Be One Homes (202445923)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 3-bed semi-detached house. She lives in the property with her daughter who is disabled and requires 24-hour care. In September 2022 the local council made a referral to the landlord for adaptations to the property to meet the disability needs of the resident’s daughter. The property required an extension to create a ground floor bedroom and bathroom. In November 2023 and January 2025 the resident made formal complaints as the landlord had not carried out the adaptations.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of disability adaptations.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of disability adaptations.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

4. We found that:
   1. The landlord failed to effectively manage the architect’s performance. It also failed to seek clarification from the council. This caused excessive delays which impacted severely on the resident and her disabled child.
   2. It also failed to install a temporary ramp within the timescale it agreed in its complaint response.
   3. The resident had to chase the landlord for updates. This caused her to invest unnecessary time and trouble.
   4. There was an unreasonable delay in the landlord’s response to the resident’s first stage 1 complaint. While its responses to her second complaint were slightly delayed, it advised her of this.

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.

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.

5. The council made a referral to the landlord for adaptations for the resident’s daughter in September 2022. The landlord moved the resident to a property that could be adapted the following month.
6. The landlord’s disabled facilities policy outlines the process it must follow when it receives a referral for adaptations. The policy does not however contain any timeframes. We have therefore considered whether its actions were reasonable and appropriate. We have ordered the landlord to consider reviewing the policy to include timeframes. This would assist in managing resident expectations and provide the landlord with a standard to monitor its performance again.
7. The landlord carried out an adaptations survey 7 weeks after the resident moved to the new property. Given the impact not having the adaptations was having on the resident and her child, it would have been reasonable for it to have completed the survey sooner.
8. The landlord instructed an architect to draw up the plans required and to complete the council planning process. The architect carried out a site visit in December 2022 and throughout February 2023 the landlord liaised between the resident, OT, and architect about requirements.
9. Between June 2023 and December 2024 communications between the landlord and the architect show disagreements about payment. The evidence suggests this delayed the project.
10. There were further delays when the council raised concerns about privet hedges on site. We acknowledge that the landlord was not in control of the council’s decision making. However, its delays in seeking clarification from the council and having the hedge removed delayed the project by approximately 6 months.
11. The landlord asked the architect to resubmit the planning application when it had removed the privets in January 2025. The architect failed to do so and as a result the landlord appointed a new architect in April 2025. This caused further delays.
12. The new architect told the landlord there were issues with the previous plans and said it needed to make changes. It submitted the planning application to the council at the start of July 2025.
13. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said it would install a temporary ramp to assist the resident until the extension was completed. The resident has stated it did not complete the work until 15 September 2025, 20 weeks later than it said it would. This was an unreasonable delay and a failure by the landlord to do what it said it would do.
14. We acknowledge that some delays were outside the control of the landlord. The landlord is unable to influence the length of time it takes the council to consider planning applications. We also acknowledge that, given the complexity of the project, some delays due to design changes requested by the OT and the resident were reasonable.
15. We also acknowledge that the landlord had to procure the services of an external architect as these were not services it had in-house. However, the landlord failed to effectively manage the performance of the architect and this caused excessive delays. The landlord has accepted there were failings in its oversight of the architect.
16. The delays have had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident and her child who have been waiting for 3 years for adaptations to be completed to the property. The landlord was aware of the severity of the child’s disabilities and the resident repeatedly said she was struggling to safely carry her child up and down the stairs. The family’s social worker also raised concerns that the child’s needs were not being met without the adaptations and that the council may have to consider a care placement. This caused the resident clear distress.
17. The resident also had to chase the landlord several times for updates. This added to her feeling that the landlord was not taking her daughter’s needs seriously and caused her avoidable time and trouble.
18. The landlord has acknowledged some failings and offered compensation of £350. However, it has not yet completed the adaptations and the compensation offered was not proportionate to the serious detriment experienced by the resident and her child.
19. There was a lack of urgency in the landlord’s actions and no evidence that it sufficiently considered the serious impact of the delays on the resident and her child. While some delays were unavoidable, delays of 3 years were excessive. We have therefore found severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the disability adaptations.
20. Our remedies guidance suggests that awards of over £1,000 where there were failings that caused a serious long-term impact. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay the resident:
    1. £1,200 for distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the disability adaptations.
    2. £250 for time and trouble caused by its poor communication during its handling of the disability adaptations.

21. It took the landlord 51 working days to respond to the resident’s first stage 1 complaint. This considerably exceeded the 10-working day timeframe in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and the landlord’s own policy.
22. While the landlord apologised for the delay in its response, it did not offer any financial redress. We therefore found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling and have ordered it to pay £150 for time and trouble. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance.
23. The landlord took 13 working days to respond to the resident’s second stage 1 complaint. However, in line with the Code, it contacted her to advise her that there would be a delay and explained this was because it required further information.
24. It took the landlord 30 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. This exceeds the 20-working day timeframe outlined in the Code and the landlord’s policy. However, it again contacted the resident to explain the delay. This was therefore in line with the Code and its own policy.

Learning

Communication

25. The landlord failed to communicate proactively with the resident and keep her updated about process, or lack of. This caused her to invest unnecessary time and trouble in chasing the landlord for updates.
26. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to allocate a single point of contact who could update the resident at agreed intervals. We have ordered it to do so.