Habinteg Housing Association Limited (202227866)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227866

Habinteg Housing Association Limited

19 April 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

This complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to pave the remaining area of her garden.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns following the installation of a door mechanism by the local authority.

Background

The resident occupies a 2-bedroom property under an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord. The tenancy started on 8 December 2003.
The resident has multiple sclerosis and bi-polar disorder. She uses a wheelchair.
On 22 January 2023 she raised a complaint to the landlord and local authority about issues with her disabled facilities grant and adaptations within the property.
The landlord formally acknowledged the complaint on 6 March 2023 and issued its stage 1 response on 17 March 2023. It said:
1. Contractors working on behalf of the local authority installed the door mechanism. As such, the resident should direct this aspect of her complaint to the local authority.
2. Garden works recommended by an occupational therapist (OT) had been completed. There were no outstanding garden adaptations.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 4 April 2023. She explained:
1. The landlord’s handling of her request for replacement vinyl flooring dissatisfied her.
2. Her OT had recommended the remaining section of her garden to be paved as she was unable to access it in her wheelchair and it was becoming overgrown.
3. She felt the landlord should have checked the mechanical device before the local authority installed it.
4. There was some mould in one of her rooms.
The landlord rejected the resident’s escalation request on 28 April 2023 and said she should accept the stage 1 as its final response. It said:
1. Her concerns regarding the vinyl flooring replacement were new and not investigated as part of the stage 1 complaint.
2. The landlord required a report from an OT for any further garden works. It had explained this to the resident on several occasions.
3. It asked the resident to advise which areas of the property were impacted by mould as this had not been raised before.
4. The local authority needed to address issues relating to the installation of the mechanical door device. It was aware the resident was already in contact with them about this.

Assessment and findings

We provide a dispute resolution service which is an alternative to a legal route. We frame our approach by three principles – be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.

Scope of investigation

Paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body.
Based on the above, the Housing Ombudsman Service will not consider the resident’s complaints about adaptations assessed and arranged by the local authority. This is a matter for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
In the resident’s complaint escalation to the landlord, she referred to concerns about replacement vinyl flooring and mould within the property. The resident did not include these matters within her initial complaint to the landlord. Therefore, the Ombudsman has not considered them within this determination. The resident should contact the landlord directly if she wants to pursue these matters through the landlord’s complaints procedure.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to pave the remaining area of her garden

The landlord’s adaptations service guide sets out that a disabled facilities grant (DFG) usually funds major adaptations costing more than £1000.
In October 2022, the local authority informed the landlord that it could not extend the grant to install additional paving in the back garden.
Within the resident’s initial complaint, she explained she wanted her back garden completely paved. From reviewing correspondence records between the parties, the landlord informed the resident it would consider her request for additional garden works upon recommendations from an OT. The Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord made this clear to the resident on several occasions. As such, the Ombudsman finds the landlord fairly managed the resident’s expectations regarding her request.
The resident said an OT had recommended further paving within the garden. Neither party provided evidence of this to this Service.
After the landlord’s final complaint response, records show the resident asked her OT to provide garden recommendations to the landlord. The OT told the resident it would write to the landlord to see if it could undertake the works that the resident wanted at the time – weeding the flower bed, laying an impermeable layer to prevent weed growth, and covering the flower bed with stones. The OT told the resident this was not an adaptation request so the landlord might not accept it.
The landlord’s vulnerable resident’s policy states it is committed to supporting all its residents and recognises the importance of the ability to live as independently as possible. Experiencing vulnerability does not discount a resident from tenancy obligations and responsibilities, however, it recognises that some residents will require additional support in meeting their obligations.
The tenant handbook sets out that the resident is responsible for maintaining her garden. The Ombudsman would not reasonably expect a landlord to undertake repairs or maintenance that it was not responsible for.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that after the landlord’s final complaint response, it offered to signpost the resident to local gardeners. It also proposed for the grounds maintenance contractor to give her a quote for the works. Further, it said it was considering introducing a non-eligible service charge for residents to have their gardens maintained on a quarterly basis and asked whether the resident wanted to explore this further. This demonstrates the landlord offered support to the resident.
After considering the evidence available and the circumstances of this case, the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord acted fairly, reasonably and in line with its policies in its overall response to the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns following the installation of a door mechanism by the local authority

The resident maintains that the landlord should have inspected the replacement door mechanism before the local authority undertook works to install it. The Ombudsman has seen no policy or procedure that required the landlord to do this.
The Ombudsman finds the landlord acted appropriately by sharing the resident’s complaint with the local authority and asking her to contact it directly regarding her concerns.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to pave the remaining area of her garden.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns following the installation of a door mechanism by the local authority.