East Midlands Housing Group Limited (202419092)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419092

East Midlands Housing Group Limited

31 July 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 the resident’s:
1. Requests for aids and adaptations in the property.
2. Complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a two-bedroom bungalow owned by the landlord, a housing association. The resident is a vulnerable adult, with several health conditions and she is neurodivergent. She is a wheelchair user. The landlord is aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities. A representative supported the resident throughout the complaint process. For clarity, references to the resident in this report include actions taken by her representative.
The resident raised her initial concerns on 15 April 2024 shortly after receiving the keys to the property. She explained that the property was not accessible for her wheelchair, particularly in the bathroom and kitchen. She identified that a radiator and boxed-in pipework obstructed access to the bathroom and requested adaptations, including the installation of grab rails to improve safety and usability.
On 11 August 2024 the resident’s representative submitted a formal complaint to the landlord. The representative raised concerns about the condition of the property at the time of letting, lack of adaptations, and health and safety risks. The representative stated that the property was not fit for a disabled person and that the resident was experiencing severe physical and mental distress as a result. The representative also highlighted delays in progressing the Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) and a lack of communication from the landlord.
On 5 September 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It confirmed that it had ordered drop-down rails for the resident’s bathroom. It said that the local authority would progress the kitchen and doorway widening works. It offered £10 compensation for its complaint handling delays.
The resident’s representative escalated the complaint on 10 September 2024. She expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of progress on adaptations and repairs including completing the bathroom rails installation and repositioning a radiator in the bathroom. She raised concerns about the resident’s safety, the absence of a timeline for works, and the landlord’s failure to communicate effectively or coordinate with other agencies.
On 11 December 2024 the landlord issued its final complaint response. It confirmed that the local authority was responsible for the kitchen and doorway widening works. It said it was responsible for installing drop-down rails and repositioning the radiator in the bathroom and it had completed these works. The landlord explained that delays had occurred because the handrails required a special order. It stated that it had been in regular contact with the local authority, but they had not yet provided a clear schedule for the remaining adaptations. The landlord committed to continuing communication and keeping the resident updated. It apologised for the poor service and offered £100 compensation for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and referred her complaint to us. She stated that the property remained unsafe and unfit for her needs. The resident is seeking urgent completion of all outstanding works, a clear timeline for adaptations, and appropriate redress for the distress and hardship caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In communication with us, the resident said the delays in resolving the adaptation issues have had a detrimental impact on her health. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
The responsibility for the delivery of major adaptations under a DFG sits with the local authority. The resident has complained about the delays in completing these repairs, including adapting the kitchen and widening the doorways in the property. We can only investigate the actions of the landlord in this case and not the council. If the resident is unhappy with this, she must complain to the council. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman can consider these complaints.
In bringing her complaint to us, the resident raised issues in relation to damp and mould in the property. This issue was not part of her formal complaint to the landlord. The Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process. This is because the landlord should be given the opportunity to respond to any new issues that arise under its complaints procedure before the Ombudsman investigates them. This new issue has not yet exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, so we will not consider it in this report. It is open to the resident to bring a complaint to us about this issue after she has completed the landlord’s complaints process.

Requests for aids and adaptations in the property

The landlord is required under its tenancy agreement, void relet standard, and relevant legislation to ensure that properties are habitable, free from health and safety hazards, and compliant with the Decent Homes Standard before letting. The Equality Act 2010 places a duty on landlords to make reasonable adjustments for disabled tenants. However, this duty does not extend to altering or removing physical features such as walls, doorways, or permanent fixtures. The Care Act 2014 requires housing providers to cooperate with local authorities in safeguarding vulnerable adults, but it does not impose a duty to adapt properties before allocation.
The landlord’s responsibilities in relation to aids and adaptations are set out in its Aids and Adaptations Policy, tenancy agreement, and relevant legislation. While the policy states that the landlord has no legal obligation to provide adaptations, it commits to enabling tenants to live independently and to working in partnership with local authorities to meet adaptation needs. Minor adaptations, such as grab rails and handrails, are assessed and delivered by the landlord’s Asset and Compliance Team. Major adaptations, such as kitchen alterations and door widening, are typically funded through a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) and coordinated with adult social care. The Equality Act 2010 requires landlords to make reasonable adjustments for disabled tenants, and the Care Act 2014 places a duty on housing providers to cooperate with local authorities to safeguard and support vulnerable adults.
On 15 April and 30 July 2024, the resident requested adaptations to make the bathroom accessible, including the installation of grab rails and the repositioning of a radiator that obstructed the door. Given the resident’s support needs and the essential nature of the adaptations, it would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to have treated the resident’s request as urgent and completed it promptly.
However, the landlord’s records show it did not raise an order for these works until 1 August 2024. This was not reasonable, particularly given the resident’s circumstances.
In its stage 1 complaint response on 5 September 2024 the landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for the delays in completing the grab rail and radiator repositioning works. Neither did it offer compensation for this failing. This was unreasonable.
On 10 September 2024 the landlord attended the property and installed a grab rail. However, it installed an unsuitable rail. The rail was too high and included a support leg, which posed a safety risk. The resident reported that she continued to fall regularly and could not shower safely. By that point, more than 4 months had passed since she first requested the adaptations. The landlord had also failed to complete the radiator repositioning or explain the delay.
In addition to the internal works, the resident also raised concerns about external access and safety. She first reported the ramp as unstable on 15 April 2024. The landlord raised a job to inspect and repair the ramp on 1 August 2024. The resident confirmed the landlord fixed the ramp by 20 August 2024. Although this was within the landlord’s grouped repairs time limit, it should have prioritised the repair given the resident’s vulnerabilities and the importance of ensuring she could enter and exit her home safely.
The resident also raised concerns about the condition of the garden. She explained that the surface was unsafe for wheelchair use and that she was unable to store her electric wheelchair indoors due to access issues. The landlord raised a job on 5 August 2024 and garden works, including pathway repairs and a gate post fix, were completed by 26 October 2024. While this was within a reasonable time limit, the landlord did not consult the resident about the installation of a rotary clothesline, which she later reported was unsuitable due to her limited reach. The landlord did not address these concerns in its complaint response.
The resident raised concerns about the need to widen doorways and improve external access to accommodate her wheelchair. These works were assessed and funded through a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) and fall under the responsibility of the local authority. While the landlord was not responsible for delivering these adaptations, it was expected to cooperate with the local authority and communicate effectively with the resident. The resident reported delays and confusion about the scope and timeline of the DFG-funded works, which contributed to her distress and limited her ability to access her home safely. The landlord’s complaint responses did not fully acknowledge the impact of these delays or provide clarity on its role in supporting the adaptations process.
The landlord’s records show it completed the repositioning of the radiator works on 2 December 2024. It is unclear from its records if it also installed the correct grab rails during this appointment. This was more than 7 months after the resident’s initial request on 15 April 2024. This delay and lack of communication would have caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident.
In its stage 2 complaint response on 11 December 2024 the landlord apologised for the distress and inconvenience it caused the resident. It acknowledged that the drop-down rails were a special order and that this had caused delays. It confirmed that it had repositioned the radiator and scheduled further remedial works. The landlord offered £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
The landlord acknowledged that, if the OT had been involved in the process when the property was offered to the resident, it would have been in a better position to have agreed the adaptations she required before she moved in. The landlord’s failure to treat the repairs as a higher priority was unreasonable given the resident’s vulnerabilities and reliance on a wheelchair. The delay exposed the resident to avoidable risk and limited her ability to safely enter and exit her bathroom. The landlord did not provide timely updates or acknowledge the impact of the delay in its complaint responses. This reflects a lack of person-centred practice and failure to apply its adaptations policy in a way that considered the resident’s circumstances.
While the landlord did eventually complete some of the minor adaptations, its handling of the resident’s requests fell short of its policy commitments. The delays in installing essential safety equipment, such as grab rails, exposed the resident to avoidable risk. The landlord’s communication was inconsistent, and it failed to provide clear updates or manage the resident’s expectations. The resident’s vulnerability and the impact on her health and independence were not adequately considered in the landlord’s responses. The £100 compensation it offered does not adequately reflect the impact of its failings on the resident.
In conclusion, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for aids and adaptations. This finding reflects the landlord’s failure to act promptly on minor adaptations within its control, failure to follow its repairs policy and poor communication. Although the landlord eventually completed the repairs, it did not demonstrate a proactive or person-centred approach, and its complaint responses did not fully acknowledge the impact on the resident.
In line with the landlord’s compensation policy and our Remedies Guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £350 compensation. This amount reflects the ongoing distress and inconvenience the resident experienced, the severity and duration of the failure, and the resident’s vulnerability.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint handling obligations are set out in its Complaints Policy, which aligns with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The policy requires the landlord to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, issue a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days or 20 if extended, and provide a stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days of escalation. The policy also emphasises the importance of clear communication, timely updates, and consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities and communication preferences.
The resident’s representative submitted a formal complaint on 11 August 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 21 August 2024, 10 days later, outside the five-day target. It issued its stage 1 complaint response on 5 September 2024, within the extended period. It addressed some issues and offered £10 compensation for the delay in logging the complaint. However, it did not address the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy. It also failed to consider the broader concerns about delays in completing repairs, the impact on the resident’s wellbeing, or the landlord’s communication failures.
The resident’s representative escalated the complaint on 10 September 2024. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 18 September 2024 and committed to providing a stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days. However, it missed this deadline and issued an extension on 16 October 2024, followed by a second extension on 13 November 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 11 December 2024, 3 months after the escalation request. This was a failing and not in line with its policy or the Complaint Handling Code.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged delays in completing adaptations and communication issues. It offered £100 compensation, stating this was a discretionary payment for the “substandard service” the resident had received, including the distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble involved in pursuing the matter. However, the response did not specifically acknowledge the delays in complaint handling or offer compensation for these delays.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. It failed to address all the issues raised. It also failed to follow its own complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Code. It did not respond to the complaint within the appropriate time limit or acknowledge this failure in its response. It did not show any lessons learnt from its complaint handling delays at stage 1 of its process nor did it offer compensation for these failings These failings would have caused inconvenience and frustration to the resident. In recognition of this, we have ordered the landlord to pay £150 in compensation. This amount reflects the cumulative impact of its poor complaint handling, failure to follow procedures, and the distress and frustration caused to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme:
1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for aids and adaptations.
2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must complete the following orders and provide evidence of compliance to us:
1. A senior member of the landlord’s staff must apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report. This should include failures in relation to requests for aids and adaptations and not following its complaint policies. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies (available on our website).
2. The landlord should conduct a follow-up inspection of the garden and external access areas to confirm whether they are now safe and accessible for the resident’s use. If further works are required, these should be scheduled and communicated clearly to the resident.
3. Pay the resident the total sum of £910 in compensation broken down as:
  1. The £100 previously offered for distress and inconvenience in its stage 2 complaint response on11 December 2024 (if not already paid).
  2. The £10 previously offered in its stage 1 complaint response in relation to complaint handling. (if not already paid).
  3. £650 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its handling of the resident’s requests for aids and adaptations.
  4. £150 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its complaint handling.
  5. This compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears where they exist.

Recommendations

We recommend that:
1. The landlord should review its complaint handling procedures to ensure compliance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. It should implement a system to monitor complaint response times and escalate overdue cases promptly. Staff should receive training on handling complaints involving vulnerable residents, with a focus on empathy, accountability, and resolution.
2. The landlord should review its adaptations process to ensure that minor works are completed promptly and that residents are kept informed throughout. Staff should receive training on the importance of reasonable adjustments and the impact of delays on disabled residents.