Adur District Council (201712818)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201712818

Adur District Council

29 March 2023

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Disabled adaptions to the resident’s property.
2. The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour(ASB).

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority. The tenancy commenced on 19 September 2016 and the property was a flat. Since the complaint was brought to this service, the resident moved to alternative accommodation on 18 February 2022.
The resident has vulnerabilities which the landlord is aware of. He is registered disabled with poor mobility, chronic pain, asthma, a fused spine and PTSD.

Adaptions

In 2017 the resident made an application which was accepted to re-join the housing register, he was seeking accommodation to suit his mobility needs. As a result of the resident not making any bids on alternative properties, his account was moved to auto bids in 2018. This meant that the system automatically placed bids on the resident’s behalf for suitable properties.
Following this, during 2018 the landlord had arranged to meet with the resident’s appointed carer and his father to discuss disabled adaptions, and whether the resident would be moving via the housing register or seek adaptions to his existing home.
Subsequently on 19 March 2019, the landlord was sent an Occupational Therapist (OT) report recommending adaptions to the resident’s home. This required the landlord to install the following:
1. Level Access shower in the bathroom.
2. Automatic door openers to the flat front door, and the rear communal door or a front door out from the lounge/bedroom.
3. A concrete path.
The landlord explained that the OT referral which was made referenced the problems the resident was having with his neighbour. This resulted in the report being queried by it as disabled adaptations are not installed at properties because of disputes. Following this on 27 May 2019, a revised OT report was sent to the landlord. This consisted of the same requirements but did not mention the neighbour dispute. As a result, the landlord added the required adaptions to the waiting list.
During 2019, the resident had been offered two ground floor flats, however he declined to view either property as they were not in his requested location. The landlord had attempted to arrange a meeting with the resident to discuss his housing needs, however on several occasions it was unable to successfully meet with him due to there being no response.
On 17 December 2019, the landlord had been given permission from housing management for the adaption works to proceed. It discussed this with the resident and explained he would need to remove his housing application should he wish to go ahead with the adaptions. The resident confirmed he did not wish to move and wanted to proceed. Following this the landlord explained the process to the resident and how long the works would take.
Between January and March 2020, contractors had visited the property in order to obtain quotes for the work. However during this time, it was found that the bathroom contained asbestos which would need to be removed prior to commencing the work. The landlord stated that during this time the resident was informed by the contractors as to how long the works would take. During May 2020, the landlord informed the resident that the works to the path were going to commence in two weeks and also enquired if he was happy for the contractor to commence work to his bathroom. It was informed by the resident that he was happy for the work to commence as soon as possible.
Following this, works to the bathroom commenced on 20 June 2020, and the resident was informed the property would need to be vacant during the morning for the removal of the asbestos. The following day, as the work commenced, the resident informed the landlord that he was not happy, he expected the work to be completed within one day. The resident requested for the contractors to leave the property and did not let them back in to complete the works. The resident informed the landlord that he would need to find somewhere else to stay for the works to commence.
Subsequently on 14 July 2020, the landlord asked the resident if the works could commence as he was not living there at the time, he had temporarily found somewhere else to stay whilst works were carried out. However, he refused and requested a written schedule of works and a signature to confirm that if anything was to happen to his possessions whilst the flat was vacant, the contractors would be responsible. The contractors did not agree to accepting liability for possessions.
On 28 July 2020 the resident gave permission for the works to commence the following day. The required works to the bathroom adaptions, kitchen alteration works, and external path were completed on 5 August 2020. The outstanding works were the automatic door openers to the communal door and flat.
The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 3 August 2020 about the recent adaptations carried out to the property. The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns and gave a stage one complaint response on 27 August 2020. The landlord explained the contractors had attempted to keep dust and noise to a minimum. It also explained that the adaptations were not deemed extensive enough to decant the resident and a decant would only have been recommended if the conditions were not suitable.
On 6 November 2020, the landlord spoke with the resident and his advocate about his concerns. A further meeting was arranged for 30 November 2020. Following this meeting, the landlord acknowledged there had been a breakdown in communication between the landlord and the resident about an understanding of how long the overall works would last. In the conversation it also discussed its awareness of the resident’s vulnerabilities and how he was affected by the works carried out.
As the resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response, this was escalated to a stage 2 complaint.
In its stage 2 complaint response dated 24 December 2020, the landlord apologised for the delay in responding. It confirmed its understanding of the complaint to be about the following:
1. The cleaning and condition of the property was not suitable for the resident to remain during the works. The evidence of this being trip hazards and a dusty environment that affected the resident’s asthma.
2. The resident’s physical disabilities were not risk assessed prior to the work taking place.
3. An independent assessment of the resident’s needs should have been conducted by someone who understood his care plan and health needs.
4. Temporary accommodation should have been provided.
In response to the above the landlord explained that it had no prior knowledge of the resident’s issues with asthma or urgency of toileting, as these had not been mentioned by the OT.
The landlord accepted that it should have informed the resident better about the design and delivery of the adaptions. In particular it should have ensured close and continued liaison with the resident’s carers and the possible need to declutter his home prior to the works starting.

ASB

The resident had reported ongoing issues concerning ASB with his neighbour dating back to 2017. These incidents were in relation to shouting, banging, and the neighbour approaching the resident. The most recent incident of ASB relating to the landlord’s stage one and two complaint responses occurred during 2020.
On 10 April 2020, the resident had reported to the landlord that his neighbour had sprayed bleach at his cleaner. This report was confirmed by the cleaner and the matter was investigated by the police. No further action was taken by the police after investigation.
On 14 April 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident regarding a report of the recent installation of his CCTV camera. It explained the resident needed to consider the government guidelines on the operation of domestic CCTV before placing any surveillance appliances on the property. It also explained that the main factor to consider was any breach of the general data protection regulation (GDPR) and it signposted him to the relevant guidance.
During 2020, there was an incident with the neighbour damaging the resident’s CCTV which was reported to the landlord and police. The neighbour was cautioned by the police for damaging the CCTV. Following this the landlord provided diary sheets to the resident to complete. It investigated the incident, spoke with the neighbour and issued a warning letter.
In the landlord’s stage one complaint response, it addressed ASB issues in relation to the bleach and CCTV incident. It explained that it had provided the neighbour with a warning letter, however it would not be taking further action. The landlord explained that in order to go down the legal route and proceed to a possession application it would be required to provide a level of detail in order to satisfy the court, however in this instance it did not have that information. It asked the resident to complete diary sheets for incidents that occurred and provided the resident with an explanation as to what detail it would require.
The landlord explained that it had also spoken with the neighbour about her behaviour towards the resident and his carers/visitors. It explained to her that, should this behaviour continue in particular her shouting and approaching the resident, it could result in it serving a notice.
The landlord also offered a mediation service to the resident to consider.
As the resident remained unhappy with the findings, he escalated the complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure.
In its stage two complaint response, the landlord understood the complaint to be the following:
1. The resident did not feel safe at the property and had consequently found his own alternative accommodation.
2. Other accommodation that would meet the resident’s needs, such as extra care housing or an adapted flat requiring minimal changes, should have been considered.
3. Prior to making a decision on the stage 2 complaint, the resident should have been housed somewhere else.
The landlord explained the OT service had previously recommended that it find the resident alternative accommodation, and it had short-listed the resident for three properties, but he chose not to accept any of the offers.
The landlord reiterated that in the absence of consistent gathered evidence to form a case, it would have been difficult to take legal action.
It acknowledged that in a previous incident dated in 2019 there was room for improvement in its investigatory approach. The landlord explained that it would partially uphold the complaint in respect of past anti-social behaviour.
The following was recommended:
1. A management transfer should be presented as the preferred option for resolving the remaining issues. This would be a managed move and made cost neutral for the resident.
2. Compensation for identified and agreed costs incurred in facilitating the disabled adaptation works. Consideration to be given to some wider compensation for inconvenience and distress (i.e. the weakness in the landlord’s approach to investigating ASB in 2019).
3. In the event the resident decided to remain in his current home, use of a broader range of tools to establish the evidence needed to support legal action would be needed.

Assessment and findings

We understand the resident has moved home since raising this complaint. The resident’s complaint involved the landlord’s handling of adaptions to his previous residence, and whilst he is no longer living there, we have given consideration as to whether the landlord’s actions at the time were appropriate.
The Ombudsman has also reviewed a chronology of events dating back to 2017, which concerns ASB between the resident and his neighbour. The issues have been noted as context, however, the Ombudsman will not look back into historic issues reported. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still active, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred. We have considered the more recent incidents of reported ASB which are relevant to the landlord’s formal responses. We have looked at the landlord’s actions when the resident reported issues, and whether it acted in accordance with its policies and procedures.

Provisions for disabled adaptions

The resident had made a request for adaptions to his property as recommended by an Occupational Therapy (OT) assessment. These included a level access shower, alterations to the position of the kitchen taps, installation of automatic door openers and a concrete path to public footpath.
The correspondence shows that the resident had also wanted the removal of the external wall to build an opening, so he would not have contact with his neighbour. This had also been recommended in the OT report. The landlord considered this, however refused to do this work as it was identified that it was not the purpose of an OT report to address ASB.
Section 2 of the landlord’s adaption policy states, ‘Although the Act requires Housing Departments to consult with Social Services over whether the proposed works are necessary and appropriate, the final decision rests with the landlord whether or not to approve work. They are not bound to follow the social service department’s advice. The landlord has the duty of deciding whether the works are “reasonable and practicable”, taking into account the age and state of the property. Works must also be regarded as “necessary and appropriate” and this must take into consideration adaptations or improvements to enable a care plan to be put in place or a disabled occupant to remain in his or her own home, retaining or regaining as great a degree of independence as can reasonably be achieved.’ It is our view, based on the information available to the landlord, that this request was not an adaption needed for the resident’s disability so it was not a reasonable adjustment.
The landlord had received the OT referral for the works on 19 March 2019. Following this, an amended referral was then sent on 27 May 2019. It is understood that following this referral the landlord had to obtain permission from its housing management team to proceed with the works. The evidence shows that despite the landlord receiving the recent OT referral in May 2019, it did not request permission from the housing management team until 8 August 2019. The housing manager then agreed to the works on 17 December 2019.
The landlord’s Adaptations for tenants with disabilities policy and procedure does not state timescales, but the Ombudsman would expect works to be carried out within a reasonable timeframe. It is clear there were delays during this time for the landlord to get permissions for the works from receiving the report. Whilst the landlord stated it informed the resident of works, we have also not seen sufficient evidence that the resident was kept informed or provided with a schedule of works and timeframes. In its formal response the landlord also acknowledges that it should have better informed the resident about the adaption works to his home.
It is best practice for the landlord to keep residents well informed of planned works with schedules of works in writing. Should the schedule change it is also appropriate for the landlord to further update residents.
Between January 2020 and July 2020, there were several visits to the resident’s property to determine the scope or works required. It is understood that when the works commenced the resident had requested for the landlord to pause, this was due to the noise, dust and anxiety caused. The resident then moved out for the remainder of the works to be completed.
Whilst the resident had expressed it was not suitable for him to remain in the home whilst conducting these works, we ha. The evidence shows that contractors attempted to prevent dust from getting into other rooms by attaching plastic sheeting to doorways, and the landlord had advised them to keep the dust and noise down to a minimum. However, whilst contractors aim to keep dust and debris to a minimum, it is important to recognise that with this type of work there will be an element of dust and debris.
The evidence shows that after the resident had requested the landlord to halt repairs it arranged a meeting with him however this was declined. It stated the purpose of this meeting was the following:
1. To clarify the works that would be undertaken.
2. To explain what actions the landlord would take.
3. To advise the resident of what he could expect whilst the works were being undertaken.
4. To convey the landlord’s intention to re-offer the resident temporary accommodation so that the work can be completed as quickly as possible without interruption.
5. It also would have would have outlined what support it could provide to prepare the resident’s home for the adaptation works, such as storage of items.
The landlord’s attempts to discuss the scope of works were appropriate given the circumstances. However as the resident did not wish to meet, and taking into account his vulnerabilities, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to write to the resident to ensure he was fully informed about the scope of works.
In relation to the resident’s claims about a potential trip hazard, we have not seen evidence to support these allegations. Therefore, we are unable to comment on this further, although the resident’s concerns were understandable.
In the landlord’s stage two response it stated that a compensation payment for identified and agreed costs incurred in facilitating the disabled adaption works would be paid. However, we have not seen evidence of costs which have been incurred or that the landlord has made any compensation payment. We are recommending the landlord contact the resident to discuss any costs incurred as stated in its stage two response. The landlord should explain its position to the resident in regard to this.

ASB

The resident reported ASB to the landlord which included incidents of the neighbour shouting abuse, rushing towards him, touching him and sitting in front of his door. The landlord received counter allegations. The landlord shortlisted the resident for 3 properties, as a solution to resolve the ASB the resident experienced.
A landlord has two main duties when anti-social behaviour is reported. The first is to undertake a proportionate investigation to establish the nature and extent of the anti-social behaviour. The second is to weigh in balance the evidence, and the respective parties’ rights to enjoy their home and decide what action it should take. The Ombudsman’s role is to determine if the landlord carried out a proportionate investigation and whether the actions it took were within its powers.
Section 14 of the landlord’s ASB policy suggest non-enforcement ASB tools and resources which it may use in an effort to resolve conflict between neighbours. This includes informal interventions, verbal or written warnings, mediations, and acceptable behaviour contracts. The policy also states that it may ask for diary sheets to be completed.
We have reviewed the ASB incident which occurred during April 2020.The evidence shows that on 10 April 2020, the resident had reported that his neighbour had sprayed bleach on his cleaner, this had also been confirmed by the cleaner. This resulted in an investigation by police, however no further action was carried out by the police. The evidence shows that when the incident was reported to the landlord, it proceeded to investigate the matter, however this was denied by the neighbour. Consequently, given the testimony from the resident and his cleaner, it issued a warning letter to the neighbour. The landlord also proceeded to request the resident keep diary sheets and it recommended he also report incidents to the police. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the actions taken by the landlord were proactive and in accordance with its procedures. Whilst it is understood the resident would have wanted further action to be taken, the landlord adequately explained to the resident in its formal response why it was unable to proceed down the legal route at that point.
There was a further incident which occurred during 2020, when the resident had reported criminal damage to his CCTV by his neighbour. This had been investigated by the police and the neighbour had received a police caution. When reported to the landlord it correctly proceeded to look into the matter. Following the report, the landlord had been in communication with the police and neighbour regarding the incident. It was reported that the camera was directed at the neighbours’ home and in communal areas. This led to concern that the resident may have not considered the governmental guidelines on the operation of domestic CCTV prior to placing the surveillance. The landlord proceeded to write to the resident.
Overall, the Ombudsman recognises that the resident has experienced distress as a result of the ongoing ASB, and can understand how he felt the need for CCTV was necessary. However when dealing with the resident’s reports, it is clear the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the reports by addressing these matters with the neighbour and considering the police’s involvement, it also appropriately advised the resident where possible.
As a way to resolve the remaining issues, the landlord had offered the resident a management transfer which was agreed in October 2020. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, and given the long-standing history, it was appropriate for the landlord to consider the move despite the adaptions already being done.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of disabled adaptions to the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports.

Reasons

The landlord was delayed in commencing the works, and did not appropriately keep the resident informed or explain the process throughout the schedule of works. This has also been acknowledged by the landlord however it has not offered redress in recognition of these failings and resulting impact on the resident.
The landlord appropriately addressed the recent ASB incidents, offering tools and support to help resolve the matter. It was also proactive in rehousing the resident. We recognise this matter caused the resident distress, however the landlord’s actions were proportionate based on the information available to it.

Orders and recommendations

Order

The landlord to compensate the resident £200 for the distress caused by not providing him with a schedule of works and not keeping him updated. This should be paid within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should then confirm the payment has been made in writing to us.

Recommendation

The landlord to ensure all residents are kept updated when a programme or schedule of works is agreed following OT advice.
We have not seen that the resident provided a figure for costs incurred to the landlord, and have therefore recommended the landlord contact the resident to discuss any costs incurred as stated in its stage two response. The landlord should explain its position to the resident in regard to this.