Paradigm Housing Group Limited (202406125)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202406125

Paradigm Housing Group Limited

31 January 2025

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:
   1. The resident’s request for adaptations.
   2. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident and her partner are joint shared owners of the property and lived there with their 2-children until November 2024. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 3-bedroom semi-detached house. The share of the leasehold was purchased in October 2004 by the resident and her partner.
3. The resident’s partner has vulnerabilities, including a condition affecting the nervous system. The landlord is aware of this.
4. In June 2022 the resident’s partner was referred for an Occupational Therapist (OT) assessment. The OT recommended a ground floor extension to the property and the resident pursued a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) with the local council. The landlord received notification that the OT recommended adaptations on 21 July 2022, and it replied on 25 July 2022 that as the resident was a shared owner she could look to sell the property or complete its adaptations request form.
5. The resident contacted the landlord by email on 17 October 2022 asking for it to send her the alterations request form. This was because she had approached the DFG team to assess feasibility for a ground floor extension to the property to help her partner. She also requested the landlord consider waiving the landlord’s fees associated with the application. The landlord sent the form and agreed to waive the fees on the same day. The resident was waiting for information from the local council and sent the completed form to the landlord on 19 May 2023.
6. On 10 January 2024 the resident complained to the landlord about the adaptions request. At that stage a garden room was proposed by the local council. She said the landlord had not signposted her to its disability specialist staff, and she wanted to know the reasons for it delaying the adaptations request. The complaint was acknowledged by the landlord on 18 January 2024.
7. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 30 January 2024 and offered £50 to the resident for mismanagement of expectation. The landlord outlined a timeline of events since 2022 and said that:
   1. Its aids and adaptations policy did not extend to shared owners which included the involvement of its specialist staff.
   2. From May 2023 the landlord was awaiting planning permission before providing consent.
   3. In October 2023 the local council considered the proposed ground floor extension as costly. This proposal was switched to a garden room plan in December 2023 by the local council.
   4. The resident’s lease differed to its standard shared ownership wording, due to it being drafted in 1994 by a different housing association.
8. On 11 February 2024 the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. She was unhappy with the lack of signposting and involvement from the landlord’s specialist staff, despite it being aware of her circumstances from June 2022. She felt the landlord was causing delays and could have prevented delays. She also added the landlord had quoted the wrong lease. The escalation request was acknowledged by the landlord on 14 February 2024. It said it would provide a response by 13 March 2024.
9. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 14 March 2024 and said the following:
   1.  It agreed with its stage 1 complaint investigation.
   2. It’s advice had been unclear and inconsistent.
   3. It’s disability support officer role did not extend to shared owners, as the resident was responsible for the maintenance of her home.
   4. Despite not causing delays to the process, it said its advice should have been clearer, it therefore upheld the complaint.
   5. It was awaiting documents from other parties involved before potentially providing consent.
   6. It told the resident that it would not contribute to the costs of the project or any ongoing maintenance costs and repairs.
   7. In addition to the £50 offered previously by it, it was offering a further £25 for providing the stage 2 complaint response beyond its 20-day target.
   8. It identified learnings from the complaint, and it was going to develop a fact sheet for shared owners in similar situations as the resident.
10. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and referred her complaint to this Service on 24 May 2024. She asked us to investigate her concerns regarding the delays caused by the landlord and the time expended by her.
11. On 26 July 2024 the landlord provided written consent for a bedroom and bathroom ground floor extension. In September 2024 the local council were able to offer a different property to the resident and she moved into an alternative property in November 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

12. The resident told us that she moved into a new property offered by the local council. After moving in, she has been paying towards both properties and feels the landlord are not taking any action. The scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can potentially be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.
13. The process the resident followed to obtain the DFG and consent documents in this case involved third parties, namely the local council and OT. It is not within our remit to assess the actions of these third parties. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) is better suited for these matters. This Service can only consider the actions or omissions of the landlord in the circumstances.
14. It is noted the resident said that without any adaptations to the property, her partner’s physical health and family’s wellbeing was affected. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s concerns about health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, effects on health and wellbeing. This element of the complaint may perhaps be better suited for the courts.

Request for adaptations

15. The Ombudsman’s principles of effective dispute resolution are:
    1. Be fair, treat people fairly, and follow fair processes.
    2. Put things right.
    3. Learn from outcomes.
16. Under the terms of the lease, the resident is required to get written consent from the landlord prior to altering or adding to the property.
17. The landlord was first put on notice that a major adaptation to the property was recommended by an OT on 21 July 2022. There is evidence that on 25 July 2022 the landlord sent the OT options for the resident to consider. The options were that the resident could either contact its sale team to exercise the Right of First Refusal clause for permission to sell the property. The resident could also complete an alteration request form. The landlord countersigned the adaptations request on 7 September 2022 and sent it to the DFG team.
18. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on leasehold, shared ownership and new builds published in September 2020, puts emphasis on effective communication by the landlord with all parties. This includes communication between its internal teams. Therefore, it would have been appropriate (on receipt of the major adaptations request) that the landlord made the resident aware of its aids and adaptations policy position. The policy sets out that it does not apply to shared owners, and it does not provide direct support through its staff members. However, despite outlining options the resident could consider, it did not set out its position on its aids and adaptation policy to the resident. This was unreasonable as it missed out on the opportunity to manage her expectations from the outset and demonstrates poor communication.
19. The resident complained that the landlord was quoting her lease incorrectly. While the resident remained concerned with the discrepancy between the wording in her lease and the landlord’s standard shared ownership agreements, there is no evidence this caused delays, or the landlord was not considering her request. The resident required the landlord’s consent as per her lease conditions to make any changes to the property. It was reasonable the landlord acknowledged the difference in wording between the leases in its stage 1 complaint response. It also explained that her lease was drafted in 1994 by a previous housing association, but her request for adaptations had been considered.
20. The resident remained concerned that the landlord’s actions were delaying the adaptations request. From the information available, the landlord was open to considering plans for adaptations (which was initially an extension to the property) from September 2022. On 17 October 2022 the landlord replied to the resident on the same day, supplying the alterations form and agreeing to waive the fees associated with it. This was reasonable and demonstrated the landlord was taking the resident’s circumstances seriously.
21. The landlord did not receive a completed alterations form from the resident as requested until 19 May 2023. On 23 May 2023 the landlord said it would need to see planning permission for the ground floor extension. This Service acknowledges planning permission was obtained on 23 August 2023, and in September 2023 the local council said the proposed extension would be too costly. The local council then proposed an alternative adaptation in December 2023, in the form of a garden room. The landlord did not oppose this proposal, however wanted to see planning permission, which the local council did not share with it as of 23 April 2024.
22. In a meeting on 23 April 2024 the landlord suggested the local council revert to the original ground floor extension plan, which was accepted. Another meeting between the parties had taken place on 2 May 2024 regarding the legal and ownership implications of the proposed extension.
23. From the evidence available, the landlord was awaiting further contact from the local council to clarify ownership split and rent questions it had regarding the plans. This was sent by the local council on 19 July 2024. It was then on 26 July 2024 the landlord provided its written consent letter. This demonstrated that the landlord had listened to the resident’s concerns and provided consent in line with her lease agreement.
24. Although this Service can appreciate the resident had been waiting since September 2022, there is no evidence there were unreasonable delays that could be attributed to the landlord’s actions or inactions. We are also satisfied the landlord responded promptly to the local council’s correspondence throughout the scope of this complaint.
25. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that for failure in service delivery that has not affected the overall outcome, it would make awards in excess of £25. The landlord’s final offer of £50 for its poor communication and service delivery in the resident’s adaption requests was therefore appropriate and in line with its policy. This level of award is also in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, which takes into consideration time and trouble caused to a resident by service failures.
26. Overall, the landlord was expected to provide clear communication to all parties involved. In its final response it acknowledged it did not manage the resident’s expectations and attempted to put things right with its £50 compensation offer. Although its aids and adaptations policy excludes shared owners, it made adjustments to support the needs of the resident under exceptional circumstances, such as waiving the fees associated with the adaptations form. This showed recognition of the resident’s circumstances which was reasonable. The landlord also showed it had learned from outcomes, by recognising it needed to develop a fact sheet for shared owners in similar situations.
27. Ultimately, the landlord provided consent for the adaptations requested by the resident. While there were delays, these were outside of the landlord’s control. The landlord required clarity regarding ownership and the impact on rent from the local council. In consideration of the above, this Service finds there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adaptations. The finding of reasonable redress has been made with the understanding that the £50 offered in its final response is paid to the resident, if not already done so.

Handling of the associated complaint

28. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that it aims to respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10-working days of acknowledgement. At stage 2 it aims to respond 20-working days from acknowledging the complaint escalation request.
29. The timeliness of the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was appropriate and within its 10-working day target. However, the landlord acknowledged it did not provide its stage 2 complaint response within its 20-working day timeframe. For this error, it offered £25 in compensation. Although it exceeded its complaints policy by 1-working day, its compensation policy allows for a payment of £25 for failure to respond in the stated timescales. Therefore, this was appropriate action by the landlord.
30. As the redress offered by the landlord was proportionate to its failings, this Service finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s handing of the associated complaint. The finding of reasonable redress has been made with the understanding that the £25 offered in its final response is paid to the resident, if not already done so.

Determination

31. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress for its handling of the resident’s request for adaptations, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
32. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress for its handling of the associated complaint, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendation

33. The landlord to re-offer its total compensation of £75 as set out in its final response of 14 March 2024, if not paid already. This is comprised of:
    1. £50 for its poor communication regarding the resident’s requests for adaptations.
    2. £25 for its complaint handling.