Optivo (202008811)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008811

Optivo

11 November 2021

Amdended 6 May 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s request for adaptations to the property;
2. the resident’s request for a property transfer;
3. the related complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured shorthold tenant. The tenancy agreement shows the tenancy began on 9 October 2018 and describes the property as a two-bedroom house.
The landlord has recorded that the resident is disabled and has poor mobility.
The tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to keep the structure and outside of the property in a reasonable state of repair and to keep any installations (for supplying water, gas, electricity and heating) in good working order.
The landlord has an adaptations policy that shows that:
1. any resident with a disability can request a property adaptation
2. ‘minor’ adaptations – such as installation of a handrail or alteration to a threshold – can be agreed without need for further assessment but occupational therapy advice may be needed if multiple requests are made
3. it will complete minor adaptations within 28 days
4. ‘major’ adaptations – such as specially equipped bathrooms – require referral to the local authority for an occupational therapy recommendation
5. it will not reasonably refuse an adaptation but may do so where it is not structurally possible.
The landlord has a ‘housing options and lettings policy’ that shows it will provide information about local authority bidding if a resident reports that their property is no longer suitable.
The landlord has an allocations procedure that demonstrates that it:
1. does not maintain an internal waiting list so all tenants must apply through the local authority if they wish to move
2. can complete an urgent move assessment if a resident needs to move urgently and that this involves completing a report for a panel assessment to consider a direct offer.
The landlord has a complaints resolution policy that sets out a two-stage complaints process. At stage one, it says it will investigate and respond within 10 working days; at stage two, it says it will send a review request form to the resident before organising a review panel (its related procedures set out that it holds monthly panel reviews).
The landlord has a compensation policy that shows it can make discretionary compensation awards to resolve failures in service, including where distress or inconvenience has been caused.

Summary of Events

The landlord recorded that it spoke to the resident on 13 December 2018 when he reported that he had fallen while stepping outside the property – it noted that it had already raised a job for a handrail installation.
The landlord noted on 31 December 2018 that its contractor had attended twice in response to the handrail request but the resident was out and it subsequently emailed him about a new appointment for 14 January 2019.
The landlord noted that it spoke to the resident on 2 January 2019 and 7 January 2019 when he chased the external handrail, reported problems with use of the shower and made a request for a handrail to the bathroom. The landlord recorded that it advised the resident to obtain an occupational therapy assessment for this to be progressed and subsequently noted in late January-early February 2019 that the resident had raised a problem with use of the bath.
The landlord noted that it spoke to the resident on 5 February 2019 about his request for a handrail and told him that he would need to get an occupational therapy assessment for this to be progressed.
The landlord recorded that it spoke to the resident in April 2019 regarding the handrail request and reiterated that he needed to speak to the occupational therapist.
The landlord noted telephone calls from the resident on 20 November 2019 and 28 November 2019 when he told it that it was responsible for re-housing him and providing a letter to show that his property was unsuitable; the landlord recorded that it told the resident it could forward to the local authority any occupational therapy assessment it received.
The landlord recorded on 28 November 2019 that it had attended the resident’s property which it noted was to consider a report of a draft from the bathroom. It found that the resident was not using the heating, no repairs were needed and that it had advised the resident to obtain an occupational therapy report for his concerns about use of the bathroom and toilet.
The landlord’s records show that it spoke to the resident on 6 January 2020 and provided him with contact details for an occupational therapy assessment.
The landlord recorded that it visited the resident on 29 January 2020 and noted it had offered assistance due to his report that his local authority bidding account was not working.
The landlord’s records show that the resident called it on 12 February 2020 and reported that he needed to move and requested the landlord assist him with bidding. The landlord noted that it completed the resident’s local authority housing application online on his behalf.
The resident called the landlord on 30 March 2020 to request it provide a letter to assist him with an occupational therapy referral. The landlord subsequently noted that this was a ‘verification letter’ request but that it was unclear what it was supposed to verify so it left a voicemail message for the resident to request more details.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 1 April 2020. It advised that his local authority housing application had now been approved so he should be able to bid online. It also referred to a home visit in January 2020 when it recalled that the resident had advised it that an occupational therapy assessment had been sent to it about property adaptations but it asked the resident to confirm if this was the case.
The landlord recorded receipt of a covering letter from the occupational therapist on 24 June 2020. This demonstrated that the local authority social care department sent its occupational therapy assessment to the resident on 10 June 2020 and recommended that he speak to its housing options team. It also advised the resident that the landlord should complete the medical assessment for his housing application.
The landlord noted that it was advised by the local authority again on 9 August 2020 that it needed to complete a medical assessment form but that it sent the form to the resident later in August 2020.
The landlord’s records show that it forwarded on a medical form to the local authority after receiving it back from the resident on 7 September 2020. It wrote to the local authority on 14 September 2020, passing on the resident’s comments about having to sleep downstairs in the living room and his difficulties in accessing the property and using the bathroom, toilet and garden.
The resident’s solicitor wrote to the landlord on 30 October 2020. It said that it understood that property adaptations were not possible but that the landlord should complete a medical assessment for the resident so his housing application could be updated.
Following contact from the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord on 16 November 2020, asking it to respond to a complaint from him about its responses to his request for adaptations to the property and report of no heating in the bathroom.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 November 2020 and 30 November 2020 – it said it had attempted to speak to him regarding the letter from this Service but had been unsuccessful so requested a convenient time for him.
The landlord’s records show that it spoke to the resident on 30 November 2020 when he advised that he had already made a request to move.
On 1 December that the landlord managed to speak with resident and during this call, the landlord advised that it would update the resident on 10 December 2020.
The landlord noted on 9 December 2020 that the resident had been added back to the local authority waiting list albeit there was some delay as it was unclear who was responsible for completing a medical assessment form that the local authority said it needed.
On 10 December 2020, the landlord issued an informal response. It said that it had spoken to the resident, organised a property inspection. However, the resident was unhappy and asked for a formal complaint to be raised. This was acknowledged three days later on 15 December 2020, and the landlord confirmed that a response would be issued on 30 December.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 29 December 2020. It concluded that:
1. it had not received any report from an occupational therapist to advise that the property was not suitable for him
2. it had assisted the resident with a local authority housing application and the resident was on the waiting list
3. it would raise a safeguarding referral to the local authority regarding the resident’s report that the property was inadequate for his medical needs
4. an inspection took place on 18 December 2020 to consider the loss of heating to the bathroom and a report would be offered to confirm what works needed to be carried out at the property.
The landlord’s records show it completed a ‘pre-inspection’ at the property – it is unclear from the evidence seen by this Service when this was done and the resulting report was undated. However, the report shows it took photographs of steps to the property entrance, internal stairs, a ‘standard bathroom’ and a toilet that the resident reported he was struggling to use. It noted that no repairs were needed and recommended the resident be moved to a more suitable location.
The landlord completed a medical assessment form on behalf of the resident on 19 February 2021. This provided:
1. a list of the resident’s medical conditions
2. an explanation that the resident had to sleep in the living room and strip wash in the kitchen
3. information that the occupational therapist (in June 2020) and landlord surveyor (in December 2020) had decided that property adaptations were impossible.

The landlord recorded that it forwarded the full medical assessment form to the local authority on 5 March 2021.

Following contact from the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord on 18 March 2021 to advise that he was dissatisfied with the outcome of his stage one complaint on the grounds that the property was unsuitable for him and he thought a property transfer had been promised.
The resident signed a review panel request form on 24 March 2021 – he set out that the landlord had not assisted him and he wanted to know why this was plus he asked to be re-housed in a suitable bungalow and compensated.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s review request in a letter dated 6 April 2021 and confirmed that it would contact him by 30 April 2021 due to staff availability. On 29 April 2021, the landlord sent a review panel meeting letter confirming the date of the review would be 21 May 2021. It has explained that the delay was caused by staff availability and the resident’s desire to attend the meeting.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 4 June 2021 ten days after the review hearing. It defined that the complaint was that the resident said the property was no longer suitable for his needs and concluded that:
1. it understood that an occupational therapist had attended in July 2019 and the resident began to report that the property was unsuitable from January 2020
2. the resident advised in March 2020 that he was still not able to bid for properties on the local authority housing system and there was a delay in him being able to actively bid for properties
3. the occupational therapist asked the landlord in June 2020 to provide some medical information – which was not standard practice – and this was passed to the local authority after the resident completed it in September 2020
4. a housing officer became involved in early 2021 and this led to the resident being able to actively bid from March 2021 (and his son was assisting him with the bidding)
5. there had been a delay during November-December 2020 in the landlord attempting to informally resolve the complaint
6. it had attended to bait and block holes during 2019 in response to the resident’s pest control reports with further visits in March 2020 and December 2020
7. an inspection on 18 December 2020 found no further works were needed to the property but the stage two complaint panel had requested a further inspection within four weeks
8. it apologised and awarded £400 compensation for its delay in handling the resident’s application for a move (it said it had sent him a compensation acceptance form so it could release the payment which would be issued by bank transfer if the resident owed no arrears to it)
9. it would brief all its housing officers on the specific steps required for applicants to be registered by the local authority involved in this case.
The landlord recorded a telephone conversation with the resident on 7 July 2021 when it advised him that he needed to bid for properties through the local authority as it did not have its own waiting list but that it signposted him to other agencies who may be able to assist.
The resident advised this Service during July-September 2021 that the properties he had seen were inappropriate as they were not on the ground floor or did not have adaptations and that he believed the landlord had not provided the local authority with accurate information about his medical needs. He also forwarded video footage in September 2021 and November 2021 to support his report that pest issues at the property were ongoing.
Following contact from the resident, this Service approached the landlord in October 2021 regarding payment of the £400 compensation. The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 October 2021 – it advised him that it had been waiting for him to complete a compensation acceptance form before making payment and re-sent the form to him.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:

Be fair
Put things right
Learn from outcomes

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

Adaptations

The resident made requests for adaptations to the property at least as early as December 2018. The initial focus was on the installation of handrails to the wall leading to the resident’s front entrance. Evidence seen by this Service indicates that the landlord intended to carry out these works – this would have been in line with its adaptations policy to carry out ‘minor’ adaptations such as handrails, particularly given the resident had reported a fall.
The landlord did not complete the handrail works within 28 days as its adaptations policy required and later inspections indicate that this was never completed, albeit it became linked with the wider adaptation works to the rest of the property so became subject to occupational therapy involvement. Nevertheless, it was inappropriate that the handrail works were not completed within the 28-day timescale.
Further, the landlord provided contradictory information to the resident during January-February 2019 as it arranged appointments to carry out the handrail works while also advising the resident that he needed to speak to an occupational therapist. This will have caused inevitable confusion to the resident as to whether the landlord was willing to install handrails to the property.
The landlord’s adaptations policy sets out that it should signpost residents for an occupational therapy assessment where ‘major’ (or multiple minor) adaptations are requested. The resident’s requests for assistance in access to the property, moving throughout the property and adaptations to the bathroom and toilet met the definition of a ‘major’ adaptation so it was appropriate that the landlord signposted the resident to the local authority occupational therapist between January 2019 to January 2020.
There is no evidence that the landlord received any correspondence from the occupational therapy assessment until June 2020. The landlord was therefore not at fault for the failure to complete adaptation works to the property between January 2019 and June 2020.
When the landlord did receive correspondence from the occupational therapist in June 2020, this was only a covering letter and not a full report. The landlord later became aware that the occupational therapy assessment concluded that it was preferable that the resident secure alternative accommodation. The landlord was therefore not at fault for failure to complete adaptation works to the property from June 2020.
In summary, there was a delay in the landlord completing a handrail installation in December 2018 and it gave conflicting advice as to whether it was able to complete these works without an occupational therapy assessment. However, its advice that the resident obtain an occupational therapy assessment to progress additional property adaptations was appropriate and it did not receive a report recommending it complete any adaptations.

Property transfer

The resident made reports from at least as early as November 2019 that the landlord should re-house him as the property was unsuitable for him. The landlord’s housing options policy shows that it should direct residents to the local authority bidding system where a resident reports that their property is unsuitable – its actions in inspecting the property and offering to assist with providing any occupational therapy assessment report to the local authority were therefore appropriate.
The resident made a report in late January 2020 of difficulty in bidding for new housing through the local authority. The landlord’s action in February 2020 to log a housing application on behalf of the resident was resolution-focused and demonstrated that the landlord was willing to assist the resident in line with its housing options policy.
The landlord was made aware in late June 2020 that the occupational therapist expected it to assist with a medical assessment. The landlord has since acknowledged that there was confusion on its part on what it was expected to do regarding the medical assessment and that it failed to action this until early March 2021 – this was an unreasonable delay of eight months and meant that the resident did not receive an increased medical priority on his local authority housing application.
When the landlord reviewed the matter through its complaints process, it apologised for its delay, awarded compensation of £400 and explained that all housing staff would be briefed on the expectations of the relevant local authority regarding completion of medical assessment forms. This level of compensation is within the range that the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance recommends for service failure ‘over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy’ and therefore represented appropriate redress. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, the landlord was therefore fair in its assessment of the service failure, had already taken steps to put things right and demonstrated it had addressed the learning points.
However, the landlord’s allocations procedure sets out that it is an option for it to consider an assessment for situations where it is aware a resident requires an urgent move – there is no evidence that the landlord considered this possibility. The landlord failed to make its own assessment of the suitability of the property, even after it became apparent during 2020 that property adaptations were not going to be carried out. The landlord’s failure to consider this option, even after the resident reported in September 2020 that parts of the property were inaccessible for him, was unreasonable.
The landlord did inspect the property in December 2020 and recommended that the resident be re-housed. However, it still failed to demonstrate that it considered an urgent moves assessment – this was unreasonable.
In summary, the combination of the landlord’s apologies, explanations for its service failure, service improvement and compensation award represented appropriate redress for its delay in completing the medical assessment form. However, it was unreasonable that it failed to consider an urgent move assessment in line with its allocations procedure.

Complaint handling

The resident made an initial complaint via this Service in mid-November 2020. This Service forwarded information to the landlord about the complaint on 16 November 2020. The landlord made attempts to speak to the resident over the subsequent two weeks to establish the full reasons for the complaint – this was a reasonable approach given the landlord may have been unclear exactly what the resident wished to be investigated.
The landlord has provided sufficient evidence showing communication between it and the resident throughout its stage one and stage 2 responses. The Ombudsman acknowledges that contrary to the investigation report, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s informal complaint on 1 December 2020 and managed the resident’s expectations around when he would receive a response. It is also accepted that there was a delay in the panel meeting, however there is nothing in the landlord’s policy about how long it could take to arrange the meeting, and the Ombudsman understands there were mitigating circumstances.
Ultimately, the landlord has adhered to the timeframes set in its policy. It was within its rights to try and resolve the resident’s complaint informally once the Ombudsman made it aware of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of:
1. the resident’s request for adaptations to the property;
2. the resident’s request for a property transfer
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the related complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to complete a handrail installation at the property in December 2018 and gave the resident conflicting advice about this adaptation.
The landlord failed to assess whether the resident’s circumstances meant that it should submit a report for consideration by its direct offer panel.

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
The landlord to consider whether the resident meets its criteria for an urgent move assessment and, if so, complete a report for its direct offer panel; it should write to the resident to confirm the outcome of the assessment.
The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £700, made up of:
1. £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the service failure in its handling of the resident’s request for adaptations to the property;
2. £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the service failure in its handling of the resident’s request for a property transfer;
3. £400 that it awarded in its final complaint response for the delay in completing the medical assessment as part of the resident’s request for a property transfer (if it has not already paid this amount);

The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord to arrange an appointment with the resident within two weeks of the date of this report to inspect, and form an action plan, to address his reports of ongoing pest control problems.

The landlord should confirm its actions in regard to this recommendation to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.