space she required. Therefore, its decision gave the resident the opportunity to reconsider whether she wanted to proceed with the removal of the wall or not.
In addition, it accepted that the plans provided to the resident did not provide sufficient information about the capped pipes and accepted that if the resident had known about the location of the pipes, she may not have proceeded with the work. Furthermore, the landlord demonstrated that it listened to the resident’s concerns that the intention of removing of the wall was to create additional space and the presence of the pipes prevented this. The landlord’s offer to cover the costs was reasonable.
In its complaint responses, the landlord signposted the resident to the occupational health team for an assessment to be made about any aids and adaptations that she required. The landlord has a responsibility to safeguard its residents and ensure that properties are safe for their occupation. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to signpost the resident to the occupational health service and to offer to make a referral on her behalf. The information from the occupational health service would inform the landlord of any hazards present in the resident’s home and any mitigations it needed to take to reduce these.
The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are to: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. In assessing the issue of compensation for the service failures that the resident experienced, the Ombudsman takes into account a range of factors. This includes any distress and inconvenience and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s actions/inactions. It also considers whether any redress is proportionate to the severity of the service failure by the landlord and the impact on the resident.
The landlord has accepted in its complaint responses that while it responded to the resident’s request for permission to remove the partition wall within its service level agreements, once the resident became aware of the presence of the capped pipes behind the wall, she could no longer progress the removal of the wall as she had intended as this would not provide the additional space that she wanted. The landlord agreed on the production of invoices to refund the resident the amount that she had paid for the work to take place. Also, the landlord acknowledged the communication difficulties that the resident experienced when trying to access the surveyor. It apologised that the resident did not receive an out of office notification when the surveyor was on leave and that calls that were not returned.

Landlord’s response to the resident’s request to repair cracks in the property.

In this case, the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s reimbursement offer and is of the view that it represents reasonable redress for its communication failings and demonstrates that it was resolution-focused given the situation the resident found herself in once the wall removal works began.
The resident’s tenancy agreement explains that the resident is responsible for carrying out minor repairs such as remedying cracks in plaster. This is repeated in the landlord’s document about ‘maintaining your home’ which states that plaster repairs are the responsibility of the resident. This includes filling minor cracks and minor patching to walls and ceilings.
The landlord explained to the resident that the wall cracks were her responsibility as it assessed that these were hairline. The assessment of the cracks were made by a surveyor; therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on his technical and professional assessment. The surveyor also determined that the cracks were not structural.
The resident disputed the landlord’s assessment and informed it in October 2021 that she was unable to conduct the repairs herself due to her medical conditions. The landlord demonstrated that it considered the resident’s medical and physical conditions as it promptly signposted her to a handyman service in November 2021 so she could get the repairs resolved.
The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concern about the cracks to the property. It agreed for a second opinion inspection to be carried out and for any cracks that fell within its responsibilities to be resolved. This was appropriate as it had an obligation to resolve any repairs that fell within its responsibility. The landlord’s records show that the operative attended and repaired blown plasterwork in the property which fell within its obligations. It was not required to resolve what it had assessed as hairline cracks at this point.
The landlord explained to the resident that the cracks to the property were due to the different filler used and thermal changes. This was appropriate to reassure the resident that the cracking was not structural in nature and to give reasons for the cracks appearing.
The resident advised that the handyman service that the landlord had referred her to, and an independent surveyor, had assessed that the cracks were not hairline cracks. However, she was unable to provide the landlord with evidence of the independent assessments that were made.
Nevertheless, the landlord appropriately agreed for another inspection to take place. The outcome of the inspection confirmed the assessment made by its surveyor that the cracks were hairline. Therefore, without evidence to the contrary, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the technical assessments that it had received and maintain its position that the cracks were hairline and the responsibility of the resident to resolve.
Overall, the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the reported cracks in the property. The multiple inspection outcomes established its position that the cracks fell with the resident’s responsibility to resolve. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence that shows that the landlord either failed to follow the terms outlined in the tenancy agreement, or that it exercised its discretion in a manner that was unreasonable.

Landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments.

The landlord’s customer alert policy states that, with agreement from the resident, it will record the short or long-term physical health conditions that may affect a resident’s ability to use their service. The resident has asserted that the landlord was aware of her medical conditions as the occupational therapy team had previously provided reports to it about her medical condition.
In its complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that it did not have the resident’s health requirements on its database in terms of any adjustments required by her to access its services, despite the resident using the occupational therapy service in the past. This was not in line with its policy.
The landlord agreed to visit the resident to obtain an understanding of her medical needs. From the available information, the landlord’s submission to this Service does not provide the date when the visit occurred. However, the landlord has provided evidence that there are flags on the resident’s customer records, recording her preferred method of communication (when making complaints) and requesting permission to carry out work to the property.
It is important to differentiate between whether the requests made by the resident were minor adaptations or reasonable adjustments. Or, whether they fell within the landlord’s obligations to repair under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant act and under the terms of the resident’s tenancy.
The resident requested permission to remove the partition wall and the landlord granted permission. An investigation hole created by the builder revealed that behind the partition wall were capped pipes from when the boiler was removed. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider that this request to remove the partition wall would not fall within its repairing obligations as these would require the alteration or removal of ‘physical features.’ Further, this would not fall within the landlord’s obligations with regards to reasonable adjustments as the landlord’s approval letter informs the resident of her responsibilities for the work that she wished to be carried out.
In any case, the landlord appropriately referred the resident to occupational therapy within a month of her report that she needed the wall removed to allow extra living space due to her health. This was reasonable as an occupational therapy recommendation may have allowed the landlord to review its decision on removal of the wall.
The landlord also acted appropriately by attending to inspect the cracks in the property that the resident had reported. As mentioned elsewhere in this report, it assessed that the cracks were hairline cracks and when the resident remained dissatisfied with its assessment, it arranged for another inspection which reiterated this conclusion. The landlord has demonstrated that it considered the resident’s physical and medication conditions as it signposted her to a third-party handyman service to remedy the cracks.
The landlord in its complaint responses reviewed its communication with the resident. It recognised that the resident had experienced difficulty accessing its service when the surveyor out of office notification did not inform her when he was unavailable and that there were occasions when calls had not been returned. As indicated earlier, it has subsequently updated the resident’s customer record to note that the resident prefers communication by phone rather than email.
The landlord’s complaint responses also informed the resident that the information regarding requesting permission for home improvements was available on its website. It is noted that landlords are moving to providing more information online for residents to access information at times that are convenient. However, this does not reduce the requirement for landlords to provide access to services in a variety of ways to meet the needs of its residents.

The related complaint.

The landlord’s complaint procedure states that it will respond with 10 working days at the first stage and within 20 working days at the final stage.
The resident complained to the landlord on 30 September 2021. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the following day, within its published complaint handling standards.
The resident requested that the landlord contact her to discuss her complaint. The landlord tried to do so but was unsuccessful. From what can be seen, the resident was having difficulty with her phone and provided the landlord with an alternative contact number.
The resident provided more information regarding her request for the landlord to repair the wall. The resident also advised that the landlord had not considered her physical or mental health conditions. From the evidence seen by this Service, the landlord tried to make contact with the resident to obtain more information about her complaint. This was in accordance with the Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (July 2020) which advises landlords to clarify with residents if any aspect of a complaint is unclear.
The Complaint Handling Code (July 2020) also advises that if a landlord cannot meet its complaint handling timescales, it should explain and inform the resident when it intends to send its response. The landlord acted in accordance with this as it explained to the resident that it was experiencing technical problems and it would send the complaint response by 27 October 2021.
The landlord did indeed send the resident its complaint response on 27 October 2021. This was 27 working days after the resident complained. While this was outside the landlord’s complaint handling deadlines, it is noted that the resident provided the landlord with further information regarding the complaint on 14 October 2021 – this was the date that the complaint response was due and the landlord appropriately informed the resident of the reasons for extending the complaint response timescales.
The landlord informed the resident that it would not accept a new complaint about its handling of her request for permission for home improvements. The landlord also informed the resident that it would not accept a new complaint about the hairline cracks in the property. The landlord’s decision was in line with its complaint procedure which advises that it will not consider a new complaint about a matter that it had investigated within the previous six months. It is also noted that the resident had made complaints about those matters that had not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.
The landlord acted reasonably when it agreed to grant the resident additional time to make her escalated complaint. It considered that the resident wanted to receive the response to her subject access request and the information would assist her with her final complaint to the landlord.
The resident complained to the landlord on 13 December 2021. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 5 January 2022. This was not appropriate as the landlord took 14 working days to send the resident its acknowledgement of her complaint. This was unreasonable and resulted in the resident experiencing a delay in obtained the final complaint response.
The resident requested that the landlord provide an earlier final complaint response than that set out in its complaint acknowledgement. The landlord explained that it was not possible to do this as it needed the time to review the information the resident had submitted. From the landlord’s submission, it can be seen that it contacted the resident to ascertain further information about her allegations that it had failed to make reasonable adjustments and of discrimination. This was reasonable as the resident had used the information from her subject access complaint to support her complaint, therefore the landlord needed to review and assess the substance of the resident’s assertions. It was also appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident to obtain further clarification of the events complained about to ensure that it conducted a thorough investigation.
The landlord provided its final complaint response to the resident on 2 February 2022. Overall, it took the landlord 34 working days to respond and there is no evidence that it requested an extension from the resident. Therefore, the resident experienced an unreasonable delay in receiving the landlord’s final complaint response.
When the landlord reviewed its handling of the resident’s complaint through its complaint process, it did not consider whether an award of compensation was payable for its delay at providing its complaint responses at both stages of the complaint procedures. This was not appropriate as its delay caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of her request to remove a partition wall.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to repair cracks in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the related complaint.

Reasons

The landlord has acknowledged that there were communication failures in its contact with the resident. Whilst it processed the resident’s request for permission within its published timescales, it accepted that there could have been improvements in its service delivery. Given the resident’s medical needs, it agreed to refund the resident the costs she had incurred in getting wall removed. This offered sufficient redress given the circumstances of the case.
The landlord assessed that the resident had hairline cracks in the property which were her responsibility to resolve. In light of her medical condition, it reasonably referred her to a handyman service to assist.
The landlord had a responsibility to understand whether the resident required reasonable adjustments to enable her to access its services and for those adjustments to be reviewed. The landlord has acknowledged that its records did not note the adjustments that the resident required.
The landlord did not meet its published complaint handling timescales when it considered the resident’s complaint at both stages of the complaint procedure. This resulted in the resident experiencing unreasonable delays before receiving the landlord’s position on the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is to write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
The landlord is to pay the resident £200 compensation, broken down as follows:
1. £100 for its failure to record her physical and medical condition as required by its customer alerts policy.
2. £100 for the delay in providing its complaint responses at both stages of the complaint process.
If it has not already done so, the landlord should carry out the visit to ascertain the resident’s vulnerabilities as proposed in its complaint response.
The landlord should reply to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to evidence compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should, if it has not already done so, self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) to identify and improve the record keeping in its repairs service.
The landlord should reply to this Service to confirm its intentions with regard to this recommendation.