LiveWest Homes Limited (202215464)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215464

LiveWest Homes Limited

28 July 2023

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 resident has complained about the landlord’s position that the adapted fitted gas hob and built-in oven in her property are her responsibility to repair and, when needed, to replace.

Background

The resident signed an assured tenancy agreement with a previous landlord in 1997. The property was let as a home with disabled adaptions which included a built-in adapted electric oven and gas hob. Following a merger that took place in 2018, LiveWest housing association became the resident’s landlord.
The landlord has recorded that the resident has a disability, and it has referenced mobility issues.
In 2007, the resident made a self-referral for an occupational therapy (OT) assessment. Adaptations to the property were subsequently undertaken via a disabled facilities grant (DFG) which this Service understands was applied for by the local authority’s OT department. Adaptations included a new built-in oven and hob with a roll out safety shelf feature. The oven was built into a cupboard at wheelchair height and the hob was built into a work surface.
The resident’s complaint relates to an ongoing dispute with the landlord regarding whose responsibility it is to repair and, when required, replace the adapted oven and hob. The resident understood that despite changes to her landlord she would receive a like for like service and has advised that her previous landlord repaired and maintained the oven and hob. The resident expressed concern about the financial difficulty she would experience if she was responsible for the maintenance and replacement of these appliances. She also raised a concern that this may mean she was responsible for other adaptations in the property.
In July 2022 the resident raised a stage one complaint. She referenced:
1. The oven and hob were not working.
2. She had been advised by the landlord that the oven was gifted but she disputed this and said she had repeatedly refused to accept the “gift”. She maintained they were installed as part of a DFG and that the council had advised her that the landlord would be responsible for maintenance of white goods under these circumstances.
3. The landlord still owned the oven and was responsible if it was not working.
4. She wanted peace of mind that should the oven need future repairs or replacement this would be carried out by the landlord.
5. The desired outcome was confirmation that the landlord would take responsibility for the oven and hob.
In response the landlord advised the resident that she was responsible for any repairs and that if a replacement appliance was required, she would need to contact the OT department for a new DFG assessment.
In August 2022 the resident escalated her complaint to stage two. The landlord responded and said that it was satisfied the information provided at stage one was correct. The resident’s complaint was not upheld, however the landlord offered to review the case pending receipt of any supporting information the resident provided that evidenced repairs were the landlord’s responsibility.
On 10 November 2022 the resident asked this Service for assistance to help establish responsibility for the oven and the hob as the situation remained unresolved. She referred to the detrimental impact that the matter was having on her mental health.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to determine complaints by reference to what is fair in all the circumstances and decide if the landlord is responsible for maladministration or service failure.
When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its dispute resolution principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed form the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes
2. Put things right
3. Learn from outcomes
The landlord’s Aids and Adaptations policy states:
1. Any adaptation to a property that has been funded by the LA (local authority) is usually owned by the customer (in some cases however the local authority may retain ownership). In most cases where the LA has discharged ownership, LiveWest would take responsibility for the maintenance and servicing of such adaptations after the end of the warranty period.
2. Where appropriate, LiveWest will take responsibility for the servicing and maintenance of specialist adaptations, such as specialist WCs and lifts, this will include the covering of costs for such servicing and repairs.
3. If it is found that equipment can no longer be effectively maintained we will support the customer to apply for a new DFG.
In May 2019 the resident reported that her oven was broken, and she advised the landlord that she had been promised a double oven. However, no records were found of an OT assessment confirming the need for a double oven and the landlord therefore advised the resident that it would replace the oven like for like. The landlord offered to pay the resident the value of a single oven and she could pay the extra amount needed for a double one, and the landlord would then gift the appliance to the resident once it was installed (which would mean that she would be responsible for any repairs needed). The resident refused the landlord’s offer of “gifting” her an oven as this would likely cause her future financial hardship due to her low household income. She agreed instead to have the existing oven repaired by the landlord.
In April 2021 the resident called the landlord having received a copy of a gas safety check which listed the gas hob as hers. She expressed concern that if she did not challenge this, she may also end up being responsible for other adaptations in the property. The landlord recorded that it had advised the resident: “although we do service & repair, if it becomes beyond repair then it would be her responsibility to replace” and that “It’s possible the council “might” consider funding a replacement as and when it broke down, but that would be the council to decide”.
These events indicate that the landlord accepted responsibility for repairing the oven and hob at the resident’s property. This was in line with its Aids and Adaptations policy.
On 3 May 2022 the resident informed the landlord that her oven had broken. The landlord queried internally whether it should arrange for the oven repair and, having found no evidence to suggest it had been gifted, the landlord arranged for a repair operative to attend. However, the resident was advised that this was a “one off” and that due to the age of the oven, the landlord would not be looking to undertake repairs going forward. This was not an unreasonable position to take, if the oven was at the end of its useful life and was in line with the Aids and Adaptations policy. However, there is no indication that the landlord fully explained this or supported the resident to apply for a new DFG.
The resident confirmed that the hob and oven were installed at the time she moved into the property in 1997, and a new oven was installed in 2007 (by the previous landlord) following OT recommendations. The landlord advised her that she should contact her OT to carry out a new assessment for replacement and noted: “On this occasion we will attend to try to fix pending new OT assessment. Once assessed and a need identified for a new oven this will need to be gifted.” This suggests that in the meantime the landlord would be responsible for any repairs (it is noted that the resident has maintained throughout her complaint that she would not accept the oven as a “gift”).
On 25 July 2022 the landlord contacted the resident to confirm her stage one complaint:
1. Although the oven and hob were working the resident wanted peace of mind that should it need future repairs or replacement this would be carried out by the landlord.
2. The resident rejected the principle that the hob/oven were “gifted” to her.
3. The resident maintained that they were installed as part of DFG adaptations and that the council had advised her that the landlord would be responsible for the maintenance of white goods under these circumstances.
As part of its investigation into the resident’s complaint, the landlord sought advice from its Aids and Adaptations team and its Neighbourhoods team and was advised: “I guess it depends on the repairs / gifting policy on ovens. In the past I believe LiveWest repaired DFG ovens but did not replace. If replacements were needed the customer had to request a replacement via the Council”.
In an internal email exchange dated 1 August 2022 the landlord noted: “It was always my understanding that if items were fit through DFG works we would service and maintain as required” and “I have spoken to [the resident] before when repairs have said they won’t replace the item. From my understanding when repairs advised, they will repair the item but if it is due to be replaced, it should be referred to Adult social care for them to replace. I relayed this information to [the resident] when I spoke to her and it is my understanding that she understood this”.
Despite receiving this information indicating that it did carry out repairs in these circumstances, the landlord’s stage one response issued in August 2022 advised the resident that it did not offer repairs on appliances such as cookers, and that even those provided following an OT assessment which were part of a DFG did not fall under its responsibility to repair. It is not clear why the landlord took this position given the internal information it had received, and the position set out in its own Aids and Adaptations policy. If the landlord was unsure on what its position should be, this Service would have expected to see, for example, evidence of contact and discussion taking place between the landlord and the local authority resulting in a clear understanding of where the responsibility lay for repairs and replacement of DFG adapted appliances.
This Service considers that if the resident was required to take on the on-going maintenance of the oven this should have been made very clear to her at the point that there was a change to her landlord. There is no evidence this Service has seen to suggest that this was the case. The landlord should have considered the adequacy of the arrangements that were in place already to manage and carry out repairs to adapted appliances in light of the service provided by the previous landlord. The resident’s understanding was that future requests for repairs would provide her with the same level of service that she had previously experienced from her old landlord. In view of this, it is understandable that she has continued to question the landlord’s process over the past two years, and this has had a detrimental impact on her wellbeing. This is something that may have been avoided if the landlord had been clear about its policy from the start.
On 1 August 2022 the landlord noted that it had spoken to the resident and that she was very frustrated by the situation. She wanted to escalate her complaint and advised:
1. she was very stressed and did not understand why the landlord had not taken on responsibility for the oven
2. when she took on the property all white goods were included
3. the kitchen was replaced in 2007 following an OT recommendation which included a new, adapted oven
4. she believed it was always the landlord’s responsibility to maintain and did not understand why the landlord was trying to change this
5. she had contacted the local OT department who said they do not, and never have, supplied white goods via a DFG and that the appliances were put in by the landlord and therefore the landlord’s responsibility to fix. She requested that the landlord contact the local OT department to confirm this.
On 19 August 2022 the landlord recorded that the information provided by the resident was incorrect, in that “white goods have been and are continuing to be installed through DFGs”. This is contrary to what the resident reported that she was told when she contacted the council. As such, the resident was very much stuck in between the conflicting views of two organisations, and this is likely to have caused considerable frustration. The landlord missed an opportunity to clarify the situation directly with the council. This would have been a proactive approach and would have further demonstrated to the resident that the landlord wanted to help resolve matters. It is likely that this would have helped to alleviate some of the frustration she experienced trying to relay conflicting information between different parties.
The resident’s request for the landlord to contact the council’s OT department directly was a reasonable request due to the different information that she had received. This supports the need for clear protocols to be in place to avoid confusion for all involved and particularly the resident whose needs are being met. This is a learning for the landlord to consider going forward.
The Housing Regulator requires organisations to demonstrate that they understand residents’ needs in relation to equality legislation, and policies and services must be designed to meet the requirements of disabled tenants and there must be effective communication. Organisations should co-operate with other organisations to provide a service that meets tenant’s needs and clear and accessible policies should be published. This Service has not seen any evidence to suggest that the landlord contacted the OT department directly at any point to discuss the resident’s case. Had it done so, it may have been able to work with the local authority to determine a joint approach which could have been relayed to the resident.
On 25 August 2022 the landlord issued its stage one complaint response and advised:
1. It did not offer repairs or a replacement service for any customer appliances (such as cookers, fridges, washing machines, etc), including any installed following an OT assessment or DFG.
2. It had previously carried out repairs as a sign of goodwill, but there was no obligation or responsibility to have done so.
3. Although the landlord would carry out safety checks on the hob it remained the resident’s responsibility.
4. Similarly, if the hob or oven needed to be replaced the resident would need to arrange this through an OT assessment via the local authority.
5. It acknowledged that some of the information around this matter had been confusing in the past and partially upheld the complaint in recognition of this. It apologised for any distress and confusion caused.
6. It clarified that adapted items that form part of the fabric of the building, such as adapted showers or wet rooms, would fall under its ongoing responsibility to repair and maintain once installed.
On 15 September 2022 the landlord noted that it had spoken to the resident earlier that year and that: “from the conversation it sounds like it was all done under a DFG. Which to be fair from my understanding, any DFG’S, if repairs required, we tend to do them. However, I was told by planners to advise her that she is responsible for repairs or replacement moving forward. I did advise her of this at the time but I am not sure that is correct. If a replacement is required then possible DFG or via group adaptations, but again we would be responsible for repair.” This demonstrated the landlord’s continuing uncertainty regarding the repairs process despite having confirmed in the stage one response that it was not the landlord’s responsibility.
Following the resident’s escalation of her complaint to stage two, the landlord responded on 28 September 2022. The response advised:

The landlord had visited on three occasions to respond to repair requests.

The landlord had previously offered the resident £225 towards the cost of a double oven which she had not accepted, and the landlord had asked for an OT assessment.

In June 2022 the landlord repaired the oven as a gesture of goodwill but had explained it would not continue to carry out any further repairs in future.

The resident had advised the landlord that she had supporting evidence to show that the landlord had previously agreed to repair/maintain/replace the oven and hob but she had not provided this.

The landlord was therefore issuing its response on the basis of available information and would be happy to review the complaint again should the resident provide supporting information at a later date.

The landlord was sorry if any confusion had been caused by it carrying out repairs in the past.

The landlord recognised the resident’s concerns about the future replacement of her oven and hob and advised that she could request another OT assessment through the local authority (a link was enclosed); she could ask her housing officer for a referral to the tenancy sustainment service if she was experiencing financial difficulties; she was signposted to information on the landlord’s website.

While it is acknowledged that mergers of landlords can make the management of home adaptations more difficult, and that changes in arrangements for the repair and maintenance service can lead to confusion and a lack of clarity regarding responsibility, the landlord’s approach was unreasonable. Despite having responded to the resident’s complaint there was ongoing uncertainty on the landlord’s part regarding the matter. It was therefore inappropriate for the landlord to advise the resident of the outcome of its investigations when there was a lack of definite understanding, and when it had referred on a number of occasions internally to it possibly being responsible for the repairs. Further, while the landlord stated that it would ask for an OT assessment, there is no evidence to support this: rather, it advised that the resident would need to request this via adult social care.
It is acknowledged that the landlord offered to re-open the resident’s case pending any supporting evidence she provided which was good practice. However, signposting the resident to an organisation such as Citizens Advice would also have been helpful to ensure that the resident had access to independent support and information.
The landlord referred this Service to its “Service Offer” which documents that it is the tenant’s responsibility for “Installing electric and gas cookers or hobs to the outlet provided”. However, the Aids and Adaptations policy confirms that “Where appropriate LiveWest will take responsibility for the servicing and maintenance of specialist adaptations, such as WCs and lifts, this will include the covering of costs for such servicing and repairs.” The oven and hob in this case were specialist adaptations.
This Service understands that the landlord planned to update its policy to include its approach to the maintenance of white goods. This demonstrates that the landlord has followed the Dispute Resolution Principle of “Learning from Outcomes”. This is a positive improvement; however, the policy was not clear at the time of the resident’s complaint and this caused her stress, anxiety and time and trouble pursuing the matter. Her previous landlord had undertaken repairs and her understanding was that the service she received under the new landlord would continue like for like. In 2018 the landlord published information for residents regarding its merger and residents were advised that they could still report their repairs in the same way. In summary, the evidence seen by this Service points to the resident receiving conflicting information regarding who was responsible for the repair and maintenance of her oven and hob following the landlord’s merger.
Ensuring that the adapted cooking appliances are maintained to remain working effectively and safely is vital to ensure that the resident can continue with daily living and retain dignity and independence. It was therefore good practice for the landlord to undertake repairs to the resident’s oven.
This Service considers that, due to a lack of clarity and consistency in policy and general communications to date, the landlord should continue to repair the resident’s oven and hob.
Overall, the evidence available indicates that the landlord should be responsible for repair of the hob and oven at the property. As such, the response to the complaint was unreasonable, and the resident has experienced distress and inconvenience due to this. Therefore, this Service has found maladministration on the part of the landlord.
In terms of replacement, the evidence is not entirely clear on whose responsibility this is. Given the landlord seems to have found in May 2022 that the age of the oven meant it was no longer repairable, it should at least have followed its policy which states ‘If it is found that equipment can no longer be effectively maintained we will support the customer to apply for a new DFG.’ There is no indication that it did so. This has caused the resident further distress and uncertainty.
In light of the above, orders are made below to ‘put things right’ for the resident and ensure that the landlord ‘learns from outcomes’. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests a level of redress between £100 and £600 for maladministration in cases where there has been no permanent impact on a resident, but where the service failure has adversely affected them.
The orders made below relate to this resident’s particular case and recognise the time and trouble, and the stress and frustration she has experienced during the last two years when pursuing her complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s position that the adapted fitted gas hob and built-in oven in the property are the resident’s responsibility to repair and, when needed, to replace.

Orders

Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:

Write to the resident and confirm that it will undertake repairs for her built in oven and gas hob and record this on her customer record to prevent future confusion.
Contact the local authority to establish responsibility and funding for replacement of the oven/hob when this is needed, to include details of any process the resident may need to follow and provide this Service and the resident with a written response, ensuring this is recorded on her customer record for future clarity.
Pay the resident £350 compensation in recognition of the time and trouble and stress and frustration that she has experienced.
Review both its Service Offer and Aids and Adaptations policy to ensure that these are both clear on the responsibilities for repairs and replacement of adapted appliances and advise the Ombudsman of the outcome of this review.
The landlord to confirm to this Service that the above orders have been complied with within six weeks of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord is encouraged to work closely with the local authority to develop clear partnership arrangements for the maintenance and replacement of DFG adapted appliances.
Undertake staff training to ensure consistency in understanding of the landlord’s responsibility for DFG adapted appliances.