Peabody Trust (202009261)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009261

Peabody Trust

24 December 2021


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 response to the resident’s reports about:
    1. The installation of a downstairs toilet at the property.
    2. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property, a two-bedroom maisonette. The resident is subject to the terms and conditions contained in the tenancy agreement. The landlord is a housing association. The resident is a long term tenant with limited and deteriorating vision.
  2. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy. The policy requires that the complainant is kept updated throughout the complaints process. If the resident makes a complaint at the first stage, the landlord should respond within 10 working days. If the resident is dissatisfied with the response, the resident can request a review of the decision and it aims to provide a response within 15 working days.
  3. The landlord’s website outlines that in order for it to approve major adaptations the application needs to be accompanied by an occupational therapist (OT) report. It advised that major adaptations can take extended periods of time to complete.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for discretionary payments in situations where the resident has experienced distress and inconvenience. In these cases, the landlord will consider the individual circumstances of the case and may award compensation for perceived service failures as a gesture of goodwill.

Summary of events

  1. On 2 July 2020, the local authority carried out an OT assessment at the resident’s property and emailed the landlord and asked for permission to carry out adaptation works to replace the kitchen, adapt the bathroom, pave the rear garden and install a downstairs toilet. The landlord granted permission on 3 July 2020 and provided a Landlord Approval & Permission Letter for Major adaptation.
  2. On 3 August 2020, the local authority received an MP enquiry about the amount of time that the resident had been waiting for the works. The landlord contacted the local authority to discuss the issues and delays.
  3. On 6 August 2020, the landlord contacted the local authority and was advised that no works had commenced at the property as the resident had refused to complete the application paperwork. It advised that he had requested changes to the proposed work and therefore his case had gone back to the OT team for reassessment. The landlord relayed this information to the local MP.
  4. On 21 October 2020, the landlord advised the resident that its surveyor confirmed that the toilet could not be placed within the resident’s kitchen/dining room. It advised that if the toilet were to be installed under the stairs this would require a new staircase, extension of the landing and a reduction of the kitchen space. It also advised that all services (gas and electricity) would need to be relocated. It was determined that a doorway into the kitchen would not be feasible due to lack of space. It advised the resident that the installation of a downstairs toilet would not be permitted.
  5. On 23 October 2020, the resident made a complaint to the landlord in relation to its refusal to perform the installation of a downstairs bathroom at the property. He stated that it was discriminatory due to his disabilities and that the landlord was prioritising money over his health and wellbeing.
  6. On 11 November 2020, the landlord issued the resident with its stage one response and advised the following:
    1. It advised that there were delays due to the resident failing to approve the works. It was determined that a doorway would not be feasible due to the extensive works required and lack of space and therefore would not be permitted.
    2. It advised that upon review there was no evidence to suggest that it caused delay to any of the works and the actions it was asked to perform were done so in a timely manner.
    3. It had previously offered the resident a transfer which was declined as he wished to remain in the property.
  7. On 13 November 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and expressed his dissatisfaction with its stage one response. He advised that he could not be left without a downstairs toilet and that the landlord initially agreed to the toilet in conversation but had since backtracked.
  8. On 29 December 2020, the landlord issued the resident with its final stage two response and addressed the following:
    1. It stated that it received the local authorities request to perform the works on 2 July 2020 and it provided permission on 3 July 2020. It would not have been responsible for the delays of works up to this point.
    2. The local authority confirmed further delays occurred due to discrepancies with the proposed layout of the downstairs toilet. It stated that the resident did not agree to part of the works going ahead because there would not be a door fitted for the toilet within his dining room and that he had not returned the agreement form, therefore progression of all works were halted.
    3. It had arranged for a surveyor to visit and inspect the proposed location, as well as report back on the viability of installing the toilet under the staircase. The surveyor reported that it was not possible to install the toilet within the dining room due to lack of space and therefore it could not create an additional doorway.
    4. In respect to the toilet going under the stairs it was advised that whilst possible, it would require major works to construct a new staircase by extending the upstairs landing and also reduce the kitchen floor space. It was advised that as part of this reconfiguration, all utility services would need to be relocated accordingly. In light of this as an alternative, the landlord did not approve these works.
    5. It advised its Aids and Adaptations Team to contact the local authority to ascertain what the next steps were in respect of the outstanding works and to update the resident with the options available.
    6. The landlord apologised that its complaint response was issued outside of its policy guidelines and offered the resident £50 for any inconvenience caused.
  9. On 29 March 2021, there was a meeting between all parties involved in the decision-making process about the downstairs toilet. The landlord advised that whilst the toilet could not be located under the stairs, the proposed adaptations to put the toilet in the existing dining room with an enclosed partition, studded walls and a door would be considered reasonable by the landlord. It advised the resident to confirm if he wished to go ahead with the adaptations and said that it would ask the local authority to revive the adaptations required. The resident stated that he wanted the toilet installed under the stairs and not in the dining room however if there was no choice he would allow it to be installed in the dining room.
  10. As of December 2021, no works have begun at the property in relation to the construction of a downstairs level access toilet.

Assessment and findings

The installation of a downstairs toilet at the property.

  1. It is the Ombudsman’s role to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns, in line with relevant policies, procedures and good practice. On 2 July 2020, the local authority asked the landlord permission to carry out a number of adaptation works at the property and the landlord responded the next day and provided a Landlord Approval & Permission Letter for Major adaptation which was appropriate and in line with best practice. The resident claimed that there had been delays in the adaptation works and the landlord took a resolution focused approach and contacted the local authority who explained that the resident had not given it permission to start the works due to a planning disagreement. The landlord appropriately communicated this to the resident.
  2. The landlord does not have an adaptation policy however its website highlights that in order for major works to be approved an OT report needs to be performed. The local authority performed an OT assessment at the resident’s property that highlighted the need for a level access toilet. The evidence indicates that the landlord considered its responsibilities and had a surveyor assess two different options for the installation of a downstairs bathroom in the dining room and underneath the stairs for a potential position.
  3. The surveyors report highlighted that both options were feasible however for a toilet to be installed under the stairs the property would require extensive works including a new staircase, extension of the landing and the repositioning of all services (gas and electricity) at a greater cost to the landlord. The landlord assessed the required works and determined that a level access toilet under the stairs was not tenable due to the cost however after a period of time agreed to carry out the works and install a level access toilet in the dining room area. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider economic factors in making its decision to install the toilet in the dining room.
  4. The landlord appropriately advised the resident that if he wanted the toilet installed in the dining room it would contact the local authority to ascertain the next steps in relation to outstanding works. The resident stated that he did not want the toilet installed in the dining room but under the stairs which caused further delays. The evidence provided supports the conclusion that the landlord acted appropriately with the resident in dealing with his complaint however it failed to work with the resident to progress the works from March 2021 in relation to the level access toilet at the property.
  5. Given the required need for the toilet and the resident’s deteriorating disability it would have been reasonable for the landlord to communicate the resident’s options more clearly and engage with all parties to get the required works progressed as quickly as possible. This failure by the landlord has led to extensive delays in the progression of major works which has caused the resident noted distress and inconvenience.
  6. Overall, the landlord acted appropriately in determining that the level access toilet would need to be installed in the dining room due to cost constraints however it failed to work with the resident to get the works progressed and completed.

The landlord’s complaints handling.

  1. There were acknowledged failures by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint. The resident made his stage one complaint on 23 October 2020 and the landlord provided a stage one response on 11 November 2020 which represents a small two working day delay.
  2. The resident asked for a review of the decision on 13 November 2020 and the landlord progressed the complaint and provided its final stage two review on 29 December 2020. This represents a five working day delay in the landlord providing the resident with its stage two complaint response. However, the landlord appropriately offered the resident £50 for the delays experienced at stage one and two of the complaints process. This amount was sufficient to adequately compensate for the delays at both stages of the complaints process and for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to requests for the installation of a downstairs toilet at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily with respect to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

  1. The landlord took appropriate steps in assessing the resident’s complaint about the installation of a downstairs toilet at the property. It engaged a surveyor to assess the major adaptations and once the appropriate assessments had been performed the landlord advised that the toilet would need to be installed in the living room. The landlord however failed to work with the resident from March 2021 to get the works progressed and completed.
  2. The complaint handling by the landlord was not in line with its policies and procedures however the landlord offered an apology in relation to an error and £50 compensation which was appropriate to remedy its failure.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to him by the delay in progressing works at the property.
  2. The landlord is to make this payment to the resident within four weeks and to update this service when payment has been made.
  3. That within 4 weeks of this report the landlord contacts the resident, Local Authority and any other relevant parties in order to progress the works to install of the level access toilet in the dining room. The landlord is to provide a written update to the resident and this Service within four weeks.

Recommendations

  1. If it had not already been paid, the landlord is to reoffer the resident £50 for its complaint handling failures.