Dover District Council (202119825)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119825

Dover District Council

25 May 2022

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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adaptations at his property.

Background

2. The resident is the secure tenant of a three bedroomed semi-detached house which he moved into following a mutual exchange in July 2004. He lives there with his spouse. The property is accessed via a steep flight of steps which are then followed by a few more (shallower) steps. The resident suffers from health issues which are long term in nature. He cannot manage the outside steps or the internal stairs in the property and lives downstairs.
3. The resident, with support from an Occupational Therapist (OT), requested that the landlord carry out adaptations to the property, including the construction of a ramp access; the installation of a through floor lift or stairlift; and the conversion of the upstairs bathroom to a wetroom.  Alternatively, the resident wanted the landlord to consider whether a downstairs toilet could be adapted, or an extension built to the rear of the property.
4. The landlord refused to agree to any works, stating that the property was unsuitable for adaptation, and that the resident should seek rehousing to a property which was suitable for his needs or capable of being adapted to meet them. The resident lodged a formal complaint about this decision.
5. The landlord stated in its complaint response that the decision had been made in accordance with its Aids and Adaptations Policy. It set out the features of the property which caused it concern and stood by its decision. It also explained that there was no “appeal route” to challenge the decision itself, and that its review would centre around how it had handled the resident’s request for the adaptations. The landlord denied that it had acted in a discriminatory way towards the resident on the grounds of disability and stated that it did not consider extending the property was a viable option and again offered rehousing.
6. In referring his complaint to this Service, the resident stated that one of the landlord’s officers visited the property and confirmed that a more accessible bathroom could be installed.  He states that there is room at the back of the house for an extension. He feels the landlord has discriminated against him on the grounds of disability. The bathroom is now due to be replaced and the resident wants his needs to be met within that process.

Assessment and findings

7. The purpose of this Service’s investigation is to review how the landlord handled the resident’s application for adaptations to his property and not to decide whether the decision itself was the correct one. This is because this Service is not equipped to offer an expert opinion on whether adaptations should be made and/or which adaptions will be undertaken. This Service also cannot decide whether the property is capable of accommodating the desired changes – which is what would be required to challenge the landlord’s view. Further, no other expert evidence has been produced to contradict the conclusions the landlord has reached.
8. Whilst the resident reports that one of the landlord’s staff members did concede adaptations could be made, there is no evidence confirming that.
9. The resident’s initial request for changes was made in September 2018 via an OT. The landlord refused to carry out adaptations to the property due to its construction/configuration, but also because it was under occupied, having three bedrooms for the resident and his spouse. No complaint was made about the landlord’s handling of that original request at the time, and it is now “historic” and will not be considered further.
10. By October 2020, the resident had unfortunately been diagnosed with a further long term health condition and there was the possibility that he may become guardian to a young relative. His situation had changed, and the OT contacted the landlord again on his behalf to enquire whether a ramp access, through floor lift and wetroom would now be considered. The landlord responded that it stood by its previous decision because of the external access to the property and because of cramped internal conditions meaning a through floor lift was not an option, even if the resident could get in and out of the house itself.
11. In April 2021 the OT provided a further report recommending a flush floor shower be installed in the first-floor bathroom. This did not set out how the resident was to access the upstairs of the property, but it did contain plans detailing a possible layout for such a design.
12. On 12 May 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident in response, pointing out the difficulties with the property, refusing the adaptations and suggesting rehousing was the resident’s best option. Notwithstanding this, a further inspection at the property took place at the end of June 2021, but the result remained the same. The resident reported feeling pressured into moving and stated that he wanted to stay in the home he had lived in for so long.  The landlord discussed the situation further with the resident on 19 July 2021 and reiterated its reasoning in a follow up email.
13. Notwithstanding this, the landlord did agree to discuss the OT’s recommendations once again with its relevant staff member and a further visit to the property took place on 29 July 2021.  That visit reinforced the landlord’s reservations, including that a stairlift could not be installed due to the width and curvature of the stairs.
14. In summary, once the possibility of changes arose again in late 2020 the evidence demonstrates that the landlord considered the position in November 2020, reviewed it in May 2021, visited the property to check on 30 June 2021, discussed it with the resident in July 2021 and visited the property again at the end of that month (as set out above). It also sent various letters and emails to the resident confirming its view.
15. Whilst the landlord’s communications emphasised different issues at different times, (outside access, inside access, stair lift, through floor lift, first floor wetrooms where there is no access) this Service is satisfied that the landlord offered a consistent view that the property simply was not able to accommodate the adaptations required. The evidence shows that it is willing to rehouse the resident and has allocated him Band A priority. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s communications were clear and that it responded to the resident’s request and his subsequent contacts within a reasonable timeframe.
16. The landlord’s approach to adaptations is contained in its Disabled Adaptations Policy which sets out what changes it will and will not progress and what options residents have open to them. The policy contains the following provisions:
    1. Paragraph 9 sets out that “We will not adapt a property in the following circumstances: Where a resident or their family is deemed to be under occupying by two or more bedrooms; Where the property is unsuitable for adaptation due to its construction, form or type.”
    2. Paragraph 14 states that “Any adaptation work will therefore only be undertaken after careful consideration of various factors including: Characteristics of the dwelling, its construction and internal arrangement”.
    3. Paragraph 19 states that “In some cases, a property may not be suitable for adaptation due to the characteristics of the building. For example, because of its age, location, internal layout, type of construction, surrounding buildings or ground conditions. Where an adaptation cannot be carried out for any of these reasons (the landlord) will recommend moving the resident to more suitable property that can be adapted to meet their needs”.
    4. Finally, at paragraph 8 the policy states that “in some instances extensions… will be considered where the property is capable of being adapted …and there is no other reasonable viable alternative (including re-housing).
17. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s policy allowed it to refuse the adaptations on the basis it did, namely that the property could not accommodate them. It acted in adherence to the provisions of its policy in refusing the application. It was also appropriate and reasonable that it offered to rehouse the resident in the circumstances. It recognised the urgency of the situation by awarding the resident’s application a ‘Band A’ priority. Its policy allowed it to prefer rehousing over trying to build an extension.  Further the landlord did reassess its decision and revisit the property – it showed itself to be pro-active in trying to find a resolution which was acceptable to the resident. The resident reasonably reports not wanting to move from his home. While this Service empathises with his situation, the landlord is not bound to provide the outcome he is seeking.
18. With regard to the two further issues the resident has raised:
    1. Firstly, there is no evidence that the landlord has acted in a discriminatory way towards the resident on the grounds of disability.
    2. Secondly, if the resident is unhappy with the plans for the replacement bathroom in the property, he will need to raise a complaint with the landlord on this point. As this has not yet happened, and the landlord has not had the opportunity to get it right, this Service cannot consider whether the landlord has ‘got it wrong’.

Determination (decision)

19. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s requests for adaptations at his property.