Gosport Borough Council (202338597)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202338597
Gosport Borough Council
13 September 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 response to the resident’s request for disabled adaptations.
- The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
Background
- The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord which is a local authority. The tenancy commenced on 26 December 2022. The evidence shows that the resident is a permanent, independent and active wheelchair user.
- The property is a mid-terrace bungalow with one bedroom and one bathroom.
- On 26 September 2022 the resident accepted the property on the basis that the landlord would carry out adaptations discussed during the viewing. During November the resident emailed the landlord to raise concerns that the proposed adaptations did not meet his needs. On 29 November the Occupational Therapist (OT) emailed the landlord to confirm that the proposed works would meet the resident’s needs. The resident disputed this was the case and declined to move into the property. In the alternative he slept on the street because he felt this was safer for him than living in the property. As of 29 August 2024 that remains the case.
- The exact date of the resident’s stage 1 complaint is unclear. However, the evidence shows that during October 2022 the resident contacted both the landlord and his MP to express his dissatisfaction at the adaptations that had been carried out.
- On 10 November 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 response, as follows:
- The resident viewed the property on 13 September 2022 and accepted on 26 September allowing “extensive adaptations” to be carried out before he moved in. The adaptations were in line with the OT’s recommendations and incorporated the resident’s preferences.
- It considered the property “safe” for the resident to occupy while it continued to work with him and the OT to complete outstanding adaptations to property. The OT had carried out a further inspection of the property on 22 June 2023 and made further recommendations for the landlord to meet the resident’s current needs.
- It referred the resident to its letter of 14 July which it had provided to the resident 8 times since. It confirmed it had not received response from the resident regarding his preferred options for the recommended adaptations.
- It asked the resident to confirm his preferred options for the front access and bathroom so it could proceed with the work.
- It considered the property was “perfectly safe” for the resident to occupy following numerous site visits with both him and the OT and completion of “extensive” adaptations.
- If the resident’s needs had changed since 22 June it was happy to arrange a further site visit with the OT and housing surveyor. It was also willing to invite the resident’s doctor if he wished.
- It noted that the resident had declined to attend additional meetings but reiterated that it was committed to resolving the outstanding issues. It suggested that they meet on 27 November to discuss the situation.
- The medical information it held on file was information provided by the resident. It asked him to provide any further information which required files to be updated or provide consent for his doctor to provide it directly to the landlord.
- On 19 November 2023 the resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the process, as follows:
- The resident, medical professionals, and the royal college of occupational therapists disagreed with the landlord’s opinion about the accommodation it had offered him.
- The condition of his feet and lower leg injuries had deteriorated since 2013 to the extent where he now needed a wheelchair on a permanent basis to mobilise.
- Housing requirements to match bilateral below knee injuries required a longer than standard toilet pedestal access handle.
- His fall had also damaged his vertebrae which also dictated the length of the access handle to toilet pedestal. He also required enough space to safely turn his wheelchair around without twisting his torso.
- His doctor had contacted the landlord to express concern that all his below knee injuries were not being kept in consideration for his housing requirements.
- The lack of accessibility at the property posed a potential risk of further injury. He asked the landlord to begin sourcing “fully wheelchair accessible housing.”
- The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 18 December 2023, the main points being:
- It provided a link to its housing disabled adaptation process.
- The OT’s assessment identified what adaptations were essential, it was not dependent on other medical documents.
- The OT visited the property on 22 June to observe the resident in situ to make recommendations on meeting his needs. These were shared in the landlord’s letter to the resident of 14 July. It reiterated that it was waiting for him to confirm his preferred options to be able to carry out works.
- A further meeting had taken place at the property on 5 December with the resident present however, his option selection remained outstanding.
- The resident emailed the landlord on 19 December 2023 to say that the landlord was not considering all and/or the severity of his injuries. He requested that a suitability review be carried out by a “qualified royal college of occupation therapist housing adaptation for physiological trauma injuries.”
- The landlord provided its stage 3 complaint response on 22 January 2024, as follows:
- It referred to its stage 2 complaint response. It confirmed it had not received the resident’s response to its letter of 14 July 2023, and without that it could not proceed.
- It had acted on information and advice provided by the OT in accordance with its disabled adaptations process.
- It had acted in accordance with its process and could not proceed with further adaptations until the resident confirmed what was needed.
- It invited the resident to provide updated medical evidence if he felt the OT was not considering all his medical requirements.
- On 30 January 2024 the resident contacted this Service to say he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.
Assessment and findings
Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures
- The landlord’s disabled aids and adaptations policy (adaptations policy) says that:
- A ‘one-size fits all approach’ is not adopted in delivering adaptations. Works are tailored to meet individual needs and requirements.
- Adaptations must be requested by an OT following an assessment of an individual’s needs.
- Close liaison with the OT should be established and maintained to deliver an efficient service.
- Its complaint procedure in place at the time set out a 3 stage process. It did not set out its response time to stage 1 complaints. However, it aimed to respond to stage 2 and 3 complaints within 20 working days.
Scope of the investigation
- On 31 May 2023 the resident emailed the OT to dispute the information contained in their assessment. This investigation has assessed the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for adaptations, including its reliance on the OT assessment. However, we cannot assess the OTs response to the request for adaptations.
- This is in accordance with our approach set out in the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which fall within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman.
- If the resident is not satisfied with the OTs assessment he may wish to consider making a complaint to the local government and social care ombudsman who can be contacted on 0300 061 0614 or online at Complaint Form – Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
- In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.
Adaptations
- On 13 September 2022 the resident and OT attended a meeting at the property. The OT subsequently emailed the landlord on the same day to confirm that various adaptations had been discussed with the resident to find solutions to meet his needs. The resident had declined a number of options but was accepting of “a floor plan to be created with relocation of the bathroom, relocation of the front door and adaptation of the kitchen.” This is evidence that the landlord consulted the resident and OT regarding the adaptations at the outset, in line with its adaptations policy.
- On 26 September 2022 the resident’s representative emailed the landlord to confirm that the resident accepted the property on the basis that all the adaptations were actioned.
- On 1 November 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to say that it was ignoring emails from his doctor regarding his “actual injuries” and physical limitations. The resident sent further emails setting out the same concerns, including on 6 February and 5 August 2023.
- The landlord’s adaptations policy states that adaptations must be requested by an OT following their assessment of the resident’s needs. The landlord is not suitably qualified to make this assessment therefore, it was appropriate for it to rely on the OT’s expertise in line with its policy. The landlord appropriately confirmed the same in its stage 2 complaint response of 18 December 2023. It explained that adaptations were based on the OT’s assessment and were not dependent on medical documents.
- On 5 and 9 November 2022 the landlord exchanged emails with the OT regarding the adaptations required for the bathroom and kitchen. This is evidence that the landlord continued to liaise closely with the OT in line with its adaptations policy.
- On 21 November 2022 the resident emailed the landlord regarding a number of issues including storage to house his sports chair and mobility scooter. The landlord emailed the OT to seek their view. On 23 November the OT responded with their recommendations with regards to access, storage and the bathroom. The email said that the recommended works would “meet the resident’s needs as a full time wheelchair user.” It said that the resident had made some choices which had been accommodated by the landlord, including to have a level access shower removed and bath installed. On 29 November the OT sent the landlord a further email to sign off the works.
- This is evidence that the OT was satisfied that the adaptations made by the landlord were in line with their recommendations on which the landlord was entitled to rely. It was also evidence that the landlord had complied with its adaptations policy by tailoring the adaptations to meet the resident’s individual needs and requirements.
- On 15 December 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to express his dissatisfaction with the adaptations. The landlord replied on the same day to confirm that the adaptations had been approved by the OT. Where possible it had considered and applied variations requested by the resident. All works had been completed except for an electrical door opener which was due to arrive the following day. The landlord’s response was appropriate in the circumstances.
- On 16 December 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to say that because it had not yet carried out all the adaptations, the property was not safe. He said that he would move in once “all agreed safety adaptations” were installed, including resolving the uphill ramp to the front door.
- An internal email dated 27 March 2023 shows that the landlord was unable to progress a planning application on behalf of the resident for a shed. This is because it was waiting for him to supply further information regarding the size and location of the shed. It is unclear if the resident provided this information.
- On 3 April 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm the outcome of a visit to the property on 17 March. It confirmed that it would contact the OT to discuss levelling out the pathway to the front door.
- The landlord’s communication was generally appropriate. However, on this occasion the landlord took 3 months to provide a response to the resident’s request to level out the ramp to the front door. It is unclear why there was a delay and given the resident’s evident distress this was inappropriate.
- On 6 April 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident to ask him to provide access to the OT. The evidence shows that a meeting took place at the property on 19 May. However, the resident felt unable to enter because of the alleged presence of noxious gasses in the property. This is further evidence of the landlord’s commitment to work with the resident and OT to ensure the property was adapted in a way that would meet his needs.
- On 30 May 2023 the OT provided a copy of their report to the resident and landlord setting out their recommendations. However, they advised they would need to observe the resident in the property to assess his current needs. As set out above, it was appropriate for the landlord to rely on the expertise of the OT.
- The landlord wrote to the resident on 31 May 2023 to confirm the outcome of the meeting on 19 May, as follows:
- All works carried out at the property to date had been agreed by the OT and the resident. The resident had since asserted that they did not meet his needs. The OT was unable to carry out her assessment on the day because the resident had declined to enter the property.
- However, the OT did advise that the resident could not access the windows from a seated position and an appointment was made for 26 June to install window winders.
- It proposed that a follow up meeting be arranged at the property on 8 June.
- The evidence shows the resident was unable to attend the appointment made for 8 June. On 9 June the landlord emailed him to suggest a revised date of 16 June. A visit took place on 22 June.
- In its email to the resident of 2 June 2023 the landlord reiterated that it was committed to liaising with him and the OT to resolve his concerns. It repeated the need for the OT to observe him in the property to assess his current needs. Its approach was in line with its adaptations policy.
- On 10 July 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident to summarise its action to date. It wrote a further letter to the resident on 14 July to set out the outcome of a meeting held at the property on 22 June. Updates included those relating to issues with the front access, bathroom, storage and window winders. It set out several options in relation to front access and the bathroom and asked the resident to indicate his preferences. This is further evidence that the landlord complied with its adaptations policy by tailoring its response to the resident’s needs and requirements.
- The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 October 2023 to request again that he confirm his preferences with regards to front access and the bathroom, enclosing its letter of 14 July. It said it had arranged a meeting to be held on 26 October to discuss the matter. This is evidence that the landlord continued to try to engage with the resident to establish his requirements to progress with works.
- The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 10 November 2023 reiterated that the property was “safe” for the resident to occupy while it worked with him and the OT to complete the adaptations. It asked him to respond with his options for the bathroom and front access. It also said it was willing to continue to work with the resident and OT if his needs had changed since 22 June. This demonstrated its ongoing desire to work with the resident and OT to ensure the adaptations were appropriate, in line with its adaptations policy.
- In his request to escalate his complaint to stage 2, made on 19 November 2023, the resident disputed the landlord’s assertion that the adaptations met his needs. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 18 December provided the resident with a link to its disabled adaptations process. The process sets out that the OT was responsible making recommendations based on its observation of the resident’s needs. It again asked the resident to provide a response to the options it had put to him regarding the front access and bathroom. Its response was appropriate in the circumstances.
- Notes from a multi-agency risk management meeting held on 11 December 2023 confirmed that the resident was of the view that the adaptations which had been carried out were not suitable. However, he had been unwilling to accept any further adaptations or equipment that had been offered to him. This meant the landlord could not proceed with any further works. On 6 January 2024 the OT wrote to the landlord to confirm that on that basis the referral to the reablement OT would be closed.
Events post internal complaints process
- In his telephone call to this Service on 14 May 2024 the resident said the landlord had carried out the “easy” adaptations but not the essential ones as they had used the incorrect injuries list. He said he preferred to “sleep out in the streets” and use the disabled facilities there than live in the property.
- On 20 August 2024 the landlord emailed the resident and requested again that he confirm his preference in relation to front access and the bathroom. It confirmed the property was “perfectly safe” for him to occupy as someone with “limited mobility who was reliant on a wheelchair.”
- In an email to this Service on 29 August 2024 the landlord confirmed that the resident did not appear to be living at the property.
Summary
- The evidence shows that the landlord’s response was appropriate and in line with its adaptations policy. The adaptations it made were in line with the OT’s recommendations and it had made appropriate variations in line with the resident’s requests. In line with its policy it asked the resident to indicate his preference with regards to options to make changes to the front access and bathroom. There is no evidence that the resident provided a response therefore, the landlord has been unable to complete the adaptations in accordance with the resident’s wishes.
- The resident was evidently disappointed with the landlord’s response. This investigation has noted the detriment caused to the resident by his sleeping on the street. However, the landlord cannot reasonably be held responsible for the detriment because it has followed its policy and has continued to try to engage with the resident in order to complete the adaptations.
- Considering the above, this investigation considers that there has been no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for disabled adaptations.
Complaint handling
- On 19 November 2023 the resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the process. The landlord provided its complaint response on 18 December which was 20 working days later and in line with its complaints policy.
- On 19 December 2023 the resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 3 of the complaints process. The landlord provided its response on 22 January 2024 which was 21 working days later. It is acknowledged that there was a delay of 1 day which was a minor failure. However, there is no evidence that the landlord managed the resident’s expectations by contacting him to advise him it would be late which was a failure.
- The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) sets out that 2 stage complaints procedures are ideal. Therefore, the landlord’s complaints policy in place at the time of the complaint was not compliant. This meant the resident had to engage in a protracted complaints process which delayed his ability to ask this Service to investigate his complaint which was inappropriate.
- The landlord has provided this Service with an updated complaints process which sets out a 2 stage complaint process. Its response times are also in line with the Code. Therefore it has not been necessary to make an order with regards to this matter.
- Given the above this investigation concludes there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because there was a minor failure which had a detrimental effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £50 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was a failure may not have affected the overall outcome for the resident.
Determination (decision)
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for disabled adaptations.
Orders
- Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £50 for the detriment caused by its complaint handling.