Be One Homes (202543631)

Decision
Case ID	202543631
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Be One Homes
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	10 June 2026

Background

The landlord recorded that the resident’s son is vulnerable and has a terminal degenerative condition that affects his physical mobility. In July 2025, an Occupational Therapist (OT) recommended that the landlord level and repave an area of the garden. This would allow the resident’s son to safely use the area. The resident later complained about the landlord’s handling of this recommendation.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s handling of:
1. A request for garden adaptations.
2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of a request for garden adaptations.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord did not initially act in line with its adaptations policy. It did not fully consider expert advice or show how its alternative solution would meet the identified need. This caused the resident avoidable distress and time and trouble chasing the issue.
The landlord issued its complaint responses in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 08 July 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of a request for garden adaptations. It must pay this directly to the resident by the due date. It must provide us with documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 08 July 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

Apology order

The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:

The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic.
It has due regard to our apologies guidance.

No later than

08 July 2026

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of a request for garden adaptations. It must pay this directly to the resident by the due date. It must provide us with documentary evidence of payment by the due date.

No later than

08 July 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
5 November 2025	The resident raised a complaint. He said the landlord refused an OT’s recommendation to level and repave an area of the garden because of cost. Instead, it suggested fencing off the uneven area to enable supervised access. The resident tried supervising his son using his walker on the uneven paving, but he tripped and injured himself. The resident said the landlord’s staff did not have the qualifications to override professional medical advice.
19 November 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It accepted its staff were not medically trained but considered practical and reasonable adaptations in line with the OT’s recommendations. It confirmed it refused the repaving due to cost and practicality and instead offered alternative solutions, including a fence and gate to reduce risk. It expressed sympathy for the child’s injury and told the resident to pursue any personal injury claim through its insurance.
24 November 2025	The resident escalated the complaint. He said the stage 1 response was contradictory, as the landlord had said the area was safe even though its staff did not have medical training. He also questioned why it told him to make an insurance claim for personal injury when it said it was not at fault.
19 December 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said its staff used OT recommendations to identify needs, but it decided how to meet those needs in practice. It said the area was safe for supervised use and it had offered alternative options, including fencing. It also said additional garden paving was not something it would fund but offered to complete the work on a 50/50 shared-cost basis. It confirmed it would obtain an updated quote and go ahead with the works. It also said that any personal injury claims are assessed by its insurers.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate. He said he was unhappy with the landlord’s response as it did not explain why its initial solution did not meet the OT’s recommendation. He asked for an apology.

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.

Complaint	Handling of a request for garden adaptations.
Finding	Service failure

What we have not investigated

The resident says his son experienced personal injury due to the landlord’s handling of his complaint. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim. The courts handle this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide the cause and duration of any illness. We did not investigate this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we have investigated.

The landlord’s disabled facilities adaptations policy aims to ensure homes meet residents’ needs. It can choose the most practical and cost-effective solution, but it must use expert advice when deciding how to meet an identified need.
On 9 July 2025, the landlord received an OT recommendation asking it to level and repave the garden so the resident’s son could safely use his walker. The OT said the paving was uneven and he could trip even when supervised. On 18 July 2025, the landlord rejected the request. It said the works were not practical due to the garden’s levels and the risk of ground movement. It instead offered to install a fence and gate to reduce the risk of falls. It also said the resident’s son would need supervision when using the area.
The landlord could reject the OT’s preferred solution in favour of a more practical or cost-effective choice. However, its policy required it to use expert advice when deciding how to meet the identified need. In this case, the OT had said that the existing paving was unsafe and the resident’s son could trip even when supervised. The landlord’s alternative still relied on supervision and did not address the uneven surface. It did not explain how its proposed solution would enable safe use of the garden with a walker. It also did not seek the OT’s advice on whether its alternative solution would meet the identified need, which was not in line with its policy.
On 4 August 2025, the resident told the landlord that his son had fallen on the uneven garden and injured himself. He asked the landlord to reconsider its decision. On 19 September 2025, it agreed to carry out the levelling and repaving works and asked the resident to contribute 50% of the cost. This was reasonable because it reviewed its position and proposed a solution that met the OT’s recommendation.
In its stage 1 response on 19 November 2025, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the concerns and expressed sympathy. It recommended that the resident use its insurance process if he believed it was liable for the fall. This was reasonable and in line with its compensation policy, which says it must manage personal injury claims through its insurance process, rather than through the complaints procedure.
The landlord also explained that the OT assessed the resident’s son’s needs, while its staff decided how to meet those needs in practice. This was reasonable. However, it did not address the key issue. The OT had found that the uneven paving was unsafe and the resident’s son could trip even when supervised. It did not explain how its alternative, which relied on supervision and did not address the uneven surface, would meet the identified need.
In its stage 2 response on 19 December 2025, the landlord confirmed it would level and repave the garden, with the resident required to pay 50% of the cost. Its repairs policy says that it is responsible only for limited paved areas. For example, a single row of paving from the boundary to the front door and basic access paths. The tenancy agreement also says that garden maintenance is the resident’s responsibility. In this case, it was reasonable for it to offer to share the cost rather than cover it in full. The works went beyond its normal repairing obligations, as they involved adapting the garden to meet a specific need. By offering to pay 50%, it showed that it had considered the circumstances and taken steps to help resolve the issue, while still acting in line with its policies.
The landlord confirmed to us in June 2026 that it levelled and repaved the garden. This was in line with the commitment that it had made in its stage 2 response.
In summary, the landlord did not initially act in line with its disabled facilities adaptations policy. It rejected an OT recommendation to level and repave the garden and instead offered to install a fence and gate. Although it could consider alternative options, it did not show that it had fully considered the expert advice when deciding how to meet the identified need. It also did not show that it sought further expert advice on whether its alternative solution would meet that need. In addition, it did not explain in its complaint responses how its proposed solution would have met the identified need. This lack of clarity caused the resident distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble in repeatedly chasing the issue. However, the landlord later reviewed its decision and completed the works, which limited the overall detriment to the resident.
In light of this, we order the landlord to pay the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the request for garden adaptations. This is in line with our compensation guidance, as there was a minor failure in the service provided, and the landlord did not fully acknowledge this or put this right.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord uses a 2‑stage complaints process in line with the Code. The Code requires stage 1 responses within 10 working days and stage 2 responses within 20 working days. The landlord provided responses at both stages within these timescales.

Learning

This investigation highlighted the importance of acting in line with its adaptations policy. In particular, by fully considering and, where necessary, seeking expert advice when deciding how to meet identified needs. Not doing so caused the resident unnecessary distress and inconvenience.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

In this case, the landlord did not keep clear records of the actions it took. The landlord may benefit from reviewing our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023), available through our website’s Centre for Learning.

Communication

The investigation found gaps in the landlord’s communication. Its failure to explain how its proposed solution would meet the identified need led to confusion, distress, and avoidable time and trouble for the resident in pursuing the issue.