Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (202306969)

Background

1. Before moving to the property, the resident was living with her parents. The landlord rehomed her as her parent’s property was classed as being overcrowded. The tenancy began but the resident declined to move in until adaptations were carried out. She also raised concerns about works not having been done while the property was empty. The landlord refunded her rent up until she moved in however, resident felt the landlord should have also given her compensation.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Adaptations in the property.
   2. Works at the property prior to the resident moving in.
   3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of adaptations in the property.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of works at the property prior to when the resident moved in.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Adaptations in the property

6. The evidence shows the landlord followed the advice of an occupational therapist in how it responded to the resident’s request for adaptations in the property. The landlord identified it should have done more to assess the resident’s requirements for adaptations before she moved into the property. However, it failed to consider redress for this despite its acknowledged failure.

Works at the property prior to when the resident moved in

7. The landlord followed its policies in carrying out repair works raised by the resident before she moved into the property. The evidence shows the landlord went beyond its requirements and completed work it was not obliged to under the terms of the tenancy. 

Complaint handling

8. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaints in the timeframes set out within its complaints policy.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not investigated

9. The resident said the landlord had discriminated against her on the basis of protected characteristics and that it was her human right to have a wet room. We do not investigate complaints where it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through a court. In this case, we cannot make a determination as to whether the landlord has complied with the Equality Act 2010, this is a matter only a court has the authority to decide upon. For these reasons, we have not investigated the resident’s concerns about discrimination or whether there has been a breach of her human rights.

What we have investigated

10. Our investigation concerns whether the landlord acted reasonably following the resident’s complaint, whether it acted in line with its policies and procedures and whether it acted fairly in the circumstances.
11. The evidence shows the resident raised her concerns about the suitability of the property on 20 and 21 March 2023. Although the resident said she raised this earlier, we have not been provided with evidence which shows this..
12. The landlord referred the matter to an occupational therapist on 29 March 2023. The landlord does not have an adaptations policy which sets out specific timescales for its service provision. The general details of its approach to adaptations is set out on its website. The landlord arranged an assessment in line with the resident’s request and availability to travel to the property. This was carried out on 16 May 2023.
13. The occupational therapist concluded that, before the resident could move in, a full length banister needed to be installed, along with external rails and different kitchen taps. They concluded that works to the bathroom and toilet did not need to be done before the resident could move in. They said bathroom adaptations could be done at a later date and offered a temporary solution to install a bath chair lift to meet the resident’s needs.
14. We have seen evidence that the resident declined the interim solution suggested by the occupational therapist and said she would not move in until the bathroom and toilet works had been completed.
15. In the circumstances where the resident disagreed about the works required, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the findings of its occupational therapist. It therefore follows that the landlord could reasonably expect the resident to move into the property and pay rent once the banister, access rail and kitchen taps had been replaced on 4 July 2023.
16. Despite these works being completed, the resident declined to move in until the bathroom adaptations were completed on 4 August 2023. In line with the resident’s request, the landlord did not charge her rent until she moved into the property. This was despite the occupational therapist confirming that the property was suitable for her needs from 4 July 2023. As such, the landlord’s decision not to charge rent until August 2023, went beyond its previous commitment not to charge her until the property was ready for the resident to move in to.. In doing so it demonstrated a understanding of the resident’s concerns and a resolution-focused approach in line with her request.
17. Within its complaint responses, the landlord apologised that it had not caried out a up-to-date assessment of the resident’s needs prior to the property being agreed. Despite acknowledging that it should have assessed the resident’s needs before she moved in, the landlord did not consider any compensation to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by this failure. This was a missed opportunity to try and put things right.
18. The resident told the landlord that the situation had caused her financial hardship. She outlined the expense of travelling to the property and purchasing household and garden items. Although the resident did not request this compensation until after the completion of the internal complaints procedure, we have not been provided with any evidence to show that the landlord responded to her request for compensation.
19. It is apparent from our investigation that the resident was inconvenienced by not being able to move into the property until the works advised by the occupational therapist were competed in July 2023. However, this timeframe was based on the availability of the resident to travel to the property for the assessment, and the subsequent works that were required.
20. We have seen evidence that the landlord suggested the resident provide it with the keys to be able to carry out work without her travelling to the property. The resident told us that this had been her suggestion. Although the resident was required to be at the property for the occupational therapist assessment, she was not required to be there during the works. The evidence we have been provided with shows that the resident declined to leave her keys with the landlord and instead chose to travel to be at the property during the works. In the circumstances, as the landlord was waiting for the resident to be available both for the assessment and the works, the time taken to complete the works was largely outside of its control.
21. In summary, the landlord acted appropriately when it followed the findings of its occupational therapist. Despite the property being deemed as suitable from July 2023, the landlord did not charge rent until the resident moved in later in August that year. The refund of rent for the entirety of the period from the start of the tenancy to when the resident moved in, was more than the landlord could reasonably have been expected to provide in the circumstances.
22. The landlord admitted a failure by not assessing the resident’s needs before she moved in. Despite this and being aware of the effect described by the resident, it did not consider compensation.. For this reason, we have found failure in its handling of the adaptation works. This leads to a determination of maladministration.
23. To acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure, we have ordered £500 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected a resident and where the landlord did not acknowledge its failing.

What we have not investigated

24. The resident raised issues which occurred after the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence the matters the resident has subsequently raised have exhausted the internal complaints procedure. Therefore, we have no power to investigate the following concerns:
    1. The resident’s concern about mould on her health.
    2. A gap in the roof tiles.
    3. Possible asbestos at the property.
    4. Her concerns the outhouse cupboard posing “a serious health and safety risk”.
    5. Water taking too long to drain in the kitchen.
    6. The front door light being too low.
    7. Not having a garden bin.
    8. A leaking drain pipe.
    9. An issue with the thermostat.
    10. A gap in the external steps.
    11. A shrub and stumps in the garden.
    12. The landlord removing electrics from the outbuilding.

What we have investigated

25. The resident reported a number of outstanding works in the empty property prior to moving in. Before a tenant moves in, the landlord is required to ensure an empty property meets is lettable standard.
26. The resident was concerned that part of the rear garden fence was missing. The landlord explained that it was not required to replace any of the missing fencing. This decision was in line with its lettable standard, which says the landlord only has to replace fencing at the front of the property.
27. Despite not being required to replace this fence, the landlord went beyond what it was obliged to do for the resident and replaced the fence. This demonstrated a proactive approach from the landlord to put things right for the resident.
28. The resident raised concerns about an overgrown tree in the garden. We have seen that the resident’s tenancy agreement says that she is responsible for ensuring trees are kept to a reasonable height. Despite not being required to maintain the tree, the landlord asked its forestry department to cut it back. Although the tree had not been cut back by the completion of the internal complaints procedure, the landlord’s commitment to resolve the issue for the resident when it was not obliged to do so was further evidence of its proactive approach.
29. We have seen evidence that the landlord also completed works at the resident’s request to address uneven flooring, a broken gate, mould and changing the lock on a storge cupboard. The landlord resolved these issues in line with the resident’s availability to give access to the property, and ultimately prior to her moving in.
30. In summary, the landlord addressed the repair issues raised by the resident and completed these prior to her moving in. It also demonstrated a resolution focussed approach and carried out works which it was not obliged to do so under the tenancy agreement. As such there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of void works.

31. The landlord’s complaints policy says that at stage 1, it aims to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It then aims to respond at stage 1 in 10 working days. At stage 2, it aims to respond in 20 working days. If more time is needed it will keep the resident informed.
32. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 21 March 2023. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 31 March 2023. This was 8 working days after the complaint and within the timeframe stated in its policy.
33. The resident reiterated her concerns and raised further aspects of complaint on 13 May 2023. The landlord sent a stage 1 follow-on response 6 working days later, on 22 May 2023. This addressed the new issues and updated the resident on the issues raised in the original complaint.
34. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says that landlords should raise a new complaint where new issues are raised. In this case, the landlord added the new issues to its current investigation as the issues were linked to the original complaint. Although not in line with the Code, the landlord’s actions in sending a stage 1 follow-on response did not adversely affect the resident or delay the internal complaints procedure. 
35. The resident escalated all of the matters on 30 May 2023. The landlord subsequently responded at stage 2 on 23 June 2023. This was 18 working days after the escalation request and in line with the timeframe stated in its complaints policy.
36. The landlord’s complaint responses addressed the issues raised in respect of the adaptations and outstanding void works. It also addressed the resident’s concerns about a staff member. Although it found did not agree with the resident’s concerns about its staff member, it showed by the extent of the actions it had undertaken to investigate this that it had taken her complaint seriously and acted reasonably by doing so.
37. Overall the landlord’s responses to the complaints were appropriate in the circumstances. Its decision to issue a follow-on response was not in line with the Code but did not cause an adverse impact to the resident. This leads to a determination of no maladministration in its handling of the complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

38. We have not identified any issue with the landlord’s record keeping.

Communication

39. The landlord’s overall communication was good. It kept the resident informed and explained its decision making in respect of the adaptations.