London Borough of Hounslow (202433962)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202433962

London Borough of Hounslow

6 August 2025

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 landlord’s handling of major adaptation works to the property.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord, a council, since 2005. He is a joint tenant with his wife and the landlord has it recorded that she has severe health conditions, which affect her mobility, so she uses a wheelchair. The resident is his wife’s carer. The property is a 3-bedroom house with 1 bathroom/toilet upstairs.
In 2018 the council’s occupational therapist (OT) provided a report that said the resident’s wife needed a level access shower, stair lift and downstairs toilet. It advised in the future, she would also need a bedroom and level access shower downstairs. It said the property was not big enough to build this and recommended a move. The council said it subsequently made a number of offers of alternative accommodation between 2019 and 2023, but none resulted in a move.
The landlord agreed to complete major adaptation works to the property in 2023. This consisted of a single storey rear extension, creating space for a downstairs bedroom and wet room. In March 2024 the landlord told the resident it expected the works to start at the end of April 2024, but they did not.
The resident complained on 4 October 2024, saying there had been a delay in the works starting and his wife’s health had deteriorated. He said every time he contacted the landlord about this, he was given different information. He said he was having to constantly carry his wife up and down the stairs, and this had caused him to have back problems. He asked for the works to start as soon as possible and for the landlord to pay compensation.
On 19 November 2024 the landlord visited the resident. It noted it told him the works could not go ahead as it no longer had funding for large scale extensions. It inspected the property to assess whether any smaller scale adaptations could be completed and discussed rehousing options.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 10 December 2024, it upheld the complaint as there had been a delay in it telling the resident the extension works would not go ahead, and a delay in it responding to his complaint. It apologised and offered £300 compensation. It said it would not be possible to adapt the property with the budget available, so the only option was for the family to move to an alternative property that was suitably adapted.
The resident asked to escalate his complaint 9 days later. He said there was an error in one of the dates in the stage 1 response. He believed the landlord was discriminating against disabled people as it was continuing to adapt empty properties, where it could make more profit.
On 29 January 2025 the landlord sent its stage 2 response. It apologised for the date error in the stage 1 response and said the complaint was partially upheld because of this. It did not believe it was being discriminatory and confirmed it could not adapt the property as the budget was no longer available. It said the only option was to move the family to an already adapted property. It offered £50 compensation in addition to the £300 offered at stage 1.
The resident told us the following month that he was disappointed with the landlord’s response. His complaint was subsequently progressed for investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has told us the landlord has not built a wheelchair ramp for his wife at the front entrance to the property; or a pathway to allow her to get from the car to the property, across a grass area. He said this means she struggles to get in and out of the property and to and from the car, particularly when it is wet or icy. We have seen no evidence that this issue was raised or responded to via the landlord’s complaints process. Therefore, we are unable to investigate this matter. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss this and confirm in writing the process for it to assess and/or complete these works.

Handling of major adaptation works to the property

The resident registered with the council for rehousing in 2018 due to the unsuitability of the property. A number of alternative properties have been identified and/or offered to him since then. He has raised concerns about the council’s handling of his rehousing application, including information provided to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGCSO) as part of an investigation in 2022. As this matter was investigated by the LGSCO, this falls outside our jurisdiction and we will not comment further on this.
We are aware the resident asked the landlord about extending the property several years before this was agreed. Due to the time that has now passed, we have not investigated the landlord’s handling of these historic requests. Following the LGSCO determination in December 2022, the landlord subsequently considered the matter and agreed to extend the property.
The resident is understandably dissatisfied that the landlord has changed its position and declined to go ahead with the extension works. It has told him that, due to financial pressures, it reviewed its budget and the funds required for the extension works were no longer available. How the landlord allocates and spends its budgets is not a matter for us to investigate. However, the landlord is entitled to review its budgets and make changes if deemed necessary.
It is commonly known that councils are under significant financial strain and so it is understandable that budget cuts and restrictions are happening. We acknowledge that the landlord’s change in position on this matter has caused significant upset to the resident and his wife. However, this decision does not constitute a service failure and we cannot tell the landlord that it must go ahead with the extension. The landlord has explained why its position has changed and, while upsetting for the resident, this explanation is reasonable.
As the landlord is unable to go ahead with the extension, it is appropriate that it has considered alternative options to address the unsuitability of the property for the resident and his family. During the visit on 19 November 2024, it assessed whether any smaller scale adaptations could be completed. This was a sensible action to take but, unfortunately, it concluded this was not possible.
In light of this, the landlord has recommended a move for the family. We acknowledge this is not the resident’s preferred option. However, as the landlord cannot proceed with the extension or other adaptations, it is reasonable that it has recommended this. We are aware the resident has concerns about the council’s historic handling of his rehousing application but, for reasons already explained, we cannot assess this.
There are gaps in the landlord’s records in respect of its contact with the resident about the extension works. The resident has provided evidence of emails from the landlord and its contractor in March and July 2024. However, the landlord has not provided these or evidence of any other contact in 2024, except for the formal complaint records and the home visit record of 19 November 2024. This is a concern and highlights poor record keeping practices within the landlord. Landlords must ensure they have robust record keeping practices in place so that all contacts are recorded. This ensures it can review its own actions and account for these to residents and us, where required.
In the resident’s complaint, he said he had contacted the landlord about the works and been given different information each time. As we have seen no record of these contacts, we cannot make a full assessment of the landlord’s handling of these enquiries. Poor record keeping can lead to inconsistencies in the handling of issues, which is what appears to have happened here. The resident has said he was given different responses each time he called, which made no sense. The lack of clear records will have contributed to this, which caused frustration and confusion for the resident. This amounts to maladministration.
In accordance with good practice, the landlord should have been making regular proactive contact with the resident to provide updates regarding the progress of the works. This was particularly important as the landlord knew the reason for the extension works and their significance for the resident and his wife. Despite this, there is no evidence it was in regular contact with them. This meant he expended time and trouble chasing for updates. This amounts to maladministration.
The landlord has told us it identified it could not go ahead with the extension works on 15 October 2024. Despite this, it did not inform the resident until more than a month later, on 19 November 2024. Considering the significance of the works for the resident and his wife, the landlord should have made them aware about the change in its position as soon as possible.
In an internal email of 14 October 2024, the landlord recognised that the resident had been waiting many years for the works to be done. This, along with other comments, indicated it understood the importance of the works and the significance of it not being able to progress them. Despite this, it did not formally update the resident on its change of decision until 5 weeks later. This timescale was too long and the landlord should have taken action to update the resident sooner. Its failure to do so amounts to maladministration.
This delay resulted in the resident being told unofficially that the works were not going ahead. The landlord noted during the home visit on 19 November 2024 that he asked what was happening as he had been told the extension was no longer going ahead. It was inappropriate that the resident found this out unofficially as the landlord should have taken steps to tell him formally, before he found out via other means. The lack of urgency in the landlord progressing this indicates a lack of care and consideration for the resident and his wife. Particularly considering the importance of the update and the impact on their family. This amounts to maladministration.
The resident has told us he feels ignored by the landlord and, considering the failures identified, this is understandable. It is important that, going forward, the landlord improves its communication with the resident to restore his faith that it genuinely cares about his situation and understands the importance of this for him and his family. Therefore, we have made an order for the landlord to write to the resident confirming the current position regarding his rehousing and the method/frequency with which it will keep in contact with him to provide updates.
It was sensible of the landlord to complete a home visit on 19 November 2024 to tell the resident about its change of position. The update it needed to provide was significant and delivering this face to face showed it understood the seriousness of the matter. Four members of landlord/ council staff attended the visit from different departments, including one senior manager. This showed the landlord was taking the matter seriously. During the visit, the landlord explained that there were 4 members of staff present so it could answer any queries he raised there and then. In the circumstances, this was appropriate.
The resident has raised concerns about the landlord carrying out extension works to other properties and he feels this is unfair as it has declined to complete extension works in his property. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it was required to make the best use of its stock to ensure empty homes were let as quickly as possible to those on its waiting lists. It advised that some properties had structural issues and extensive work was required so they could be relet to those in greatest need.
While this is a general response, it is reasonable that the landlord would not be able to give specific detail about other properties. It is understandable that this will feel unfair to the resident, but the landlord is entitled to complete works to other properties as required to make best use of its stock and in accordance with housing need. Our investigation has focused on the resident’s circumstances only. This means we have not investigated the reasons for works being carried out in other properties and so cannot comment further in that regard.
The resident has said he feels the landlord has discriminated against him and breached the Equality Act. We cannot make a determination in respect of this, as this is a matter for the courts to decide. What we can assess is whether the landlord has shown due regard for its responsibilities under the Equality Act, which includes making reasonable adjustments.
When considering whether an adjustment is reasonable, the landlord must take into account a number of factors. This does not only include the resident’s needs and circumstances, but also what is achievable and practicable for the landlord. It agreed to complete the adaptation works as a reasonable adjustment, but due to a change in its financial circumstances, it is no longer able to go ahead with this. While distressing for the resident and his wife, the landlord was entitled to change its position on the extension works, if it was no longer reasonable financially. While it will not complete the extension works, it has considered other adjustments it can make in place of this. Therefore, it is our view that the landlord has shown due regard for its responsibilities under the Equality Act.
The landlord identified failure in its handling of this matter, particularly in respect of its communication. It apologised and offered £350 compensation for this and complaint handling failures (it did not specify distinct amounts for each). Therefore, we have made an assessment of the total amount offered in respect of this issue.
Considering the full circumstances of this matter and in consultation with our remedies guidance, the redress offered is insufficient to address the detriment caused. The landlord was aware of the significance of the works for the resident. Because of this, it was even more important that it adhered to good practice in respect of its communication and provided regular proactive updates. In addition, when it identified that it could not go ahead with the works, it should have made the resident aware of this straight away and not delayed by 5 weeks, resulting in him finding out via other means.
While the landlord’s decision not to proceed with the works has had a significant impact on the resident, we have not found failure in this decision. We have found failure in the landlord’s communication and recognise these failures have had an adverse effect on the resident. However, they have not had any permanent impact. Therefore, a finding of maladministration is appropriate. We order the landlord to apologise to the resident for the poor communication in its handling of this matter and pay him £500 compensation (inclusive of the £350 already offered, if not done so). This is in line with our remedies guidance for maladministration findings at the higher end of the scale, due to the detriment caused.
While the landlord acknowledged failure in its handling of this matter and offered redress, it did not identify any learning as a result of the complaint. This is in contravention of our Dispute Resolution Principle to learn from outcomes. Therefore, we also order the landlord to review this case to identify why the communication and record keeping failures occurred. Following the review, it must confirm the outcome in writing to the resident and us, including actions and/or improvements it will take to prevent similar failures in the future.

Complaint handling

The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 10 October 2024. This was 4 working days after the complaint was raised, which was in line with the 5 working day committed timescale set out in its complaints policy.
On 23 October 2024 the landlord told the resident it needed more time to investigate the complaint and extended the response deadline to 7 November 2024. This was reasonable and in line with its complaints policy, which said it could extend the response timescale if further time was needed.
The landlord did not send the response by the extended deadline and it was a further 23 working days before it did. During this period of delay, the resident incurred time and trouble chasing the response on 13 November 2024. While the landlord replied 5 days later and apologised for the delay, it did not tell him when he would receive the response. This was disappointing for the resident and made him feel the landlord was not taking the complaint seriously.
The landlord sent the stage 1 response 43 working days after it acknowledged the complaint. This was significantly over the 10 working day committed timescale set out in its complaints policy. While the landlord extended the deadline for some of this period, it did not meet the extended deadline or keep the resident sufficiently updated during the entire period of delay. This amounts to maladministration.
There was an error in one of the dates in the stage 1 response, which the resident pointed out. He felt the lack of attention to detail showed the landlord was not taking the matter seriously. This was an understandable concern as the landlord should have checked the response before it was sent to make sure it was factually correct.
While errors can occur, this highlights the impact and shows how important it is for the landlord to check its complaint responses thoroughly for inaccuracies, before they are sent. The landlord acknowledged its error in the stage 2 response, apologised and partially upheld the complaint on this basis. This was reasonable and showed it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 24 December 2024, 3 working days after the resident asked to escalate the complaint. This was in line with the 5 working day committed timescale set out in its complaints policy. It sent the stage 2 response 23 working days later. This was over the 20 working day committed response time, set out in its complaints policy at the time, and so a minor a delay.
The landlord acknowledged failure in its complaint handling, apologised and offered compensation. As the total amount of compensation offered was not sufficient to address the landlord’s failures in its handling of the major adaptation works, it has not offered reasonable redress for the complaint handling either. Therefore, a finding of maladministration is appropriate. We have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for findings of maladministration and is reflective of the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble experienced by the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. Major adaptation works to the property.
2. The formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
1. Written to the resident confirming the current position regarding his rehousing and the method/frequency with which it will keep in contact with him going forward to provide updates.
2. Apologised to the resident for the communication failures in its handling of major adaptation works to the property.
3. Paid the resident £600 compensation, made up of:
  1. £500 for its handling of major adaptation works to the property (inclusive of the £350 already offered, if not done so).
  2. £100 for its complaint handling.
Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has reviewed the resident’s case to identify why the communication and record keeping failures occurred. Following the review, it must confirm the outcome of this in writing to the resident and us, including actions and/ or improvements it will take to prevent similar failures in the future.

Recommendation

The landlord is recommended to contact the resident to discuss his request for a ramp and pathway to be installed at the front of the property. Following the discussion, it should confirm in writing the process for it to assess and/or complete these works.