Kingston upon Thames Council (202214394)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214394

Kingston upon Thames Council

28 March 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of requests to install additional security measures following a data breach.
2. The landlord’s handling of aids and adaptations to provide extra bedrooms.
3. The landlord’s handling of aids and adaptations to provide a sensory alarm system.
4. The landlord’s failure to consider medical evidence concerning provision of a bath.
5. The landlord’s failure to provide white goods and carpets upon letting.
6. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant. The property is a 6-bedroom house. The tenancy started on 18 February 2022.
The resident lived with her husband and 5 children. At the time of the complaint, the children’s ages ranged between 17 and 29. The landlord was aware of various vulnerabilities and disabilities within the household. The needs of the family were complex. Several of the children were neurodiverse and had low awareness of risk and personal safety. Another child was receiving cancer treatment.
The resident is supported by a local law centre, who acts on behalf of the resident as her representative. The evidence shows that the representative has engaged in the majority of communications with the landlord to date. For ease of reading, the resident and her representative are referenced interchangeably in this report as the ‘resident’.
The landlord is a local authority, whose function includes the provision and management of social housing, as well as having a wider housing function under parts 6 and 7 of the Housing Act 1996. For clarity, where this report references the local authority, the Ombudsman is referring to the local authority in pursuit of its wider housing function.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 9 June 2022. In regard to the outstanding matters of complaint brought to the Ombudsman, the resident complained about the landlord’s:
1. Failure to put additional security measures in place following a data breach, despite the police recommending surveillance cameras and additional lighting.
2. Failure to provide additional bedrooms promised by the local authority when discharging their homelessness duties, within stated timescales. It had not confirmed a start date for construction of the outbuilding, which would provide the additional bedrooms. The property remained unsuitable for the needs of the household.
3. Failure to install a sensory alarm system which had been promised by the local authority when discharging their homelessness duties. Although a supplier had discussed the resident’s requirements in July 2021, there had been no further discussion.
4. Failure to consider medical evidence concerning provision of a bath. Although the landlord had arranged an occupational therapy (OT) assessment and had agreed to install a bath, this should have been addressed prior to the tenancy starting.
5. Failure to provide white goods and carpets, as stated during the property viewing.
Having not received a response from the landlord, the resident contacted the landlord again on 15 July 2022, reattaching her original complaint. The landlord said that it had no record of the complaint being received.
The landlord’s housing services lead issued the stage 1 response on 16 August 2022. The complaint was not upheld. The landlord said that it was continuing to address the needs of the resident and her family where possible. It had shown a willingness to resolve all the issues raised, to provide solutions, and it had explained the steps that would be taken. In particular:
1. It had informed the resident of the steps it had taken following reports of alleged harassment following a data breach.
2. It had demonstrated its intention to build the additional rooms and had kept the resident informed about timescales. Latest delays were caused by the resident’s request to change the location of the outbuilding.
3. It had contacted a sensory alarm supplier to obtain indicative costs. It was still in the initial stages of sourcing funding. It was meeting with the OT in September 2022 to agree funding. It would contact the resident to discuss suitable options following this.
4. The property had an adapted level access ensuite shower room with a toilet. This had been recommended during an OT assessment prior to occupation. A subsequent OT report had recommended the installation of a bath with a hoist. The resident had been unable to accommodate an inspection by its surveyor to progress this. It would continue to liaise with the resident concerning this. Once the inspection had been completed, it would inform the resident of the specification and a timeline for completing the works.
5. It was not the landlord’s policy to provide white goods or carpets for resident’s moving into its general needs properties. It was unable to substantiate the resident’s claim that it had promised to provide these.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 23 August 2022. The resident:
1. Suggested that the complaint investigation had been carried out by a member of the landlord’s staff with prior involvement in her case, and who had been copied into numerous emails. The resident felt that the complaint investigation was not independent.
2. Said promises had been made that additional bedrooms would be provided within 6 months of the tenancy starting. The building works had not yet started.
3. Said the landlord had not yet installed the promised sensory alarm system.
4. Felt that the landlord had not fully responded to her complaint about the requirement for a bath.
5. Said she was disappointed that the landlord had no record of the promises that were made about the provision of white goods and carpets.
The landlord’s corporate head of landlord services issued the stage 2 response on 14 September 2022. The landlord said:
1. It had correctly followed its own complaint handling protocol and therefore did not uphold the resident’s complaint about this.
2. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint about the provision of additional bedrooms. It said that there was no evidence of delay on its part. It had acted in accordance with its policies and procedures in regard to the location of the new building, gaining planning certification, and was attempting to start on site on 18 July 2022.
3. Construction of the outhouse had been halted after the resident asked for the building to be constructed in a different location. The landlord was seeking planning certification for a building which would offer one bedroom, a shower room, and a relaxation area. It anticipated that planning consent would be issued in October 2022, and the build would take around 16 weeks to complete.
4. It upheld the resident’s complaint about delays installing a sensory alarm system, for which it apologised. It said that previous assessments had been carried out virtually. However, now COVID-19 restrictions had lifted, a physical inspection was required to assess the household’s current needs and to support any decision made to install the sensors. The resident was asked to contact the supplier to arrange the inspection.
5. It had committed to providing refresher training and a briefing to staff in its landlord’s services about the need for an in-person inspection by a qualified OT when requesting aids and adaptations.
6. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint about the bath. It said the property had been fitted with a wet room, after following advice from the OT. A later OT assessment on 20 April 2022, had stated that a bath with a hoist would better meet identified needs. Its surveyor had attempted to arrange a property inspection to produce a specification of works to convert the wet room into a bathroom, however the resident had not kept appointments made. It encouraged the resident to contact its surveyor to enable an inspection to be carried out.
7. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint about the provision of white goods and carpet. It said this matter had been addressed by the member of staff who completed the sign-up process. It was not its policy to provide white goods or carpets within its general needs housing stock. The landlord had not sought to mislead the resident.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The resident complained at stage 1, that the landlord had not put additional security measures in place following a data breach. The landlord provided a stage 1 response, however, the resident did not escalate the matter to stage 2. While the resident told the Ombudsman that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, the landlord’s handling of requests to install additional security measures following a data breach falls outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is in accordance with paragraph 42a of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.
Paragraph 41d of the Scheme, states that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters in respect of local housing authorities in England, which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing. Paragraph 42j 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.
In this case, the local authority homeless team was responsible for decisions made concerning the suitability of the property. The local authority housing allocations team was responsible for the allocation of the property, further to the local authority discharging its homelessness duties. The local authority gave the resident several undertakings, which had a bearing on this case. If the resident believes that she was caused detriment by the actions of the local authority homelessness or housing allocations teams, she may wish to discuss this with the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO), who are the appropriate body to consider such complaints. Accordingly, any reference to the actions of the local authority within this report is provided as context to the substantive complaints only.
The scope of this investigation is limited to an assessment of the landlord’s actions between 9 December 2021 and 14 September 2022. This being 6 months prior to the formal complaint being made, through to when the landlord provided its final response to the complaint. However, where relevant to the resolution of the substantive complaint, events outside of this timeframe have been referenced.

The landlord’s handling of aids and adaptations to provide extra bedrooms

The landlord has an aids and adaptations policy. The policy does not set out expected timescales for providing aids or carrying out adaptations.
The local authority had been working with the family since 2016, who accepted that the resident needed an adapted, 7-bedroom property. Having difficulty identifying any properties that fitted the resident’s needs, the local authority set aside a property which it felt was suitable for conversion, adaption, and extension.
Works to convert and adapt the property, were completed in 2018, in line with OT recommendations. The local authority stated its intention to then create additional rooms needed, by building a single storey outbuilding in the garden.
The local authority wrote to the resident in May 2021, making the property her final offer of accommodation, under Section 193 Housing Act 1996. The offer letter stated that the property was a 6/7-bedroom house, which would become an 8-bedroom house in due course. In a supplementary offer letter on the same day, the local authority gave an undertaking to build a 2-bedroom garden room, with a toilet and shower room. The local authority stated that these works were likely to take at least 6 months to complete. The works would be ordered once the resident had accepted the tenancy and would be completed while in occupation.
The local authority planning portal shows that an application for a certificate of lawfulness was submitted on 6 August 2021. The application was for a single- storey detached outbuilding in the garden of the property. The application and plans were silent on the intended use of 2 of the rooms. The 3rd room was shown as a bathroom. A copy of the proposed plans showing the layout of the property were sent to the resident on 2 September 2021, however a copy of the proposed site block plan was not provided, which showed the proposed location of the outbuilding. The landlord maintains that the application reflected the resident’s preferred location for the proposed outbuilding. Planners granted a certificate of lawfulness for the construction on 28 September 2021.
The resident accepted the tenancy on 11 February 2022 and the tenancy began on 18 February 2022. After this the landlord took steps to progress the construction of the outbuilding. The landlord submitted plans to the local authority building control service 6 weeks later. A “notice of conditional passing of building plans” was issued on 19 April 2022. Following this the landlord put out a tender for works.
In May 2022, it instructed a contractor and shared plans and drawings with the resident. The landlord told the resident that works were expected to start in July 2022 and as a minimum would take about 4 months to complete. From the evidence seen, the landlord appeared committed to delivering the additional accommodation space the resident required. However, the Ombudsman has not been able to determine based on fact, whether there was any opportunity for the landlord to have reached this stage in a timelier manner.
The resident has told the Ombudsman that she was promised that the outbuilding would be completed within 6 months of her tenancy starting. The Ombudsman notes that in the local authority’s Section 202 suitability review decision in September 2021, it was stated that the outbuilding was expected to be completed within 6 months, subject to the tenancy agreement being signed. This was in contradiction to the previous offer letter, which stated that the build was likely to take a minimum of 6 months. Although this represents a clear mismanagement of the resident’s expectations, the Ombudsman is not assessing the local authority’s actions. It was reasonable to assume that the landlord would have been working on the basis of the offer letter. Had works started in July 2022 as planned, the outbuilding would have been ready for occupation 8 months after the tenancy started.
In the absence of any prescribed timescales set out in its aids and adaptations policy, it is difficult to gauge how long this process should have taken. In forming a view about this, the Ombudsman has taken into consideration, good practice guidance produced by the Department of Communities and Local Government (“Delivering Housing Adaptations for Disabled People: June 2006”). This suggests that adaptations would usually be expected to be completed within 3 to 12 months of an OT referral, dependent on priority and the complexity of the works. The landlord’s projections for completion of the out building fell broadly within these good practice timescales. The landlord may wish to consider expanding its policy, setting out its expectations around timescales for adaptations, which would offer greater transparency to residents and staff.
On 20 July 2022, the resident questioned the positioning of the outbuilding. The resident was surprised by the plans she had been sent, as she believed that the landlord had agreed to build the outbuilding further away from the property than was shown. When progressing the adaptation, the landlord should have ensured that the resident was provided with complete, clear, timely information, and that any plans were approved by the resident prior to seeking planning consent. In this case, there was a clear breakdown of communication between the parties, which caused confusion, disappointment, and led to subsequent delay.
The landlord was fair in offering the resident the choice of having the outbuilding built in the location it had agreed with planners, or for it to halt works and apply for a new certificate of lawfulness based on her preferred location. The landlord honoured the resident’s wishes, halting works, and applying for new planning consent. It is reasonable to assume that the resident had accepted this would result in additional delay.
The Ombudsman notes that following the landlord’s internal complaint process being exhausted, the landlord was informed by local authority planners that it needed to submit a full planning application. The landlord told the resident that this had not previously been raised as a requirement but was necessary due to the outbuilding being used as sleeping accommodation. This was unfortunate since prior to its application for a certificate of lawfulness, the landlord claims to have had informal discussions with planners.
It has not been possible to determine based on fact whether any fault lay with the landlord in relation to the seeking of relevant consents. However, the Ombudsman does note that the landlord’s application and associated drawings for the certificate of lawfulness, did not expressly mention that the outbuilding was to be used as sleeping accommodation. The Ombudsman suggests that this was unusual.
Ultimately, the requirement to go through the full planning process significantly delayed the landlord progressing the matter. Planning permission was later granted on 2 June 2023 for a 1-bedroom outbuilding. The Ombudsman is unclear if the outbuilding has now been built.
The resident has raised additional concern, that the landlord had reneged on promises made by the local authority regarding the number of bedrooms. The Ombudsman notes that the offer letter expressed an intention to build an outbuilding with 2 additional bedrooms and a bathroom, bringing the number of available bedrooms to 8. It is unclear from the evidence seen, when or who made the decision to change the use of one of the bedrooms into a relaxation room. The landlord has provided no evidence to show that the resident was consulted on the proposed changes, which was unreasonable.
However, the landlord did clarify in both its stage 1 and 2 responses, that it was only intending to build a 1-bedroom accommodation, with a bathroom, and a relaxation area. While the landlord’s communications around this could have been better, the resident and her family were unlikely to have been significantly disadvantaged by the changes in room usage, considering the resident had a 7 bedroom need and a need for additional living space. The new building was able to accommodate both. The landlord should write to the resident to clarify the reason for the change.
Overall, the landlord demonstrated a commitment to deliver an additional space, which catered for the needs of the resident’s family. The timeframe for completing the works was roughly 8 months, which was in keeping with government guidance on carrying out adaptations. The resident was unlikely to have been significantly disadvantaged by changes in room usage. Therefore, in consideration of the landlord’s handling of aids and adaptations to provide extra bedrooms, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration.
The resident does however have the right to make another complaint to the landlord, to address any dissatisfaction that may have arisen following issue of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. Thereafter, if the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, she may contact the Ombudsman for further assistance.

The landlord’s handling of aids and adaptations to provide a sensory alarm system

The resident has advised that her children are neurodiverse and have low awareness of risk and personal safety. In the supplementary offer letter in May 2021, the local authority gave an undertaking to install a sensory alarm system at the property, in accordance with OT recommendations. The purpose of the system was to alert the resident if one of her children attempted to leave the house unattended.
Arrangements were made for the resident to meet with a supplier, via video link, to discuss requirements. However, concerns were later raised by the OT that the supplier had not physically met with the resident and the supplier’s recommendations could not be taken as evidence of client need. In February 2021, the local authority told the resident, that the sensors would be installed by the landlord after she had taken up occupation.
In view of the potential risks involved, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have fitted the sensory alarm system within a reasonable timeframe of the resident moving into the property. However, 6 months after the tenancy started, the landlord indicated that it was still in the initial stages of seeking costs from suppliers and securing funding.
It is encouraging that in its stage 2 response, the landlord recognised that there had been a delay in providing the resident with such a system and it upheld the complaint. To remedy the complaint it apologised, committed to staff training, and asked the resident to make contact with its private OT to arrange a home visit so a decision could be made to invest in the sensors.
Since the initial assessment for sensor technology was carried out in 2020, it was understandable that the landlord would want a new OT report. This would allow it to check that the equipment previously recommended was still fit for purpose before releasing funding and ordering works. However, after the landlord chased the resident for a response in October 2022, the resident expressed a reluctance to allow anyone into the home to carry out an inspection. This was understandable, considering health concerns within the household at that time. The landlord gave instructions to its contractor to set up a virtual meeting with the resident. This showed that it was trying to bring about a resolution to the matter.
The contractor told the landlord on 28 October 2022, that the resident had not responded to attempts to arrange a virtual meeting and asked for further direction. However, no evidence has been provided that the landlord acted on this information in a timely manner. This was unreasonable and left the substantive issue unresolved.
The landlord’s contractor tried again to arrange a virtual meeting on 24 January 2023. The resident responded on 25 January 2023, that she was at her “wits end” and it was now too late for the landlord’s assistance. She said that she had made her own arrangements and adaptations to allay the risks posed to her family.
It was reasonable to expect the landlord to deliver the sensory alarm system in accordance with undertakings given by the local authority. Again, the lack of clarity in the landlord’s aids and adaptations policy around expected completion times was unhelpful. It is accepted that the resident’s own availability from October 2022 onwards restricted the landlord’s efforts to bring the matter to a close. However, prior to this, the landlord’s lack of urgency to deliver the sensory alarm system within a reasonable timeframe was unfair and left members of the resident’s household at potential risk.
Accordingly, in consideration of the landlord’s handling of aids and adaptations to provide a sensory alarm system, the Ombudsman finds maladministration.
It has been determined that £500 compensation is appropriate to put things right. This recognises the 48 weeks the alarm system was not installed from 18 February 2022 until 25 January 2023 when the resident confirmed that it had been necessary for her to make her own arrangements. This compensation has been calculated using the landlord’s own compensation policy and awards £250 for the resident receiving a poor service (failure of service – high impact) and £250 for a lack of appreciation of the resident’s circumstances such as vulnerability or disability (time and trouble – high impact).

The landlord’s failure to consider medical evidence concerning provision of a bath

In the supplementary offer letter in May 2021, the local authority said that the property met or would meet the resident’s requirements, as set out in her personal housing plan dated March 2021. This was based on the recommendations from several OT reports dated 2014, 2015 and 2019. It is understood that as part of the adaptation works, a ground floor shower room (wet room) with wheelchair access was installed.
Following receipt of the supplementary offer letter, the resident told the local authority that there had been a change of circumstances since the last OT assessment and the needs of one of her children had changed. In September 2021, the local authority said that “without prejudice”, it would be willing to investigate the possibility of installing a bath or carrying out adaptations to the shower in the wet room. This led to an OT assessment being carried out in October 2021. The outcome of the assessment was presented in report form in November 2021.
In the November 2021 OT report, the OT clarified that the resident felt that a bath would be more suitable in the wet room on account of her child’s disabilities. But in contrary, the OT stated that the existing level access shower more adequately met present and long-term health needs. There is no evidence to indicate that the local authority committed to replacing the bath following the OT assessment.
It is understood that after the resident moved into the property, she asked again if the shower in the wet room could be changed to a bath. The landlord arranged for a further OT assessment, which was carried out in April 2022. Based on new recommendations from the OT, which supported installation of a bath with a hoist, the landlord agreed to further adapt the property. However, having committed to carrying out the works, the property needed to be inspected to create a specification of works. It was unfortunate that the resident was unable to keep several appointments made, due to hospital commitments.
The Ombudsman is unable to determine what efforts the landlord made to inspect the property between July 2022 and February 2023. In an attempt to bring closure to the matter, the landlord asked the resident to confirm if she still wanted to proceed with the adaptations to the bathroom. It set out its further intention of inspecting the property on 2 March 2023. The resident did not respond or provide access. Following this, the landlord periodically wrote to the resident, asking her to confirm if the bath was still required.
In summary, the landlord was under no statutory, contractual, or policy obligation to make alterations to the property without recommendation from an OT. After the resident asked the landlord if it would change the shower to a bath, the landlord arranged a new OT assessment, which was fair. The landlord agreed to install a bath and hoist, based on the new OT recommendations, which was appropriate. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the subsequent lack of engagement from the resident restricted the landlord’s ability to progress the adaptation in a timelier manner.
In regard to the landlord’s failure to consider medical evidence concerning provision of a bath, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration.

The landlord’s failure to provide white goods and carpets upon letting

The landlord has a lettable standard, which describes the condition that a property will be let in. This states that the landlord will provide floor tiles or vinyl sheet flooring in bathrooms, toilets, and kitchens. The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 response, that it was under no policy requirement to provide white goods to residents of general needs properties.
The resident claims that when the conversion and adaptation works were completed in 2018, she was invited to view the property. At the viewing, the family were told by the local authority, that the landlord would provide white goods and would lay flooring of the resident’s choosing. The resident’s representative witnessed this conversation. However, when the resident moved into the property in 2022, there were no white goods, and the resident was informed that it was her responsibility to arrange her own flooring.
It has not been possible to determine based on fact what was agreed between the parties in 2018. However, the Ombudsman notes that in the supplementary offer letter in May 2021, the resident was told that it was her responsibility to provide flooring to the stairs and upstairs rooms. The letter stated that all ground floor areas had been fitted with a grey non-slip vinyl flooring, which was suitable for wheelchair use. The letter made no mention of white goods.
While there seems to have been some mismanagement of the resident’s expectations by the local authority prior to letting, the landlord was under no statutory, contractual, or policy obligation to provide any white goods. Neither was the landlord obliged to provide floor coverings, over and above what was set out in its lettable standard. It was reasonable that the landlord provided a non-slip vinyl flooring to the ground floor, as part of its adaptation works.
Accordingly, in regard to the landlord’s failure to provide white goods and carpets upon letting, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy states that stage 1 complaints will be investigated by a member of the service the complaint is regarding and will be agreed by the service manager. Stage 1 complaints will be acknowledged in 5 working days and a full response will be given in 10 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. A response will be issued in 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints will be allocated to the customer service team or a senior manager within the service area, or if appropriate, to an independent senior manager within the relevant service area who will carry out a further review of the complaint.
There was confusion over whether or not the landlord had received the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 9 June 2022. Notwithstanding this, the landlord did not issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. This was a minor failing, which delayed resolution of the resident’s complaint.
The resident claims that an impartial investigation of the complaint was not carried out at stage 1, as the investigating officer had been copied into previous emails concerning the substantive issues. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that complaint investigations must be conducted in an impartial manner, seeking sufficient, reliable information from both parties so that fair and appropriate findings and recommendations can be made. The Ombudsman notes that the stage 1 complaint was investigated by a member of staff from the landlord’s housing service, which was in line with its complaints policy.
The landlord has said that the stage 1 complaint was investigated by a senior officer who did not have day to day responsibility for administering the tenancy and was not involved with the property related matters. The evidence shows that the complaint investigator had previously investigated elements of the resident’s complaint in April 2022, in response to a member of parliament enquiry. Following this the investigator was copied into an email update. However, in relation to the substantive matters of complaint, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence to suggest that the complaint investigator had any involvement or influence over decisions taken prior to issuing a response at stage 1. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence to support the view that the complaint was handled without impartiality.
The Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling, due to its delay in providing the stage 1 response. The landlord is ordered to pay £50 compensation directly to the resident, in recognition of the inconvenience this caused.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of requests to install additional security measures following a data breach, was not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. No Maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of aids and adaptations to provide extra bedrooms.
2. Maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of aids and adaptations to provide a sensory alarm system.
3. No maladministration in relation to the landlord’s failure to consider medical evidence concerning provision of a bath.
4. No Maladministration in relation to the landlord’s failure to provide white goods and carpets upon letting.
5. Service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay compensation of £550 directly to the resident, which has been determined in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and is broken down as follows:
1. £500 compensation, in recognition of the failings identified in the landlord’s handling of aids and adaptations to provide a sensory alarm system.
2. £50 compensation, in recognition of the failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must initiate and complete a review into the issues identified in this case, in relation to its handling of aids and adaptations to provide a sensory alarm system. As a minimum the landlord must satisfy itself that there are adequate processes in place for the tracking and monitoring of aids and adaptations, to ensure that any agreed works are delivered in a timely manner. The landlord should endeavour to bring any identified improvements into operation within 3 months of it completing its review.

Recommendations

The landlord should write to the resident to explain the reason why it applied for permission to build a 1-bedroom outbuilding, bathroom, and relaxation area, as opposed to the commitments detailed in the offer letter.
The landlord should consider setting out its expected timescales for completing aids and adaptations in a relevant policy. If not already in place, the landlord should consider introducing a process for residents to approve proposals and plans prior to making an application for planning consent.
The landlord should confirm its intention in relation to these recommendations within 4 weeks of the date of this report.