Citizen Housing Group Limited (202317813)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317813

Citizen Housing

3 June 2025

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about:
1. Aids and adaptations.
2. Staff conduct.
3. Fence repairs.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat.
The resident has mobility issues and dyslexia.
The landlord called the resident on 7 June 2022 to discuss potential adaptations to his kitchen. It informed him that he would first need an assessment by an occupational therapist (OT). The resident contacted the landlord on 10 June 2022 and 11 July 2022 to inform it that he was having trouble filing out the form to request this.
The resident raised concerns about fencing in his back garden on 13 July 2022. Following a further call about kitchen adaptations on 26 July 2022, the resident said he was unhappy with how the landlord’s contractor had spoken to him. The resident reported further issues with his back garden on 3 occasions between September 2022 and December 2022.
The landlord did alterations to the resident’s bathroom in December 2022 – this was to install a level-access shower following an earlier referral from an OT. The resident reported on 28 December 2022 that his bathroom rail adaptation had broken, causing him to fall. The landlord attended on 28 March 2023 to install a replacement but found that it needed to install a drop-down rail rather than a grab rail.
The resident contacted the landlord on 24 April 2023. He told it he was unhappy with the condition of his property which needed further alterations to be suitable for him. He said the bathroom needed repairs and that the kitchen was unsuitable. The landlord inspected the property on 26 April 2023 and found his bathroom in working order. It advised the resident that if he wished for adaptations in his kitchen, he would need to get an OT assessment.
The resident called the landlord on 15 May 2023 to raise a complaint. He was unhappy with the outcome of the inspection and wanted the landlord to adapt the property. He felt the surveyors treated him with disrespect and questioned his disability.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 6 June 2023. It did not uphold his complaint. It said it was unable to carry out any major adaptations without a referral from an OT. It urged the resident to contact the council’s OT team if he felt he required further adaptations. The landlord’s letter confirmed that the work to install the drop-down rail remained outstanding.
The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 20 July 2023. He said he was unhappy with the landlord’s response, and he felt the property was not suitable for his needs, reporting concerns about the kitchen, bathroom and garden fencing.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 17 August 2023. It apologised that the resident had felt disrespected by its staff. It said it had spoken with the staff members involved and could confirm they intended no disrespect. The landlord apologised that it was yet to install the drop-down rail and said it would be in contact to confirm the appointment. It added that it would not undertake any repairs to the resident’s fence as none were required, and the fence was the resident’s responsibility under the tenancy agreement. The landlord also provided the resident with information on his available options for seeking a move. Finally, it confirmed that it would be unable to make major adaptations until an OT appointment took place. It noted that the resident had confirmed in a call that he was awaiting an OT appointment.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 11 December 2023. He said he remained unhappy with the quality of works undertaken and felt that the aids he had requested were not properly assessed. He said that he wanted the landlord to re–do the wet room and update his kitchen in line with his disability.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has mentioned that there were ongoing problems over several years. We may not consider complaints that residents do not bring to the landlord as a formal complaint within 12 months of the matter arising. We have therefore focused our investigation on the events from mid-2022 onwards.
The resident reported continued problems in the property after the stage 2 complaint response and raised new concerns, including difficulty with taking wheelie bins out. The Ombudsman is only able to investigate matters which have exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. Any new issues the resident experienced after the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response should be raised as a new complaint. We will only investigate those after they exhaust the landlord’s complaints procedure.
The resident said that the landlord discriminated against him because of his disabilities. The Equality Act 2010 (the Act) provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. The landlord has a duty under the Act not to unlawfully discriminate against a person based on their protected characteristics. The Act prohibits direct discrimination, which occurs where a person treats another person less favourably because of a protected characteristic.
It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether the actions, or inaction, of the landlord’s staff amounted to discrimination. Allegations of discrimination are better suited to a court of law to decide. However, the Ombudsman can assess whether the landlord’s overall handling of, and response to, the resident’s concerns was appropriate, fair and reasonable.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about aids and adaptations

The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy says that, whilst it ‘has no legal obligation to provide aids and adaptations’, it will ‘work in partnership with relevant organisations to provide an adaptations service that meets tenants needs’.
The landlord lists 2 types of adaptations in its policy. This includes ‘minor adaptations’ which it describes as ‘works that cost less than £1,000’, including grab rails. The landlord says minor adaptations ‘may be agreed without the need for referral to an OT to avoid unnecessary delays’. The landlord’s policy also details major adaptations which are those which typically cost more than £1,000. It says these are ’subject to referral from an OT who has assessed for the level of need’.
The landlord also details repair timescales on its website. This shows it will deal with emergency repairs within 24 hours. The landlord’s website includes its current service levels for completing repairs. This says it will take 5 weeks to complete a plumbing repair, and 2 weeks for any other repair.
For the purposes of our investigation, the earliest contact from the resident about adaptations was on 7 June 2022. He informed the landlord that he wanted it to adapt his kitchen so it was more suitable for him. The landlord advised him that he would first need an OT assessment to determine exactly what adaptations were necessary. This information was in line with the landlord’s adaptations policy.
The resident followed this up on 10 June 2022 and 11 July 2022 to inform the landlord that he was having trouble filling out the necessary paperwork in order to request permission for the alteration. The landlord’s call notes from 11 July 2022 show that it intended someone to call the resident back. The evidence does not demonstrate that it did so. Given the resident’s vulnerability, the landlord should have acted quicker to provide any support he required to request the OT referral.
Although by mid-2023 the resident said that he had scheduled an OT appointment, the landlord could have done more to help him arrange this at an earlier date. It was unreasonable that the landlord failed to demonstrate that it followed up on his request for help.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 20 April 2023 to inform it that he was unhappy with the condition of his property, especially the adaptations. The resident said he felt the bathroom adaptations were of a low quality and not functioning as they should be. He also said that, due to his disability, the worktops and sinks in the kitchen were too low.
The landlord inspected on 26 April 2023 – 2 members of staff attended. It found that the resident’s bathroom was working as it should and did not require any repairs. It also found his kitchen was in working order. It informed the resident during this visit that any major adaptations needed would first require an OT recommendation. This was consistent with the advice it previously gave. The landlord confirmed this information in its complaint responses. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinion of its staff members in regard to the bathroom works.
As part of its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord noted that the resident informed it that he was due to have an OT assessment. The landlord said that it would await the OT’s report before considering any major adaptations. The landlord’s actions in first inspecting, and then in waiting for the OT’s report, were fair and in line with its adaptations policy.
The landlord’s staff did however mention at this time that a repair to the resident’s adapted handrail remained outstanding. It first raised a repair to replace the broken grab rail on 28 December 2022. By the conclusion of the complaints process, 8 months later, the landlord had not completed the repair. This was an unreasonable delay, particular given the resident’s vulnerabilities.
The landlord attended on 28 March 2023 to complete this repair but its contractor found that it had raised a job for the incorrect adaptation and a drop-down rail was in fact needed. The landlord’s error, and delay completing the necessary repair, represented service failure. The landlord’s failure to complete the adaptation repair will undoubtedly have caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
The resident told the landlord that if it was unable to complete the adaptations that he asked for, he would like for it to relocate him to alternative accommodation. As part of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, it provided information about how he could seek alternative accommodation and what this would entail. It was fair from the landlord to provide this information to the resident. There was no evidence available to the landlord at the time to show the property was unsuitable for him so signposting the resident as it did was reasonable.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about aids and adaptations. Whilst it was reasonable to await an OT assessment before undertaking any major adaptation works, the landlord should have completed the reported bathroom remedial repairs in line with its repairs policy timescales. Its failure to do so was significant given this was related to an adaptation for a vulnerable resident. The landlord also could have done more to support the resident in accessing an OT appointment when he requested help.
It is unclear from the landlord’s records if it has now completed the necessary remedial repairs to fix the resident’s adapted bathroom. There is evidence that, following the conclusion of the complaints process, the resident may have asked the landlord not to complete the handrail repair as he believed it needed to do further bathroom adaptations. The landlord should therefore contact the resident to offer a new inspection, if this work is yet to be completed.
The landlord should pay the resident £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by failures in its handling of his reports about aids and adaptations. This figure is within a range that the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance recommends for circumstances where there has been a failing by a landlord which adversely affected a resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about staff conduct

When raising his complaint, the resident said he was unhappy with how the landlord’s staff treated him when discussing his adaptations. He first raised this with the landlord on 26 July 2022 (following a call), and again on 26 April 2023 (following its inspection). He said that he felt 3 of the landlord’s staff had insulted him and questioned his disability. The resident also complained that he had received a call from a staff member he previously raised a complaint about.
In situations where the landlord and resident disagree over an event, the Ombudsman has to rely on available evidence to make our decision. In this case, there is little documentary evidence. The landlord has provided its contractor’s notes of the relevant visit, but these do not offer much detail.
When a resident raises concerns regarding staff conduct, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to carry out a fair and impartial investigation into the matter, and then take proportionate actions based on the findings.
In relation to the phone call from 26 July 2022, there is a lack of evidence about what was discussed that would allow us to identify failings in how the landlord handled the call. The landlord mentioned in its stage 2 complaint response that it only holds call recordings for a limited time, meaning it was unable to listen to the call.
However, there is no evidence that the landlord investigated the matter at the time, so it lost an opportunity to obtain evidence when it was available. The landlord has not demonstrated that it undertook the kind of investigation that the Ombudsman would expect to see in the circumstances. The landlord’s failure to take any steps to investigate the resident’s allegations represented service failure.
In relation to the 26 April 2023 inspection, the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s reports of poor staff conduct. This was in line with its obligations. It interviewed the staff members who visited the resident’s property and said that they had not intended to disrespect the resident or question his disability. The landlord also apologised if the resident felt disrespected. It was resolution-focused for the landlord to offer an apology.
The landlord also investigated the resident’s claim that a member of staff he previously complained about had called him. It was not able to find any record of this call. Nevertheless, the landlord offered the resident, through its stage 2 complaint response, the opportunity to provide more information and evidence about this so it could investigate further. There is no evidence the resident provided any further information to the landlord regarding this call.
Overall, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about staff conduct. It failed to demonstrate that it undertook a fair and impartial investigation into the resident’s concerns about the phone call of 26 July 2022. The resident specifically mentioned that he had felt disrespected by 3 separate members of staff and the landlord has failed to provide evidence it fulfilled its duties to investigate all of these allegations. For this failing, the landlord should pay the resident £50 compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends figures in this range where there has been a minor failure by a landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about fence repairs

The landlord’s repair policy states that one of the resident’s responsibilities is ‘maintaining fence between gardens (except the privacy panel)’. The resident reported to the landlord that broken fencing was allowing dogs to access his garden, although he was not aware whose dogs these were.
The landlord’s records demonstrate that the resident reported the garden fence issue on 4 occasions. This was on 13 July 2022, 28 September 2022, 2 December 2022 and 21 December 2022. The landlord said in its stage 2 complaint response that it had undertaken 3 separate inspections in relation to these reports.
The landlord’s records do not provide evidence about these appointments or the outcome of its inspections. It is unclear what the landlord told the resident during these appointments and why it undertook so many inspections. The landlord should consider the level of information it records about appointments so that, in future, it can provide the Ombudsman with detailed accounts of all the actions it has taken.
In a December 2022 telephone call, the landlord informed the resident that it would not repair or replace the dividing fencing as this was the tenant’s responsibility. The information the landlord provided was in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement. Nevertheless, given the number of appointments, it is unclear why it took the landlord so long to provide this information to the resident.
The landlord did not provide the resident with the correct information until just under 5 months after he had first raised his fence concerns. Although the landlord provided the resident with information in line with its repairs policy, the delay in doing so represented service failure. This delay undoubtedly caused the resident time and trouble.
The resident did not then raise any further issues with the fence until he escalated his complaint to stage 2. In its complaint response, the landlord confirmed that securing the fence remained the resident’s responsibility but that it would take responsibility for the privacy panel of the fence. It also said that it did not believe the fence required a repair at this time. The landlord’s response was fair.
There was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports about fence repairs. Whilst the tenancy agreement may not have required the landlord to undertake a repair, it delayed providing the resident with correct information which meant he continued to chase the issue. For its failing, the landlord should pay the resident £100 compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends figures in this range where there has been a minor failing by the landlord.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about aids and adaptations.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports about staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of fence repairs.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

It is ordered that within 4 weeks of the date of this letter, the landlord:
1. Pays the resident £500 compensation, consisting of:
  1. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of his reports about aids and adaptations.
  2. £50 for the time and trouble caused by the failure in its handling of his reports about staff conduct.
  3. £100 for the time and trouble caused by the failings in its handling of his reports about fence repairs.
2. Apologises to the resident in writing for the failings identified.
3. Writes to the resident to offer a bathroom inspection to check for any outstanding remedial repairs. If the resident does wish for the landlord to inspect, it should do so within 2 weeks of his agreement – in line with the timescales currently showing on its website.
4. Provides evidence to this Service that it has done so.

Recommendations

The landlord should review how it records information about specific repairs and appointments it undertakes. It should ensure that it can provide a full record of actions taken at all appointments.