Gateway Housing Association Limited (202217623)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217623

Gateway Housing Association Limited

18 June 2024

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 the resident’s request for adaptations to their property.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and lives with their partner and 2 young children. 1 of the resident’s children has been diagnosed with autism and global developmental delay. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the ground floor. The landlord is a housing association.
In 2022 the landlord agreed to instruct an architect to draw up plans for an extension to the property. The aim of the extension was to resolve issues with overcrowding and address the resident’s child’s needs.
In or around December 2022 the resident provided the landlord with an occupational therapy assessment which stated the proposed extension would be insufficient to meet the needs of the resident and their family.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 January 2023 to advise that the occupational therapist’s assessment suggested the required works would cost more than £1,000. It advised that, where costs for adaptations were over £1,000, the resident should apply for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). It advised it could support the resident in making an application. It also provided a copy of its Aids and Adaptations policy.
On 20 February 2023 the landlord completed a DFG application form. The local authority, through its Home Improvement Agency (HIA) and on the resident’s behalf, produced new plans for a larger extension and submitted these for planning permission.
On 29 November 2023 the local authority wrote to the landlord on the resident’s behalf. It explained the resident had informed it that the flat above their property was vacant and asked that the landlord consider merging the 2 properties.
The landlord responded to the local authority on 18 December 2023 to advise it would undertake a survey to understand what would be possible regarding merging the properties. It also advised that any decision on merging the properties would need to follow its internal governance process.
The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint on 7 January 2024. They advised the local authority had sent them a copy of the landlord’s response. They said the landlord had systematically failed to adequately support them and their family. They asked that the landlord:
1. Treat the resident and their family with dignity and respect.
2. Designates a senior member of management as a single point of contact.
3. Gives urgent attention to promptly resolving the outstanding concerns without further delay.
4. Include the resident in all relevant communication.
5. Merge their property with the flat above.
6. Take proactive measures to assist the resident with the local authority’s HIA.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 19 January 2024. It said:
1. It believed it had worked with the resident and supporting professionals to complete the DFG application.
2. It had been informed that, even if the DFG application was successful, an additional £60,000 would be needed to build the proposed extension. It stated that this was outside its available budget.
3. It apologised for not communicating with the resident since it had completed the DFG application. It said it contacted the local authority but had not received responses until January 2024.
4. It had offered to look for alternative accommodation for the resident but understood they did not want to move. It advised relocating was now the only option to accommodate the resident and their family’s needs.
5. It could not merge the 2 flats as the flat above had a live tenancy. It further explained that if the tenancy were to end it would have to offer the flat to the local authority as part of its common housing register agreement.
The resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 of the complaint process on 24 January 2024. They said:
1. The landlord’s stage 1 response contained new and misleading information.
2. They had managed the entire process of preparing and submitting the DFG application. They had passed the prepared documents to the landlord who had completed the application form.
3. They were unhappy with the landlord now saying it was unlikely the extension would be built due to the cost. They said the landlord had known there would be cost implications since January 2023.
4. They found it challenging to understand the landlord’s request that they reconsider moving to a different property. They explained they had previously discussed this with the landlord and moving would not be the best solution.
5. There had been a complete lack of communication since the DFG application was submitted and they felt they had been overlooked by the landlord. They said they believed the challenges they had faced with the local authority could have been avoided if the landlord had supported and advocated for them.
6. They disagreed with the landlord’s decision to not merge the 2 flats.
On 26 January 2024 the landlord issued its final response:
1. It reiterated its previous positions that it had assisted with the DFG application and that it could not merge the 2 flats.
2. It explained that it had only become aware at the end of 2023 about the full amount of additional funding that would be required. When it had checked against its investment options it had realised it would not be able to fund the work. It apologised it had not communicated this to the resident effectively.
3. It stated it could not comment on the actions of the local authority and that it had only passed on information the local authority had provided.
4. It repeated its stage 1 apology for the lack of communication. It offered £75 in compensation for stress this had caused the resident.

Events after the end of the complaints procedure

The resident notified this service that they had asked the landlord about moving properties but had not had a response. However, they further advised they do not wish to move to another property.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The resident’s complaint to the landlord included several matters that related to the actions of the local authority. These included issues with the HIA and planning permission. The Ombudsman is only able to investigate the acts of the landlord and those acting on its behalf. The local authority was responsible for considering the DFG application and not the landlord. The resident is aware these matters are outside the remit of the Housing Ombudsman Service and should be raised with the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman against the local authority.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adaptations to their property

The landlord’s Aids and Adaptation policy sets out:
1. It is the resident’s responsibility to arrange an assessment with an occupational therapist.
2. The landlord will review the assessment and any recommendations. It will not unreasonably withhold permission for a resident to carry out adaptations where an assessment has been carried out.
3. Depending on the scope of the required works, the landlord will raise work orders with its contractors or apply for a DFG on behalf of the resident.
4. In the resident’s local area, where a DFG is being used to fund works, the local authority manages the process. This includes tendering, instruction of contractors, and post-inspection of the completed works.
The landlord’s email of January 2023 was in line with its policy. It was appropriate for it to have advised the resident that they could apply for a DFG to fund the required works and that it could support them with making the application. It was reasonable for the landlord to have explained that it was likely the DFG application would need further supporting evidence from an occupational therapist.
The resident has stated they needed to pay for a second occupational therapy assessment and would like the landlord to compensate them for this. However, it is not the landlord’s responsibility to conduct the assessment, nor is it obliged to provide an occupational therapist. The evidence also suggests that the resident was aware the local authority could provide an occupational therapy assessment but they did not wish to use this option as it would have meant a significant wait for a therapist to be available. On this basis, the Ombudsman does not consider it would be reasonable to expect the landlord to pay these costs.
While the landlord’s policy says it will assist with completing a DFG application, it does not indicate the landlord would have any further involvement once this was completed. The Ombudsman considers it is clear the landlord’s role, in cases such as this, was limited to deciding if it will allow the requested adaptations and applying for the DFG. The landlord was not obliged to advocate on behalf of the resident or support them in their interactions with the local authority.
There is no evidence the resident contacted the landlord for an update on the DFG application or to advise they were facing difficulties with the local authority and/or the HIA.
The landlord has explained that it did not update the resident as it had been chasing the local authority for information. It has also explained that it was aware the resident was in direct contact with the local authority. There is no evidence the landlord would have had access to any information that the resident could not have obtained themselves. The Ombudsman therefore considers any failure by the landlord to provide an update was minor and was unlikely to have caused any detriment to the resident.
While the failing was minor, it was reasonable for the landlord to have recognised it could have provided a better service. It apologised for the lack of communication and offered some compensation for any stress this may have caused. The Ombudsman considers this was an appropriate outcome to the issues raised.
The resident has stated the landlord has provided inconsistent or misleading information. The Ombudsman does not agree with this assessment. While there is no dispute the landlord has provided different information at various times, it has provided explanations for these differences.
It was reasonable for the landlord to explain to the local authority that, in relation to the request to merge the 2 flats, it would need to survey the property and that any decision it took would need to be in line with its internal governance procedures. This position is not inconsistent with its later explanation that the other flat had a live tenancy and it could not consider the request further. It made it clear that if the tenancy ended it would still need to make a decision in line with its internal governance procedures.
There does not appear to be any evidence to indicate the landlord had made a binding commitment to provide any needed additional funds to build the extension if the DFG was insufficient to cover all the costs. It was reasonable for the landlord, once it was aware of the full estimated cost, to have reviewed its budgets and decide whether it was able to provide the additional funding required. Having made this decision, it was appropriate for it to notify the resident it would not be able to fund the extension.
It does not appear to be in dispute that the resident had previously advised the landlord that they did not want to move to a different property. However, once it became clear that the extension was unlikely to be built, it was reasonable for the landlord to have asked the resident to reconsider their position on moving and to have offered to assist them in finding a suitable property.

Summary and conclusions

The Ombudsman empathises with the resident’s situation and the difficulties they face in their current property. However, having considered all the circumstances of this case, the Ombudsman considers the landlord has acted appropriately in their handling of the resident’s request for adaptations to their property. This is because:
1. The landlord appropriately reviewed the resident’s occupational therapy assessment and advised that the resident could apply for a DFG to fund the required works. It applied for the DFG on the resident’s behalf. This was in line with its policy.
2. While the landlord did not proactively provide updates after submitting the DFG application, there is no evidence it had any information to provide or that the resident could not have obtained an update directly from the local authority. Any failing was therefore minor and unlikely to have caused any detriment to the resident.
3. There is no obligation on the landlord to advocate on behalf of the resident in their interactions with the local authority.
4. The landlord was entitled to decide whether it would be reasonable or appropriate to merge 2 properties into a single unit. It provided the resident, and the local authority, with an explanation for its decision to not move forward with this request. There is no evidence to suggest it was not permitted to make this decision.
5. It was appropriate for the landlord to review the level of funding required against its budgets and determine if it would be able to contribute towards the cost of the extension. There is no evidence that the landlord was aware, when advising the resident to apply for a DFG, that the cost of the extension would be significantly higher than the maximum amount the DFG could provide.
6. It was reasonable for the landlord to advise that, if the extension could not be built, a transfer to a different property would be the only option to accommodate the resident and their family’s needs.
7. When the resident raised a complaint in January 2024 the landlord responded, at both stage 1 and 2, in line with the provisions of the Complaint Handling Code.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adaptations to their property.