Northumberland County Council (202448418)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202448418

Northumberland County Council

29 September 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 handling of:
   1. Adaptations to the resident’s property
   2. The resident’s complaint

Background

2. The resident has lived in a house under a secure tenancy with the landlord, a local council, since 27 August 2020. She lives at the property with her daughter.
3. The resident had concerns about certain features of her property not meeting her daughter’s medical needs. An Occupational Therapist (OT) visited, assessed her daughter’s needs and recommended several adaptations. These adaptations included replacing the bath with a shower, changing the bannisters and raising the height of a brick wall in the front garden. The report was issued to the landlord on 22 July 2024.
4. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 16 October 2024. She said it had not taken any action since receiving the OT report. Because of that, her daughter was having to live elsewhere.
5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 13 December 2024. It acknowledged there had been delays in starting works. It also recognised its communication with the resident had been poor. It said a Project Officer assigned to the case was working with contractors to resolve the issue.
6. The resident escalated her complaint on 7 January 2024. She said works still had not started. She also said she was not getting any response from the Project Officer despite chasing. She highlighted that her daughter was still not living at home because of the delays. She asked for a new Project Officer to be assigned to her case.
7. After both the resident and the Ombudsman chased the landlord, it provided its stage 2 response on 28 March 2025. It agreed there had been delays and its communication had been poor. It said staff absence had been the cause. It apologised and said works would start on 7 April 2025. It gave her information on how to bring her complaint to the Ombudsman.
8. The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman in June 2025. She said the landlord took too long to complete the adaptations and did not keep her updated. She said her daughter had to live elsewhere for months because of the delays. She wanted it to apologise and compensate her for the distress caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

9. The resident has told the Ombudsman following the internal complaints process with the landlord the adaptations to the banister were still outstanding. She therefore has recently taken it to the Small Claims Court, where the Court ruled in her favour. The court has ordered the landlord to complete the banister adaptations by October 2025.
10. The Ombudsman cannot consider matters that are, or have been, the subject of court proceedings. Therefore, we cannot consider in this investigation the resident’s complaint about the banister.
11. We can consider the landlord’s handling of the other adaptations the complaint involves. Any reference to the banister adaptations is for context only.
12. The landlord’s handling of adaptations to the resident’s property

12. The landlord’s adaptations policy says standard adaptations include works such as installing level access showers. It says once it receives an OT report, if the works are considered standard it will allocate the job to a contractor. The contractor will then complete a joint visit with the landlord to the property to assess the works and provide it with a quote within 2 weeks.  It has 2 weeks to approve the works. If approved, it then instructs the contractor to start works within the following 8 weeks.
13. The landlord’s capital service works policy covers adaptations. The policy says when works are approved it will write to the resident to confirm this. It will also confirm what works will take place and when. It also says it will appoint a Project Officer to the case to be the main point of contact for the resident throughout.
14. The resident’s complaint to the landlord was it was taking too long to start the adaptation works recommended in the OT report. She said without these adaptations her daughter was having to live elsewhere and the delays were prolonging this time apart. She also said its communication had been poor. She said she, and the contractors, were continually chasing her appointed Project Officer for updates but never receiving a response. At stage 2 she asked for a new Project Officer to be appointed to her case.
15. Across both stages the landlord agreed its handling of the adaptations had been poor. At stage 2 it explained that unexpected staff absences had caused the delays and its poor communication. It apologised, explained what changes it implemented to prevent this happening again and at stage 2 explained works had now been arranged to start in April 2025.
16. Part of the landlord’s complaint response was reasonable and appropriate. Evidence shows that between July and December 2025 it was dealing with some unexpected staff absence, including with the Project Officer assigned to the resident’s case. While it did not explain this in its stage 1 response, it did at stage 2. In its response it recognised the resident had repeatedly chased the Project Officer and often got no response, which the evidence supports.
17. It was also appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the delays caused and explain what changes it was making to prevent this happening again. This approach complies with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and shows learning by the landlord.
18. However, despite recognising there had been fault with its service, the landlord failed to fully acknowledge the impact on the resident. At both stages she told it her daughter could not live at home until the adaptations were complete. As such, any delays were having a significant impact on her family life.
19. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s comments in its stage 2 response, however it failed to offer any redress to reflect the distress caused. This was not reasonable, particularly given the impact the resident had explain its failings had. It was also a missed opportunity to help repair its relationship with the resident.
20. Overall, part of the landlord’s complaint response was reasonable and appropriate. It recognised its handling of the adaptations and communication with the resident had been poor, apologised and explained in detail, how it would use her complaint to improve its services. However, it failed to recognise the impact its failings had on the resident and her daughter, or offer reasonable levels of redress to reflect this. That left the complaint only partially resolved.
21. Complaint Handling

21. The landlord’s Complaints Policy says it aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of receipt. It says it aims to respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of receipt. It says if a complaint is complex it may be able to extend both response times, providing it gets approval from the complainant.
22. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint at both stages of the internal complaint process was poor. It took 42 working days for it to provide its stage 1 response which exceeded the 10 working days set out in its policy. Nothing in the evidence explains the cause of this delay. It did not acknowledge this delay in its response, which was not appropriate. It also does not comply with the Code which states stage 1 response should be issued within 10 working days of acknowledgement.
23. The resident emailed the landlord on 7 January 2025 saying she was still awaiting a response to her stage 2 escalation from December 2024. In its stage 2 response it said it had taken this email as her escalation request. The resident told the Ombudsman she escalated her complaint during a phone call to the landlord in December 2024. No evidence has been seen confirming this and therefore this investigation cannot make a determination on this matter.
24. Nevertheless, even from the email on 7 January 2025, it still took the landlord 58 working days to provide its stage 2 response. This exceeded the 20 working days set out in its policy. After contact from the resident, the Ombudsman also had to chase the landlord for its stage 2 response. There is no evidence to show it agreed an extended deadline with the resident or keep her updated on progress. It also failed to acknowledge this delay in its response, which was not appropriate.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of adaptations to the resident’s property.
26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

27. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £250 compensation for the distress its handling of the adaptations caused.
    2. Pay the resident £150 compensation for its delays in handling the resident’s complaint.
    3. Provide evidence of this to the Service.