London Borough of Ealing (202310521)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310521

London Borough of Ealing

31 July 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:
1. Handling of the resident’s requests for adaptations.
2. Response to the resident’s concerns about cavity wall insulation.
3. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident resides in a 2 bed ground floor flat with his teenage daughter. He has various health conditions including IBS and mobility issues.
In September 2018 following an OT assessment it was recommended that the landlord investigated the possibility of removing the existing specialist WC and replacing with another model with soft seat. A senior OT informed the resident that the addition of an additional toilet could not be justified. Furthermore, they could not ask the landlord to replace the boiler. There is no evidence to suggest that the recommendation was acted upon until the resident contacted the landlord again in early 2022.
There is a significant gap in evidence between the above assessment taking place and a further OT assessment in February 2022. It is not clear if the landlord took any action or if the resident pursued the matter during this period or if the delay was a result of Covid.
The OT assessment in February 2022 focused upon the resident’s request for mobility scooter storage. In October 2021 the resident purchased a covered scooter which was too tall to fit inside the existing storage unit. Given that the resident was concerned about the scooter becoming damaged or being stolen, the OT recommended that the landlord installed a new storage unit.
On 14 July 2022 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. He said that despite several OT recommendations he had not heard anything further regarding his requests for:
1. An additional storage unit for his new mobility scooter.
2. The installation of a combi boiler to provide hot water on demand and reduce energy costs and consumption.
3. Cavity wall insulation.
4. A secondary WC.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 14 September 2022. It said:
1. Following the OT assessment a decision was made to accommodate the new mobility scooter by removing the existing storage unit, allowing a ‘place free of obstruction’ to park.
2. The resident would need to request a further OT assessment in relation to the requirement for a combi boiler. This would then be referred to the adaptations team.
3. An inspection would be arranged to investigate the current insulation.
4. The resident would need to request a further OT assessment in relation to the requirement of a secondary WC. Once completed this again would be referred to the adaptations team.
On 23 September 2022 the resident escalated his complaint. He felt that the landlord had failed to act upon the OT recommendation made in relation to the provision of a scooter store and that he had already provided medical evidence to support his request for a secondary toilet and cavity wall insulation. Furthermore, the resident claimed that in July 2019 the landlord had agreed to install a combi boiler. He says this was postponed without communication due to covid and that the member of staff involved was no longer employed by the landlord.
Following the complaint escalation, the landlord completed an aids and adaptations survey of the property in November 2022. The report said:
1. During the visit it was not possible to verify whether the external walls were insulated, however the internal temperature was 18 degrees Celsius without the heating being on. Insulation is beyond the remit of aids and adaptation and as such this would need to be pursued separately. The resident should be given feedback on this concern.
2. The external car park is communal, and the land is owned by the local authority. The resident would need to seek permission from the appropriate department for an allocated parking space. This would enable the erection of a shelter in the space. The resident has agreed to pursue this matter separately.
3. The requirement of an additional WC for general use would be determined by an independent OT who will visit the property in due course.
4. The request for a heating upgrade and the installation of a combi boiler will also be determined by the OT assessment. However, based on the age of the existing boiler it is recommended that it is changed.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 1 December 2022. It confirmed its position on the scooter storage and the secondary WC in line with the aids and adaptations survey detailed above. With regards to the boiler, it said that under its internal procedure it would not normally renew or replace a working boiler, however, it would await the outcome of the OT assessment and decide ‘based on what will meet his needs best’. It concluded by apologising that it was currently unable to provide an update regarding the cavity wall insulation as the surveyor was on leave. It said it would provide a further update the following week.
Following the final complaint response, the evidence shows that a further survey and OT assessment was carried out in February 2023. Despite the OT report recommending that the boiler be replaced, the landlord said that this would only be done if the boiler was beyond repair. It said that it has been added to a future replacement programme, in the meantime a heat loss calculation would be carried out to ascertain if the radiators were appropriate. In addition, it said that it could not consider installing a scooter store until the resident had obtained an allocated parking space.
The resident escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman as a further 12 months had passed, and no further decisions had been made.

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focused on the period from February 2022 onwards. Reference to events that occurred prior to February 2022 is made in this report to provide context.

Assessment and findings

Handling of the resident’s requests for adaptations.

Under the Equality Act 2010, the landlord had an obligation to make reasonable adjustments for a person suffering under a disability. In this case there was no dispute that the resident was disabled as defined by that act.
The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy states that it has occupational therapists who can assess the need for special equipment and adaptations. It goes on to say that an application can only be approved where the works are ‘considered necessary and appropriate, plus are reasonable and practical’. Furthermore, an occupational therapist will aim to carry out an assessment within 28 days, should this lead to a referral for more major adaptations it will aim to carry out a survey within 3 weeks of allocation and approve necessary funding within 18.5 weeks.
An OT assessment was carried out in February 2022 following the residents request for a new scooter store. This recommended that the landlord install a store large enough to accommodate the resident’s new scooter. Again, there is no evidence that the landlord acted upon this recommendation or contacted the resident to discuss at this time.
Following the resident’s complaint in July 2022, within its stage 1 response the landlord said that he would need a further OT assessment for it to consider his medical needs in relation to the installation of a combi boiler and his request for a secondary WC. While this was a reasonable response by the landlord it said that the resident would need to contact Social Services to request the assessment. Given that the landlord’s policy states that it has occupational therapists this understandably caused confusion for the resident.
With regards to the resident’s request for a new scooter store, it is evident that he was given conflicting information on more than one occasion. Within the landlord’s stage 1 response it said that following the OT assessment in February 2022 a decision had been made to accommodate the vehicle by removing the existing storage unit (which was too small) allowing the resident a ‘place free of obstruction to park’, however, this did not happen.
The evidence shows that in November 2022 the resident was then informed that the car park was considered ‘communal’, therefore, to erect a shelter, he would need to contact the appropriate council department to request an allocated parking bay. At this stage the landlord did assist and made the necessary referral, however, this was more than 7 months after the initial request and OT assessment. Had the landlord followed its own policy and acted upon the recommendations made in February 2022 then this information would have been discovered earlier reducing the inconvenience to the resident and managing his expectations.
The landlord’s policy states that heating systems will only be replaced if the current system is beyond repair or parts obsolete. In this case the existing system was in full working order, the resident however wanted a combi boiler so that he had instant access to hot water for his medical conditions and because he felt that this would be more economical. The resident also reports that prior to the pandemic a replacement was agreed, however we have seen no evidence to support this.
The resident initially requested a boiler upgrade in 2018, he was told by the OT at the time that this would not be considered as an adaptation and that the landlord was unlikely to replace the existing heating system as it was in full working order. However, In September 2022 the landlord again informed the resident that he would need a further OT assessment for them to consider this. Despite further OT assessments and surveyor visits highlighting that the boiler was over 17 years old it took the landlord until April 2023 to confirm that an upgrade was not possible at this time, it did however inform the resident that his property had been added to the planned boiler replacement program.
Although the landlord is under no obligation to upgrade working heating systems, its communication with the resident was confusing and it again failed to effectively manage expectations. It took 5 years for the landlord to clarify its position which is an unreasonable amount of time, this also led to the resident spending considerable time and trouble chasing and facilitating assessments and inspections.
In summary, although the landlord is not obliged to make any alterations unless considered ‘necessary and appropriate’, it failed to appropriately manage the resident’s requests for adaptations. It did not follow its own policy and procedure, progress matters in a timely manner and there was an apparent lack of clear decision making. It did not make its positions clear and failed to manage the resident’s expectations. 5 years after the resident’s initial request, matters involving the scooter storage and replacement WC remain outstanding. During this period the resident has been inconvenienced and passed from agency to agency, this has caused him distress and confusion.

Response to the resident’s concerns about cavity wall insulation.

Within his complaint in July 2022, the resident raised concerns regarding the insulation within the property, he reported that the cold temperature was having a negative impact upon his health and evidenced this with supporting letters from his GP. The landlord agreed to carry out a survey, however, the evidence shows that this did not happen until 2023. The landlord said that this was due to staff absences, however, it failed to notify the resident of any such delays. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities this was an unreasonable response from the landlord, it should have investigated the residents’ concerns within a timely manner.
Since bringing his complaint to this Service the landlord has informed the resident that the insulation is satisfactory for the age of the building and has carried out some remedial works to the external pointing.
In summary, although it is noted that the landlord has recently committed to further investigations it failed to appropriately communicate with the resident at the time of the complaint. There was an unreasonable delay in carrying out an inspection and the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations by explaining that cavity wall insulation would not be considered as an adaptation.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s Complaints Policy states it will speak with a complainant within 24 hours of receipt of a complaint, clarify the details and clearly communicate timescales and next contact dates. It aims to provide stage one complaint responses in 10 days and stage two complaint responses in 20 working days. Where it is unable to respond in timescale it will explain the reasons why keeping the complaint open until all actions have been completed.
The landlord’s Compensation Guidance states it can offer £10 for failure to keep to targets when dealing with complaints.
The resident raised his initial complaint on 9 July 2022 and the landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 14 July 2022, within the timescale set out in its policy.
Following the resident’s escalation on 23 September 2022, the landlord did not provide its stage 2 response until 1 December 2022, exceeding its policy by 29 days. Failure to adhere to timeframes for responses is a service failure. This Service acknowledges that on occasions there will be circumstances that mean a complaint response cannot be provided by the initial time given by the landlord. This is usually to be expected when complaints are complex and further investigation is required. Therefore, it would be reasonable to expect that a landlord would contact the resident, explain in detail the reasons for the delay, and provide a new timeframe whereby the resident would expect to receive a response. However, the landlord did not provide any updates nor reasoning for why it had exceeded the promised timeframe.
In summary the landlord delayed in providing its stage two complaint response to the resident, prolonging the concerns for him, causing further inconvenience and distress. It failed to recognise its delay and offer compensation for the inconvenience.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for adaptations.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about cavity wall insulation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay £650 directly to the resident, comprising:
1. £500 in recognition of the distress caused by its failure to appropriately respond and manage his requests for adaptations.
2. £50 in recognition of its delay in responding to the residents’ concerns regarding insulation.
3. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
4. Provide evidence of compliance to this Service.
Within 4 weeks the landlord must arrange to visit the resident to discuss any outstanding issues and provide him with an update regarding the replacement WC and its current position on the provision of a scooter store. A summary of this must be provided to this Service.
The landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.