Nottingham Community Housing Association Limited (202121658)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121658

Nottingham Community Housing Association Limited

7 November 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 reports of access issues to her home, and of her subsequent complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. She has physical disabilities that impact on her mobility, and speech. The landlord is aware of these.
  2. In June 2021, the landlord booked an inspection of the resident’s new front door. The resident had reported that lowered threshold was too high and uneven for her to easily get over in her wheelchair. The landlord attended the property on 25 August 2021. While at the property, the resident explained to the landlord that her mobility had been greatly affected during the covid lockdowns by her struggles to negotiate the new threshold in her wheelchair. The repair records state that the operatives told her the threshold had nothing wrong with it, and met the relevant building regulations. Nonetheless, the operatives noted that the resident’s needs appeared to have changed since the lockdown, and they would contact social services to arrange an occupational therapist (OT) assessment of her current needs (this was in relation to several matters she had raised, of which mobility and access were two).
  3. Although the landlord’s operatives had investigated the threshold and concluded there was nothing wrong with it, they raised a repair appointment for it in October 2021. The records do not explain why. However, the landlord did not attend this appointment.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord about her access issues again in November 2021, following which the landlord attended the property on 19 November 2021. It concluded that an adaption inspection would be necessary in relation to the door threshold. The resident called the landlord again for an update on 23 November 2021. The landlord explained that an adaptation would be required to alter the resident’s threshold. In contrast to its statement in August 2021, the landlord asked the resident to contact an OT as soon as possible, to undertake an assessment.
  5. The landlord reattended the property in January 2022. It completed some works to the threshold, to help improve the resident’s access issues. The resident raised a complaint on 21 January 2022, as she felt that the length of time it had taken to resolve the threshold issue was unacceptable. She also explained that she did not feel the landlord was actively listening to her about her needs.
  6. In its complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that after its initial inspection in August 2021 a work order had been raised to re-fix the threshold, but this had not been done. |It apologised, and offered £10 in compensation to the resident, due to not completing the works within its published service standards. The resident escalated her complaint as she was dissatisfied with the amount of compensation offered. She explained that she felt the landlord did not understand how much the issue had impacted on her independence and mobility.
  7. In its second complaint response the landlord acknowledged that, having reviewed the complaint, adjustments should have been made, to ensure that the works were expedited and followed through to completion. The landlord said it would endeavour to provide more training for frontline staff to encourage them to actively listen to residents with additional needs. In acknowledgement of the issues caused to the resident, the landlord offered an additional £90 compensation.
  8. In her complaint to this Service, the resident explained that she remained dissatisfied with the length of time it took to resolve the issues to her door threshold. She was also unhappy with the amount of compensation offered, as she did not believe it adequately acknowledged the distress and inconvenience she was caused. She said that the adaptations to her threshold have not been fully finished, although the landlord has advised this Service that it believes they are complete.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In her complaint to the Ombudsman the resident explained that the circumstances of her complaint caused her considerable distress, and have affected her health and wellbeing. The Ombudsman is not able to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing, and such matters are more appropriately considered as a personal injury legal claim against the landlord. However, the Ombudsman will consider the steps the landlord took in response to the residence complaint, and the general inconvenience of the situation to the resident in her particular circumstances.
  2. The resident has raised concerns about her door handle being stiff and difficult to open. This issue was not raised as part of the complaint to the landlord and so cannot be considered in this investigation. It would be advisable for the resident to raise a complaint with her landlord about this issue, and for the landlord to respond to it accordingly. 

The landlord’s handling

  1. The landlord’s maintenance policy states that minor adaptations under £1,500 will be completed “as soon as possible”. The landlord became aware of the resident’s access issues in August 2021, which were not resolved until January 2022. The landlord stated to the resident that although it believed it attended to the threshold issue within its timescales, it acknowledged that it should have accounted for the impact the issue was having on her mobility, and expedited any adaptions accordingly. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge that it should have been more proactive, but it cannot be said to have attended to the matter in a reasonable timescale, as five months to resolve access issues to a home is not a reasonable length of time by any general measure, and more so in the resident’s particular circumstances. There are many repairs where delays are caused by matters outside a landlord’s control, but the evidence provided for this investigation gives no clear indication of such issues arising, and so, this can only be seen as a significant failing.
  2. The landlord’s notes of the visit in June 2021, in which the resident explained her concern that the threshold was difficult for her to get over, show that the operatives explained that “there was nothing wrong with it”, and it met the relevant standards. Given that the resident had explained the specific difficulties she was having, it would appear irrelevant that the threshold met the standards, because she was having difficulties regardless. The resident’s subsequent complaint that she felt the landlord was not listening to what she was saying is therefore borne out by the evidence, at least on that documented occasion. The landlord subsequently arranged for repairs to the threshold (although the reasons are unclear, given that it believed it to be fine), but then did not attend the appointment, and has not provided evidence showing that it rearranged it until 2022.
  3. The landlord’s supported customers policy states that it can install minor aids and adaptations to properties, such as lowered door thresholds. These adaptations can be carried out by the adaptations team and can be requested by the resident, an OT, or an estate officer. Major structural adaptations should be agreed in principle following a technical inspection and OT assessment, to ensure that the adaptation is appropriate for the property.
  4. Following the landlord’s visit to the resident in August 2021 it concluded that an OT assessment was needed (which it said it would arrange). It explained the same to the resident in November (when it said the resident should arrange it). However, according its supported customers policy, it would have been possible for it to have considered the threshold adaptation itself, rather than waiting for an OT assessment. There are multiple reasons why OT input might be considered necessary and useful when planning physical adaptations to a home, but the evidence does not show any such reasons for the landlord’s action at all. In the absence of such evidence it appears the matter caused further delay, and inconvenience to the resident. It is not clear from the evidence if any OT assessment was done.
  5. In its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay in resolving the resident’s access issues. It also acknowledged the missed repair appointment in October 2021. It gave particular attention to the resident’s experiences, and her explanation that she did not feel actively listened to. It apologised, and said that the feedback would be used to “ensure that we better understand how to communicate with customers who may have challenges with verbal communication”.
  6. The apologies and process improvements the landlord offered, and said it would undertake were appropriate and reasonable responses to the resident’s complaint. However, the compensation it offered (£100) was not proportionate to the length of delay, or the impact which the evidence shows the issue was having on the resident’s day to day life. Nothing in the evidence provides a reasonable explanation for the delay, and some of the landlord’s actions (such as the missed appointment, and uncertainty about the need for OT assessment) appear to have contributed to it. Accordingly, the compensation did not reflect the scale and impact of the landlord’s failings, meaning the resident’s complaint was left unremedied. Findings and orders are made below to reflect that. 

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay compensation to the resident of £300.
  2. This is in addition to the £100 the landlord already offered, which should now also be paid, if it has not already been.
  3. Within six weeks of this investigation the landlord must also provide a report setting out the changes or improvements it has made to the way it provides its services, as it said it would do in its final complaint response. This report should be shared with the resident, and evidence of it must be provided to this Service within the deadline.

Recommendation

  1. In light of the apparently conflicting accounts from each party about the status of the work on the door threshold, the landlord should, as a priority, make enquiries of the resident to establish what, if any, issues remain outstanding.