Midland Heart Limited (202224636)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224636

Midland Heart Limited

29 August 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of decoration works.

Background

  1. The resident previously held a protective licence with the landlord on a 2-bedroom flat (the property) in a purpose-built block of low-level supported accommodation (the premises). The resident lived with her child, who was less than a year old at that time.
  2. The resident has autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and is represented by her advocate. For the purpose of this report, both the resident and her representative will be referred to as the resident.
  3. The landlord decided to decorate the resident’s property. It said it could safely complete the work with the resident at home, working one room at a time. It told the resident she would need to ensure her flat was tidy, have items moved into the middle of the rooms, and let it know when she was ready for the work to start. The resident advised on 28 February 2022 that the property was prepared for the decoration work, however, she did not think it was safe as items piled up could have fallen on her child, and the cot and bathtub were not useable as they were full of belongings. The resident said she would stay elsewhere until the work had been completed.
  4. As a result, social services conducted a conference call with the landlord and the resident on the same day. Social services asked the landlord whether the property was safe, to which the landlord replied that the ‘flat was not unsafe simply because decoration works were due to commence’. It said the resident could return to the property and reorganise her belongings until the contractor could be booked for the work. Later that day, social services returned the resident to the property. The resident felt the property was unsafe, and she mostly stayed elsewhere until the works were completed on 11 March 2022.
  5. The resident complained to the landlord on 4 August 2022 and said that by telling social services that the flat was safe, the landlord had failed to safeguard her and her child and did not follow its safeguarding policy. She said the landlord could have taken pictures of the property to show social services (during the conference call on 28 February 2022) that the flat was unsafe. Throughout both stages of the complaint process, the landlord stated it was satisfied it acted appropriately and took safeguarding measures as per its responsibilities as the housing provider. It said it worked with external agencies such as family support workers, social services, and advocates to ensure the resident had access to all the required support. The landlord said it had been explained to the resident several times before the works were due to commence that she would need to organise her belongings so that she could access what she needed at the right time. The landlord reiterated that it planned to execute the work while the resident was at the property with her baby and complete the work within 4 days.
  6. The resident contacted this service on 6 January 2023. To resolve the complaint, the resident would like an apology, an explanation, and assurance that the landlord will not treat other women with disabilities similarly.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the resident and her child should have stayed at the property during the time the work took place. The Ombudsman’s role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether it was fair in all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s handling of decoration works.

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles, which include treating people fairly, following fair processes, and putting things right. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failure on the landlord’s part has occurred and, if so, whether this adversely affected or caused detriment to the resident. If the Ombudsman found that a failure adversely affected the resident, the investigation will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to put it right and learn from the outcome.
  2. The Care Act 2014 introduces a framework for social housing providers, key organisations, and individuals with responsibilities for adult safeguarding. It sets out the roles and responsibilities each entity should take to keep vulnerable adults safe. The landlord has a statutory obligation to report safeguarding concerns to the relevant authorities to ensure appropriate action is taken.
  3. The landlord’s safeguarding policy reflects its responsibilities under the Care Act 2014. The policy explains its aim to protect residents from harm and neglect by ensuring residents have access to key services they need.
  4. The ‘Welcome’ booklets issued to residents say the landlord offers limited support services, which includes signposting residents to more specialist services where appropriate. The landlord has a responsibility to ensure that its services are provided to people who need them the most. This is reflected by the terms of the licence, in that the landlord has the right to terminate a licence if, in its opinion, a resident requires more, less, or different help and services than the landlord is able to provide at the premises.
  5. The landlord had agreed with the resident’s request to paint the property in neutral colours. This was initially due to take place before the resident moved in, but the contractor got delayed in a previous job. The resident said she was okay with the work taking place while she was at the property. According to the evidence, the flat was never unhabitable, and as the resident needed to move in, the parties had mutually agreed that the work would take place at a later stage.
  6. The landlord stated it would carry out the work around the resident, working one room at a time, starting from one bedroom through the next bedroom and then the kitchen, the bathroom, and the hallway. The landlord planned to start the decoration works on 17 February 2022 and complete them on 20 February 2022, primarily working during the time the resident was out with her baby. It asked the resident to ensure her belongings were organised in the middle of the first room to avoid damage to her belongings and to allow decorators to work on the walls. The landlord’s approach to the works was appropriate. It demonstrated it considered how it could minimise the impact on the resident’s daily routine and adjusted its service to cause the least disruption. It asked the resident to move her belongings, which, according to its assessment, she was able to do.
  7. The landlord attended the property on 17 February 2022 and found the property was not organised as was agreed, so work could not go ahead as planned. It was reasonable that the landlord postponed the work until the resident was ready for the work to start.
  8. On 28 February 2022, the resident’s support group organised the property for the work to commence. However, the landlord needed advance notice to book its decorator to return to the resident’s property.
  9. Later that day, the resident advised that she deemed the flat unsafe for her and her baby, and the landlord attended a conference call with key support agencies and the resident. It was appropriate for the landlord to attend the call, and it showed it had followed its statutory obligation and its safeguarding policy, whereby it ensured the resident had access to receive support from the relevant authority.
  10. Social services asked the landlord whether the property was safe. The landlord stated the resident could return to the property from its perspective and reorganise her belongings until the contractor could be booked to return. Social services concluded the call by requesting the resident return to the property, and they arranged to meet her there. They found that items had been stored in the bathtub and in the baby’s cot and piled up in the middle of the rooms. This service understands that this took place in the early hours of the morning, which caused distress to the resident.
  11. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s assertion that the landlord could have taken pictures at that time to show the state of the property to social services. However, from the landlord’s point of view, the property was safe before the resident moved her belongings. It was still safe, as the resident could move her belongings back. As it was the resident’s responsibility to move her belongings around the property, and the landlord was not involved in the process, its answer to social services was reasonable.
  12. The premises offered low-level housing support, and there was no adjustment requested or in place that could have prevented the resident from keeping her flat in the required condition or moving her items so decorating could commence. Therefore, the landlord acted in line with the licence and its welcome booklet.
  13. The landlord liaised with social services who were at the property with the resident on her return; this means it ensured the resident had access to the relevant support she needed. The landlord fulfilled its statutory and procedural obligation, including its safeguarding policy. Social services had decided at that point that the resident was safer at the property than elsewhere.
  14. On 2 March 2022, the landlord approached the resident. It said it could rebook the contractor to start the work on 8 March 2022. It said it devised a plan whereby the resident could determine the order of the rooms the decorator would work to minimise disruption to her routine. It was appropriate that the landlord did that, and it further demonstrates that the landlord adjusted its services in response to the resident’s circumstances.
  15. Overall, there is evidence that the landlord regularly reached out to the resident and her advocate to ask about the resident’s well-being as part of its statutory and procedural obligations. Prior to the start of the work, the landlord had also shown flexibility in rescheduling the work and planning to do the job around the resident’s needs to reduce the impact on her routine as much as possible. During the works, the landlord proactively reached out to the resident to offer support and reassurance and offered to adjust its services further to suit the resident’s needs. Throughout the tenancy, the landlord had liaised with social services, family support, and the resident’s support group and maintained an open line of communication with all parties. It appears to this service that the landlord fulfilled its legal procedural obligations, and it was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  16. This service recognises that this may not be the outcome the resident had wished for, however, the Ombudsman hopes she can be reassured by the findings of this report and by the landlord’s policies and procedures for safeguarding vulnerable adults in the future.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of decoration works.