North Northamptonshire Council (202233017)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233017

North Northamptonshire Council

12 April 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 handling of:
1. The resident’s request for adaptations to her property.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She lives in a 3-bedroom house with her children, including her daughter, who has a neurodegenerative condition.
In March 2022, the landlord submitted a referral to its occupational therapist to consider the resident’s application for adaptations to support her daughter. The requested adaptations included a wheelchair accessible bedroom and shower room on the ground floor and a wheelchair access ramp to the front of the property and access to the garden.
On 12 April 2022, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. She explained the landlord was not willing to assist in an urgent enquiry about adapting her property. She stated that her daughter’s mental health and wellbeing were being impacted, due to not being able to access the toilet and not having an accessible bedroom.
The landlord provided its stage one complaint response to the resident on 24 May 2022. It explained that the resident stated there was a lack of customer care with the adaptation’s application. The landlord stated in its emails from its colleagues they explained to her that the next step in the process would be a home visit from an Occupational Therapist (OT) and explained that until they had the recommendation from the OT, they could not answer any further questions about what adaptations might be possible. The landlord explained it progressed the application in line with its policy and, as such, it could not agree that there were any delays or a lack of urgency on its part. It also stated that it was normal for it to complete a home visit prior to making a referral in cases, especially where it is likely that the solution would be a major adaptation. The landlord stated once it had received the OT report, it would contact the resident to assess the feasibility and practicality of the recommendations as per its aids and adaptations policy.
On 9 January 2023, the resident requested her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints process. She stated she had previously sent supporting documents to the landlord on 4 November 2022 to start the complaints process. The resident sent the supporting documents as part of her escalation, which included two letters, which were a medical letter and a letter from the charity associated with her daughter’s condition.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 20 March 2023. The landlord explained it received a recommendation from its OT for a wheelchair accessible bedroom and shower room for the resident’s daughter. It stated that the OT proposed a ground floor extension to accommodate this and a ramp to the front of the property to allow wheelchair access for her daughter. The landlord explained it reviewed this recommendation in line with its policy, and reached a decision that whilst the recommendations were clearly necessary and appropriate to meet her daughter’s needs, it could not authorise these changes at her current property. It also stated that it previously offered her support to complete an application for a move to a three-bedroom bungalow or flat suitable for the resident’s family needs. The landlord also stated that there was an option available for it to request a further OT report regarding the stairlift; then once it knew the outcome, it could then explore options of an adaptation to the existing stairlift, or a replacement stairlift suitable for the resident’s needs.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted her complaint to the Ombudsman. She stated that her desired outcome was for her current property to be adapted with the requested adaptions. She also stated that she would like compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s request for adaptations to her property.

The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy states that the purpose of the policy is to outline how it will support residents and their immediate household members to remain independent in their current home. Where this is not possible or practical, the policy sets out how the landlord will assist residents in finding suitable alternative accommodation.
The policy explains that major adaptations are works that cost over £2,000 and usually involve structural alterations, improvements to, or additions to, the fabric of the property. It states that an occupational therapist should carry out an assessment of needs for all major adaptations, to identify any necessary adaptations required to meet the needs of the disabled person. Then, following the assessment, the occupational therapist would provide a written recommendation to the landlord. In addition, the policy also explains that the landlord is not bound by law to undertake all or any of the recommendation(s). The landlord uses the recommendation as a tool to trigger and consider a resident’s needs, and it must be satisfied that the recommended works are:
1. Reasonable, feasible and practical with regard to the type, age, and condition of the property.
2. Necessary and appropriate to meet the needs and prognosis of the disabled occupant, having regard for end-of-life care protocols.
The aids and adaptations policy also explains that the landlord will also consider the wider impact of the requested adaptation in relation to issues such as others in the family tenancy, regular visitors to the property and under-occupancy levels. It also states that some of the landlord’s properties remain unsuitable by design for adaptation.
In addition, the policy explains that once the landlord has received an occupational therapist’s report, it will consider in more detail several factors to establish if it will proceed with the adaptations. It states that an options appraisal process would automatically apply to cases that hit one or more of the following triggers, but may also be adopted if other threshold indicators are in question:
1. Where the property is currently under or over-occupied or will become under or over-occupied if the adaptations are undertaken.
2. Where a possession order has been obtained or is in the process of being obtained.
3. Where the estimated cost of adapting a property is £2,000 or above.
4. Where the property cannot be adapted because of design constraints.
The policy states the housing team would undertake the options’ appraisal, which would include a short report with recommendations on the options available.
Finally, the aids and adaptations policy states that the landlord would normally only fund major adaptations up to a maximum limit of £30,000. This is set in line with the disabled facilities grant limits. It states where an adaptation is over this amount, the landlord will discuss with the resident the options of self-funding, alternative funding and/or re-housing.
On 3 March 2022, the landlord submitted a referral to its occupational therapist to consider the resident’s application for adaptations to support her daughter’s access and mobility around the property. The landlord explained to the resident that an occupational therapist would visit the resident’s property within 12 weeks of the referral to carry out an assessment and provide a recommendation for necessary adaptations. This part of the process was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s aids and adaptations policy.
In May 2022, the landlord’s occupational therapist attended the resident’s property and carried out an assessment. On 31 May 2022, the landlord received a copy of the occupational therapist’s recommended adaptations for the resident’s daughter. The occupational therapist recommended a wheelchair accessible bedroom and shower room on the ground floor and a wheelchair access ramp to the front and access to the garden. They also recommended the works as an urgent. The recommended adaptations were estimated to cost £47,000.
Shortly after, the landlord received recommendations from the occupational therapist. It considered the recommendations and carried out the options appraisal process. This was in line with the landlord’s aids and adaptations policy, as the estimated cost of adapting the property was over £2000, and the property would become under occupied if the adaptations were undertaken. As part of the completion of the options’ appraisal, the landlord identified several reasons why it considered that the adaptations should not be approved at the resident’s current property.
On 16 June 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident and explained its decision and reasons it could not approve the recommended adaptations to her property. The landlord provided the following reasons in its decision letter:
1. The resident was occupying a property which the landlord deemed a general needs property and suitable for a household who does not require any adaptions and the landlord has properties already adapted within its stock where the resident’s needs could be met.
2. There is a sustained demand for un-adapted 3-bedroom properties like the resident’s property.
3. There are alternative solutions to meet the resident’s housing needs, including existing adapted or part, adapted homes.
4. If the landlord undertook the adaptation, the property would become under occupied.
5. The recommendation relates to an extension which the landlord would only consider if a suitable sized property did not exist in its stock, and it currently has suitable sized properties adapted, un-adapted or part adapted which would meet the resident’s needs.
The landlord demonstrated that it considered the occupational therapist’s recommendations and provided reasons in line with its aids and adaptations policy of why it could not approve the adaptations to the property. Although the landlord did not approve the recommended adaptations to the property, it did offer to assist the resident in finding alternative suitable accommodation which had already been adapted or had the potential for adaptation. The landlord stated the resident would be eligible to bid for a 3-bed adapted flat or bungalow. In addition, the landlord also explained in its stage 2 complaint response that there was also an option for it to request a further occupational therapist report regarding the stairlift already in the property. It then stated once it knew the outcome, it could then explore options of an adaptation to the existing stairlift, or a replacement stairlift suitable for the resident’s needs.
The landlord’s aids and adaptions policy explains that it would normally only fund adaptations up to a maximum of £30,000. As the cost of the extension and adaptations has been estimated to be £47,000 the landlord would not be expected to cover the shortfall of £17,000, as social landlords have an obligation to balance the cost of adaptations with their limited financial resources for the benefit of all their residents. Therefore, considering the cost of the adaptations and the landlord’s other refusal reasons, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident to consider a move to an already adapted property.
It is understandable that the resident would like to remain in her current property and has concerns about moving her family out of the area, given the effect this disruption could cause them. It is also recognised that it is likely the landlord has limited housing stock, therefore may not be able to offer the resident a property in her preferred location. However, considering the resident’s circumstances and that she relies on family members to support her with looking after her daughter, the Ombudsman recommends that the landlord offer a suitable property to the resident in her preferred location if this is possible and it has an available property within its housing stock. The resident informed the Ombudsman on 9 April 2024 that since submitting her complaint to us, that she applied for an alternative property, but there are no suitable properties available. If this is the case and there are no longer any suitable properties, the Ombudsman would suggest that the landlord reconsider what options are available in relation to the resident’s request for adaptations to her current property. However, it is beyond the Ombudsman’s remit to order the landlord to carry out the adaptations at this stage, based on the available evidence.
The landlord acted reasonably in this instance when considering the resident’s adaptations request and complied with its aids and adaptations policy. Therefore, there has been no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for adaptations to her property. The landlord has shown that it has investigated this matter and responded appropriately to the resident’s adaptation request.

The associated complaint.

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage one response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also explains that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond to both a stage one and 2 complaint response within 20 working days. The landlord’s response timescale for stage one complaint responses is not compliant with the Code.
The resident submitted her complaint to the landlord on 12 April 2022. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage one on 24 May 2022. The response was approximately 17 working days late and not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code.
It also took the landlord around 2 months for it to provide its stage 2 complaint response. On 9 January 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and requested her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 20 March 2023. The response was late and not compliant with the timescales referenced in the landlord’s complaints policy or the Code.
The landlord apologised for the delayed response; however, it did not provide any reason for the delay. The delay would have caused inconvenience, and the resident was delayed in progressing her complaint to the Ombudsman as she needed to wait for the landlord’s final response before contacting our service.
Given the delay in the landlord providing both complaint responses, there has been a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. The amount of compensation awarded is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website), which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests awards of £50 to £100, where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided, and it did not appropriately acknowledge these and/or fully put them right.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adaptations to her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation for its complaint handling errors.
The landlord must comply with the above order within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord re-offer a suitable property to the resident and if possible, support the resident with finding a suitable adapted property within her preferred location. If there are no longer any suitable properties, it is suggested that the landlord reconsider what options are available in relation to the resident’s request for adaptations.
It is recommended that the landlord review its complaints policy to ensure that its complaint response timescales are compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which was updated on 1 April 2024.