From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Bolton at Home Limited (202441409)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202441409

Bolton at Home 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
    1. request for it to extend the property.
    2. reports of discrimination.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom, semi-detached house that the landlord, which is a housing association, owns and manages. The landlord let the property to the resident under an assured tenancy agreement in November 2023. The landlord records that the resident’s child is vulnerable and has a terminal degenerative condition that affects him physically. For the purposes of this report, the terms ‘occupational therapy’ and ‘occupational therapist’ will both be referred to as ‘OT’.
  2. An OT assessment on 8 February 2024 made several recommendations to adapt the resident’s property. The resident asked the OT to consider additional adaptations. This included a single-floor ground extension to accommodate a bathroom and bedroom. The landlord’s surveyor and an OT carried out a joint visit in July/August 2024. Following this, the landlord provided the resident with 2 options for adapting the property. It said it had agreed with the OT that they met his child’s needs. Neither of these involved building an extension.
  3. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 7 October 2024. He said that its proposals to adapt the property would have a negative impact on his child’s health. He added that extending the property would better meet his needs. He said he wanted the landlord to send him an “official letter” stating the reasons for its “refusal” to agree to an extension.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 10 October 2024 and issued a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 7 November 2024. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It said that:
    1. due to the complexity of the works, it would aim to complete them within 562 days.
    2. its surveyor had “rejected” his proposal for an extension as they felt his child’s needs could be met through the installation of a lift.
    3. it had agreed external adaptations, some of which it hoped to complete before Christmas.
    4. it would continue to make “reasonable proposals” to support his child’s needs in line with its responsibilities as a landlord.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint to the landlord on 2 December 2024. He said that:
    1. he would have expected the work to be carried out quicker given the seriousness of his child’s condition.
    2. he wanted a copy of the minutes from the meeting that took place on 23 October 2024 between its repairs team and the OT.
    3. he had provided recommendations from a physiotherapist supporting his view that his child required ground floor level access for bathing and sleeping.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 19 December 2024. It said that it was unable to uphold his complaint because:
    1. the adaptations to his home were “multiple” in both number and location. This made them more complex to deliver and would take more time.
    2. the meeting with the OT on 23 October 2024 was to discuss proposals to install a lift and check its proposed adaptations would meet his child’s needs “in the best way”. It had shared the outcome of the meeting with him on 4 November 2024.
    3. the OT had disagreed with the physiotherapist’s letter. They stated that a ground floor extension would not be required.
    4. it had proposed adaptations that would meet his child’s needs in the most “reasonable and practical way”.
    5. it was required to operate within a “legal framework” for housing adaptations. This only allowed it to make “exterior changes” if it could not make suitable adaptations inside the property.
  7. The resident asked the Ombudsman on 15 January 2025 to investigate the complaint. He stated that his child was “unsafe” because the landlord would not extend the property, as per his request. He added that it made the “false statement” to his local newspaper, saying it had advised him before he moved in that an extension was not possible.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. 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.
  2. We have carefully considered all the evidence. In accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of discrimination is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. Paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme states that “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure”.
  4. The resident complained that the landlord’s decision not to build an extension to accommodate his disabled child’s needs was “discriminatory”. We cannot decide if a landlord has breached the Equality Act 2010. Only a court can do that. However, we can look at how the landlord handled the issue and whether it acted fairly, based on its duties and policies. This will be considered in our assessment of the resident’s request for an extension to the property. The resident can seek independent legal advice or approach an organisation such as Citizens Advice if he wishes to pursue the matter.

Scope of investigation

  1. In his complaint, the resident explained that he did not agree with the OT assessment or their recommendations. We are unable to assess the suitability of an OT assessment, or the merits of any recommendations made by health service professionals. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can look at concerns raised about services provided by councils, including complaints about OTs. In view of this, we will address the resident’s concerns regarding the landlord’s handling of requested adaptations within its role as a social landlord. This includes whether it acted in line with the recommendations provided by the OT. We will not comment on whether the OT recommendations were sufficient or correct as it is outside our remit to assess this.

Request to extend the property

  1. The Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction allows us to consider how the landlord handled the original request by the resident for the proposed adaptation. We can therefore take a view as to whether the landlord’s refusal to undertake the resident’s proposed adaptation works to the property was reasonable in the circumstances.
  2. Under the Equality Act 2010, landlords and housing providers have a legal duty to make “reasonable adjustments” for disabled tenants. This means they must take steps to ensure that people with disabilities are not placed at a disadvantage compared to others. Local councils and housing associations also have responsibilities to consider and provide necessary adaptations, especially where these changes are essential for health, safety, or daily living. Landlords are not required to make changes that would fundamentally alter the structure of the property or cause significant disruption or expense. However, they must consider each request fairly and cannot refuse requests without good reason.
  3. The landlord’s disabled facilities adaptations policy states its purpose is to:
    1. try and ensure that its properties suit the needs of all those living in them.
    2. respond adequately and fairly to the challenges that any new or deteriorating long-term health issue may have on a resident’s ability to live comfortably in their home.
    3. enlist expert advice on what the problems are and how they are best solved for the individual and the household concerned.
    4. arrive at the best, cost-effective solution from a range of options.
  4. The same policy states that, due to budgetary constraints, the landlord wants to make the best use of existing stock. Therefore, referrals for extensions will ordinarily not be considered as a disabled facilities adaptation.
  5. It is unclear when the resident first made a request for a ground floor extension. However, the records show that, on 14 November 2023, the landlord set out its position to the OT service with regard to building extensions as disabled facilities adaptations. It stated that it would “never provide an extension to a property if the need can be met within the current footprint”. This was prior to when the resident moved into the property. It is unclear whether the OT conveyed this to the resident. The records show that the landlord met with the resident on 30 August 2024 and informed him it would not build an extension
  6. The landlord acted appropriately by working with the OT to establish which adaptations were necessary to meet the child’s needs. It was also reasonable for the landlord to base its proposed adaptation plans on the recommendations of the OT who assessed the property on 8 February 2024. This is because an OT is best placed to assess how a property can be adapted to meet the needs of a disabled resident. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to rely on the recommendations of a suitably qualified health professional. The OT assessment made no mention of a requirement for an extension. Furthermore, we understand the OT wrote to the landlord on 18 November 2024 confirming they “would not agree” that a ground floor extension was required.
  7. Following the OT recommendations, the landlord appropriately wrote to the resident on 5 August 2024 setting out different options for adapting the property to meet the child’s needs. The records suggest the landlord had proposed 2 suitable adaptation schemes that did not involve extending the property. These were:
    1. creating a ground floor level access bathroom using existing space off the kitchen and installing a through floor lift.
    2. creating a ground floor level access bathroom and additional storage using existing space off the kitchen.
  8. The landlord then consulted regularly with the OT to ensure ongoing agreement with its plans as they evolved. It acted appropriately by making sure any changes were in keeping with the OT recommendations. Furthermore, it was consistent in stating its position to the resident with regard to building an extension. In this way it made reasonable attempts to manage his expectations.
  9. The landlord has demonstrated that it took reasonable steps to explore the most reasonable, practical and cost-effective ways of meeting the child’s needs, while following the OT’s recommendations. That the landlord was unable to progress with its proposed works due to the resident’s continuing preference for an extension was beyond its control.
  10. The landlord’s disabled facilities adaptations policy states that, where complex cases are proposed, and moving to a more suitable home is not an option, the landlord would hold a panel review with the council. This would seek to use the local authority’s disabled facilities grant (DFG) application and funding route for a resident. The resident confirmed to us on 16 July 2025 that the landlord had already applied for the DFG, which would pay up to £50,000 subject to the approval of a senior council officer. He told us that the landlord did not believe this would cover the cost of building an extension. It is unclear what it based its calculation on how much an extension to the property would cost. However, the consideration of costs is a reasonable factor for the landlord to take into account in responding to applications for adaptations. This is because it has obligations to other residents which it must also budget for. The landlord has demonstrated that it gave consideration to this in making its decision, while also maintaining its position over the course of its communications with the resident.
  11. Internal correspondence shows that the landlord was in discussion with the council about the option of seeking a move. If the resident would not agree with the landlord’s proposed adaptations, it suggested placing the household on the adapted housing register for a larger property. However, the council advised the landlord that there was no guarantee the family would meet the criteria. This was because it was based on providing space for siblings and not on the disabled child’s needs. The council advised that the child’s needs could be met through the adaptations the landlord had offered to the family. It added that, any request for a 4-bedroom property would likely to be “a lengthy wait based on current demand”. It is unclear whether it communicated this to the resident. However, this demonstrates it was taking reasonable steps to explore different options for the household.
  12. The evidence shows the landlord:
    1. considered the resident’s request concerning adaptations for his child and managed his expectations about its approach to extending properties in the circumstances. It wrote to him setting out its decision.
    2. adhered to each of the relevant elements of its policy in assessing the application.
    3. worked in partnership with the OT service to ensure it was adapting the property in accordance with its recommendations, and the child’s needs.
    4. considered the cost of the proposed works, which would be significant as they involved a number of internal and external adaptations and included installation of a lift.
    5. correctly followed its policy and considered its wider budget when assessing which adaptations were reasonable in the circumstances.
  13. We acknowledge the significant challenges the resident faces in caring for his child and recognise his determination to do the best for him. However, the Ombudsman is therefore satisfied the landlord acted reasonably in this case, and that there was no maladministration in its response to the resident’s request for it to extend the property.

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for it to extend the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of discrimination is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.