Magenta Living (202120371)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120371

Magenta Living

29 April 2022


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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a bath to be installed at his property.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property has a level access shower. The property was assessed as being suitable for the resident’s medical needs at the time he began his tenancy on 26 March 2018.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord in March 2021 and advised that when he accepted the property, it told him he could have a bath installed after he had resided there for one year. The resident stated that he spoke with the landlord following this and requested a bath, but was told this could not be installed. The resident said he now needed a bath due to health reasons, and if the request could not be met then he wished to raise a complaint. The resident contacted the landlord throughout April and May 2021 advising he wished to raise a complaint regarding the issue.
  3. The landlord issued a complaint acknowledgement on 26 May 2021, and its complaint response on 01 June 2021. It apologised for any inconvenience or upset the resident may have experienced. It also advised that it did not provide major adaptations without an assessment by an occupational therapist (OT) and provided details about how one could be arranged. The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated as he was dissatisfied with this response. The landlord sent an appeal decision on 02 June 2021. It advised that having reviewed the resident’s complaint it did not warrant an escalation, due to the detailed response it initially provided and lack of new evidence for it to consider. The landlord advised the resident that its complaints procedure had been completed and provided details on how to contact this Service if he remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident said when he accepted the property in 2018 he was told by the landlord that he could have a bath installed after twelve months, and therefore believed this should be honored. In response to this, the landlord referred to a conversation noted in its records with the resident in May 2019. The landlord said that during this conversation it advised the resident that he could request adaptations after living at his property for two years, but this was in relation to further adaptations, not to reverse what had already been adapted such as the existing wet room.
  2. The landlord has an Accessible Homes Policy which applies to disabled tenants.  It states that major adaptations may be subject to a professional assessment and recommendations provided by an OT. It also states that where there is no practical solution to meeting needs within the property, tenants will be advised to seek alternative suitable housing via a choice-based lettings system.
  3. In accordance with its policy, the landlord had an obligation to consider if the resident’s request for a bath would be a reasonable adjustment as the resident requested this due to his health conditions. The landlord advised the resident in its stage one complaint response that the resident’s property had been adapted for people with reduced mobility prior to him accepting the tenancy, and he was assessed as needing the property when he moved in. The landlord explained that due to there being a shortage of accessible properties in the local area, it was not its policy to reverse major property adaptations once completed.
  4. However, good practice would be for the landlord to consider if the resident’s needs had changed during his tenancy. Therefore, the landlord’s response that it required an OT assessment to undertaken was a reasonable one, as it would have allowed the landlord to gain a full understanding of the resident’s needs at that time. The landlord explained that an OT would be able to assist the resident by providing specialist equipment to assist him in the bathroom.  It advised the resident if the OT determined that the bathroom facilities did not meet the residents needs then a more suitable property could be found. Therefore, the landlord demonstrated that it managed the resident’s expectations by highlighting the possible outcomes of an OT assessment. It was resolution focused by offering to facilitate a move if deemed necessary, as it was of the position that changing the level access shower was not an option.
  5. Without an OT assessment, the landlord was limited in how it could consider any outcomes that may have resulted from it, and consequently unable to make an informed decision on how it could meet the resident’s needs going forward.  Accordingly, its decision to not install a bath at the resident’s property at that time was a reasonable one.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.