Tower Hamlets Community Housing (202506366)

Background

1. The resident lives alone in a 1 bedroom, ground floor flat. He has lived in his home since 2011.  The landlord has vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.  The resident has a representative to act on his behalf.  For this report both the resident and his representative will be referred to as “the resident.” The resident complained to the landlord about delays in changing the bathroom to a shower room.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. delays in changing the bathroom to a shower room
   2. the associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We found maladministration relating to the landlord’s handling of the delays in changing the bathroom to a shower room.
4. We found no maladministration relating to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord correctly informed the resident the decision for a Disability Facilities Grant (DFG) were the responsibility of the local authority. But the landlord did not follow its own internal processes for dealing with the referral which was delayed. It also did not update the resident despite giving its commitment it would.
6. The landlord provided comprehensive complaint responses to the resident. The stage 2 complaint response was delayed but the landlord had explained the reason for this to the resident, and this was appropriate in the circumstances.

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.

7. On 30 May 2024, the landlord’s records show the Occupational Therapist, from the local authority, emailed the landlord with the referral for major adaptions and attached the relevant documents.
8. On 2 October 2024, the resident contacted the landlord attaching the recommendations for adaptations for the bathroom to shower room. On 7 October 2024, the landlord told the resident another form needed to be completed. On the same day, the resident made a complaint because the referral was made in May 2024, and the resident had to chase what was happening with the adaptations.
9. On 22 October 2024, in its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said:
   1. its internal process for aids and adaptations included a survey to outline how it could conduct the repairs either, by a local repair, or with assistance of the local authority to fund the request
   2. it said that it had not received confirmation from the council that the resident’s application for funding had been successful so could not give an installation date to the resident
   3. it would remain in regular communication with the resident and the council’s DFG team and advise the resident of the status of the application
   4. it did not believe it had delayed the process but acknowledged the need for better communication with residents relating to delays
   5. it offered £50 compensation for poor communication
10. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain to the resident its internal processes relating to the DFG. But the landlord’s records show that the resident stated they still had not heard anything about the works and escalated the complaint about the delays.
11. On 7 January 2025, the landlord, in its stage 2 complaint response said:
    1. the property service team received the adaptations request from the resident’s housing officer on 4 October 2024
    2. it had not received any update from the council but had already sourced 3 quotes for the work and provided them to the council
    3. the lack of communication from the council was common and this prevented it from providing updates to the resident
    4. it could see there had been a delay from date of referral to the date the property services team received it
    5. staffing changes in the neighbourhood team appeared to have delayed the application
    6. it apologised for the delay, distress and inconvenience and offered increased compensation of £150
    7. it committed to actively follow up with the council for updates and would contact the resident immediately as soon as there was any progress or update
12. The resident told this Service an asbestos survey has now taken place, but the works have not yet started, and it is a safety issue.
13. The landlord was correct to tell the resident that the decision about a Disability Facilities Grant (DFG) was the responsibility of the local authority, and this was outside of its control. But there were failures in the landlord’s handling of the delays relating to the bathroom to a shower room because the landlord:
    1. was delayed in its internal processing of the Occupational Therapist’s referral by over 4 months
    2. it did not acknowledge its internal failings until stage 2 of the complaint procedure
    3. it did not carry out its commitment to keep the resident updated
    4. it did not demonstrate it had learnt from the complaint

14. On 7 October 2024 the resident made their stage 1 complaint. The landlord acknowledged this the following day.
15. On 22 October 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. This was 11 working days from the complaint acknowledgement.
16. On 21 November 2024, the resident told the landlord they remained dissatisfied and wished to escalate the complaint.
17. On 2 December 2024 the landlord acknowledged this request. This was 8 working days after the escalation request.
18. On 7 January 2025, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. This was 24 working days from the acknowledgement and was not in line with its policies and procedures. But it did tell the resident the response would be later than expected due to its offices being closed for a few days over the Christmas period. This was appropriate in the circumstances.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

19. As mentioned in this report the landlord said there were staffing changes in the neighbourhood team which, it said, appeared to have delayed the resident’s application for a Disabled Facilities Grant. We have made a recommendation relating to this.

Communication

20. The landlord’s communication with the resident was not consistent in this case. It committed to providing updates to the resident and following up with the council, but this did not happen. The landlord should ensure all commitments made to residents are carried out as promised.