Abri Group Limited (202102900)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102900

Abri Group Limited

20 May 2022

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the suitability of the property.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident was assigned the assured tenancy for the property in May 2016. The property has four bedrooms upstairs and a dining room/ fifth bedroom downstairs (in an extension).
The landlord’s information response to the Ombudsman states that no known vulnerabilities are listed for the resident. However, the landlord’s records state that it has communication from the resident to say that the resident’s children have autism.
In February 2017 the local authority Environmental Health Team wrote to the resident about the property and set out some actions it had discussed with the landlord in respect of the resident’s reports that there had been excess cold in the extension/ fifth bedroom. The entirety of the Environmental Health investigation and the landlord’s actions at the time are not known and are not under consideration within this investigation. It is mentioned here to give context.
In August 2020 – December 2020 the resident reported her concerns about the suitability of the property due to reported lack of space for the occupants. The resident also told the landlord about her daughter’s autism. The landlord advised the resident about the housing allocation process and that this would be decided by the local authority, who had the nomination rights for housing, rather than by the landlord. The landlord advised the resident at the time to engage with the local authority’s complaint process.
The landlord’s allocation policy states that properties will normally be allocated in line with the local authority nomination agreement. The landlord’s allocation procedure states that the local authority provides nominations for housing with the landlord. The landlord’s nomination agreement states that the landlord offers the local authority 100 percent of nominations.

Summary of events

On 26 April 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to complain that the property was not suitable for the family needs. The resident said that she was living in a four bedroom property with a dining room that was classed as a fifth bedroom but the dining room was cold and unsuitable to be a bedroom. The resident stated that the temperature dropped in the middle of the night and it was unpleasant to sleep in; she also explained that the furniture got mouldy. The resident explained that there were seven inhabitants in the property including her two children with medical needs.
On 4 May 2021 the landlord noted that the local authority had at one stage said that the property was suitable for the family’s needs and two previous letters had been sent about this to the resident.
On 5 May 2021 the landlord issued a ‘closure’ letter which was both a stage one and final response to the complaint.
1. The landlord considered the resident’s complaint about the suitability of the property in relation to the resident’s family’s needs.
2. It explained that it did not have larger properties available.
3. The local authority had determined that the resident’s property was suitable for her needs. The resident would need to contact the local authority if she felt that the property was unsuitable.
4. It said that it made a referral to the landlord’s Occupational Therapist (OT) to assess the suitability of the current property to see if there was funding available for an extension, if required.
5. The landlord then said that for this option to be explored, it required medical evidence that the children needed their own rooms and asked the resident to provide this.
6. It explained the other options, such as a house exchange, and directed the resident to contact the housing officer to discuss this.
7. It offered to raise a job to address mould in the dining room and invited the resident to call a number to arrange this.
8. It closed the complaint.
The landlord confirmed that this was the final response and it had not escalated the matter further as this would not result in a different outcome (10 May 2021).
The landlord had not made an OT referral, though the wording of the letter indicated that it had. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s concern about the temperature of the dining room/fifth bedroom.
The landlord subsequently updated the Ombudsman on its position:
1. The local authority has 100 percent nomination rights of the landlord’s properties and vacant properties are offered to the local authority.
2. The local authority would have to agree to take the resident back on the register to move her to a different property, but the local authority ‘deem her and the family to be suitably housed’.
3. The landlord did not have larger properties and if they did, these would be given to the local authority.
4. The landlord signposted the resident to the local authority about her concerns about suitability.
5. In response to the resident’s request for an OT assessment to determine the suitability of the property and whether an extension was necessary and could be funded, it asked the resident for medical evidence to show that the children needed their own bedroom. It said that it required the evidence to assess whether an extension was necessary, and it had not received this.
The resident told the Ombudsman that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. Her concerns were about the suitability of the property for her family’s needs, her request to transfer to a larger accommodation, and her request for it to adapt the current property to meet the needs of her two children with special needs. The resident iterated her previous complaint points (6 May 2021).
In July 2021 the resident updated the Ombudsman and said that the property remained overcrowded. The Ombudsman advised that the resident may need to go to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (the ‘LGSCO’). The Ombudsman explained it could look at how the landlord had handled her concerns.
In October 2021 the resident contacted the Ombudsman and explained that she had measured the sizes of the bedrooms and some of these were too small according to the law. The resident disputed the size of the property as per its description according to the landlord and the local authority. She considered that it was not a five bedroom property, it was not suitably sized for the family’s needs and she disputed that she should be charged as such in the rent.
The Ombudsman accepted the complaint for formal resolution and subsequently requested information from the landlord on 5 October 2021.
On 12 October 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to apologise for the incorrect complaint procedure which had been applied and offered to provide a stage two complaint response. At the same time, the landlord told the Ombudsman of its intention to provide the resident with a stage two review. The Ombudsman advised that following the landlord’s confirmation five months earlier that the complaint had completed the internal complaint process, it had already been accepted for formal investigation so it would continue with the investigation, but the landlord could continue to engage with the resident about the outstanding issues.
On 25 October 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to arrange a visit at the property in November 2021 to discuss the family needs, medical conditions, assistance to apply to the local authority housing register and options with the OT. On 26 October 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident with an update on the complaint.
1. It outlined the service failure of the stage one response (did not offer the option to escalate the complaint to stage two or signpost to the Housing Ombudsman).
2. It apologised for the time and trouble spent in trying to progress the complaint.
3. It outlined the review of the complaint.
4. It said that as per the advice of the stage one response, the landlord did not have properties larger than five bedrooms in any affordable housing stock in the area. It also iterated the stage one position that the local authority retained full nomination rights to all of its social/affordable housing and explained that this meant that all moves had to go through the housing register managed by the local authority.
5. It said that for adaptations, there needed to be a full assessment of need completed through the occupational health service and this would only be to improve the bedroom provision, rather than living space.
6. It said that it would require full medical evidence to make a referral to the OT and it had not received this.
7. It acknowledged that it had not sat down with the resident to discuss the OT information/process in way to ensure that she understood her options. It stated that an appointment had been made for 3 November 2021.
8. It iterated the offer to treat the mould.
9. It outlined learning from the complaint. It offered £125 for the missed opportunity to escalate the resident’s complaint.
10. It offered £125 for failing to explain the rehousing options and not offering better support to progress the OT referral.

Assessment and findings

The resident has complained that the property is not suitable for the needs of the family, due to the size, living space and the number of bedrooms. Complaints about the suitability of the property as decided by a local authority can be enquired about with the LGSCO. Accordingly, this element of the complaint is outside the scope of this investigation.
The remaining assessment is of the landlord’s handling and response to the resident’s complaint about the suitability of the property. The Ombudsman has assessed the entirety of the landlord’s response, including the additional final response of October 2021.
Historically, the landlord signposted the resident to the local authority’s complaint process in respect of her concerns about the suitability of her property (2020). The landlord repeated its position that the local authority was the decision maker in respect of the resident’s concerns about the suitability of housing for her family’s size/needs (2021). The allocation procedure contains the landlord’s nomination policy which states that the local authority has 100 percent nominations for its housing stock. Therefore, the landlord’s position in respect of the resident’s request for a larger property based on her suitability was appropriate.
Initially, the landlord did not respond reasonably to the resident’s complaint. While it was reasonable to manage her expectations about the local authority’s remit, it did not go on to provide a reasonable response in so far as it could do so, such as by setting out her housing options, setting out the OT process (such as what evidence was needed) or responding to the concerns about the coldness of the dining room. In respect of the dining room, it offered to investigate the reports of mould but it did not evidence an assessment to see if the room was of an adequate temperature. It did not reasonably engage with her concerns.
However, the landlord’s final response of October 2021 put right the failings of the stage one investigation. This is because it said that it would arrange an appointment with the resident to visit her and discuss in person her concerns and respond to these. This was reasonable because this provided the opportunity to clarify the landlord’s role and clarify the options that the resident could engage in to improve her living situation.
The stage one investigation was unclear in how it would engage with the options under the OT referral, as it said that it had made the referral at the same time as saying that it needed medical evidence.
It is unclear which evidence the landlord would have needed to engage with the OT services, as the OT would normally be the one to establish the required evidence (ie it would be up to the OT to evidence the need for more space due to medical needs, rather than the family doctor). It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to ultimately arrange a meeting to discuss this in person with the resident. The outcome of the meeting is not known, the Ombudsman’s scope under this assessment is limited to the final response of October 2021. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s proposals to arrange this meeting were reasonable.
There was an unreasonable delay by the landlord in arranging the resolution to the complaint. As a result, the resident experienced time and trouble. The landlord appropriately acknowledged its failure in recognising this impact on the resident. It went on to offer the resident redress (£125) which was proportional to the impact caused to her by the landlord’s failures under the stage one investigation.
The landlord did not provide the appropriate complaint responses as required by the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code or by the relevant complaint policy at the time. It did not escalate the complaint as it considered that the matter would remain unchanged. In doing so, it denied the opportunity for the resident to challenge the decision by correcting errors or sharing concerns via an appeal process (3.5 of the Code). The resident missed the opportunity to clarify her concerns, such as the coldness of the dining room. The landlord did not escalate the complaint until the Ombudsman’s intervention. Accordingly, there was a service failure in the complaint handling.
The landlord appropriately identified the service failure in respect of its complaint handling in October 2021. It identified that it did not signpost the resident, failed to address her concerns and acknowledged that the resident experienced time and trouble in progressing her complaint. It went on to offer the resident a response to her concerns at stage two which demonstrated that it had recognised its failures and it set out appropriate steps to put things right. This was resolution focused and in line with the dispute resolution principles advocated by this Service.
The landlord offered an apology, learning from the complaint and it also offered the resident compensation (£125) which was reasonable as it was proportional to the impact on her as a result of the failure in its complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress that resolves its acknowledged service failures in respect of:
1. Its response to the resident’s reports about the suitability of the property.
2. Its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord identified the failure to engage with the resident’s complaint about the suitability of housing and the OT referral process. The landlord offered compensation for the time and trouble and it offered to arrange a meeting to address the resident’s concerns and set out the options she had. This was reasonable as it took into account its previous failures and was resolution focused.
The landlord apologised for the failure to escalate the complaint and the missed opportunities under the complaint process. The landlord offered the resident a stage two response to address the outstanding concerns and it also offered the resident proportional compensation for the time and trouble in progressing the complaint.

Recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is recommended to pay the resident £250 offered in its final response (if this has not already been paid).
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is recommended to arrange an inspection to assess if the dining room/fifth bedroom is sufficiently heated.