One Vision Housing Limited (202508749)

Background

1. The resident lives in a three-bedroom house under an assured tenancy. They asked the landlord to install a through-floor lift and hoist following recommendations from their occupational therapist.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The request to install a through floor-lift and hoist.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. No maladministration in the landlords handling of the request to install a through-floor lift and hoist.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord acted in line with its policy, explained its decisions clearly, and explored reasonable alternatives before offering support with rehousing.
5. The landlord delayed its stage 2 response without informing the resident of a revised timescale, which was contrary to its complaints policy.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. On 11 September 2024, the resident’s occupational therapist requested major adaptations, including a through-floor lift, ceiling track hoist, and ramped access. On 17 September 2024, the landlord informed the resident that its policy does not allow through-floor lifts. It asked if the resident would benefit from a stair lift and confirmed that they could pass the request to its panel to consider.
7. The landlord’s Aids and Adaptations policy says a panel will review requests, considering individual needs, financial issues, and technical feasibility. The policy prefers moving residents to pre-adapted properties and will only approve major adaptations if moving is unsuitable. It does not install through-floor lifts.
8. The landlord promptly explained its policy and offered alternatives, including a stairlift and the option to appeal to the panel. This was reasonable.
9. The resident disagreed, citing previous adaptations and personal investment in the property. The landlord visited the property and referred the request to the panel, which refused the lift due to its policy. The landlord explained its decision and reasons to the resident. This was reasonable.
10. The resident raised a formal complaint. At stage 1, the landlord reiterated its policy and offered support with rehousing. At stage 2, it provided more detail, saying someone would always need to accompany the resident in the lift. This made the lift impractical for the property. The landlord explored alternatives such as ground-floor living and extensions and met with the local authority. It concluded adaptations were unfeasible and offered support with rehousing. The landlord acknowledged the distress caused.
11. The landlord’s complaint responses were reasonable. It provided more detail on why it considered the adaptations to be unsuitable. It explored alternatives, but these were not suitable for the property. The landlord felt that the only option left was to provide support in a rehousing application.
12. The landlord acted in line with its policy, explained its decisions clearly, and explored alternatives. While the resident does not want to move, we cannot require the landlord to change its decision.
13. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the adaptation request. We recommend that the landlord continue supporting the resident with a rehousing application.

14. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 5 working days. It will respond within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. It can extend these timescales but must inform the resident. This is inline with our Complaints Handling Code.
15. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the stage 1 complaint within the required timescales.
16. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 7 February 2025 and said it would respond within 20 working days. It visited the resident on 19 February and arranged a surveyor visit on 13 March to explore alternatives. These actions were reasonable, but they delayed the stage 2 response by 13 working days.
17. While the landlord was taking reasonable action, it would have been reasonable for it to have informed the resident of a revised timescale. As it did not, the resident was unaware of when to expect a response.
18. We find service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. The impact was low because the delay was for a reasonable reason. We have not ordered compensation.
19. We have ordered the landlord to send a written apology and explain what steps it will take to prevent similar issues in future.

Learning

20. The landlord did not extend the timescale for its stage 2 response. If it expects a delay, it should inform the resident and agree a revised deadline.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord kept clear records, including details of meetings and calls. This made it easier to understand what happened when investigating the complaint.

Communication

22. The landlord contacted the resident regularly, visited their home, and explained its decisions clearly. Although the resident disagreed with the decisions, the landlord provided a good level of communication.