Phoenix Community Housing Association (Bellingham and Downham) Limited (202430029)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202430029

Phoenix Community Housing Association (Bellingham and Downham) Limited

23 May 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 response to the resident’s requests to install a ramp on a communal path.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She lives in a 2-bedroom mid-terraced property. In 2018 the resident had a stroke and has since used a wheelchair. She has been supported in making a complaint by a representative who is a local official. We will however largely refer to both people as “the resident.”
  2. According to the available records, the landlord installed a ramp to the resident’s home in early 2021. Subsequently, and with the support of her local official, she asked for further adaptations to help with access to areas both within and outside of her home. This included adding a ramp on steps to a communal path which was next to a green space. Designs for the ramp were obtained by the landlord in early 2022. It then put the matter on hold, at first because of “budget constraints” and then because the resident was considering moving. There is no evidence, that we have seen, that either party pursued the matter again until about 2 years later.
  3. In mid-May 2024, the landlord received confirmation from the Local Authority that the resident had a desk-top assessment from its Occupational Therapist (OT). It advised this found that she was eligible for a ramp on the communal path “to enable [her] independent and safe access” to her outside environment.
  4. After chasing a response 3 times, the resident complained in early July 2024. She said she was unhappy about the time it was taking to install the ramp to the communal path. She advised it was affecting her ability to leave her home in a wheelchair.
  5. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, dated 6 August 2024, it said it could only investigate events from the past 12 months under its complaints policy. Having done so, it said it acknowledged the service provided did not meet its standards because:
    1. there was no evidence it had followed its aids and adaptation policy in consulting with residents who may be affected by the alteration.
    2. it was not evident that it had communicated with the resident about an assessment of the viable solutions in July 2024.

The landlord awarded £250 compensation, including £200 for the impact of the delay on the resident’s independence and £50 for its poor communication. It confirmed that it would write to her within 7 days with a position on installing the ramp.

  1. Around 2 weeks later, the resident asked to escalate her complaint because she said it had not considered the issue had been ongoing for 6 years. She also reported that she had not received a decision on the ramp.
  2. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 28 October 2024. It said it had reviewed its initial decision and had decided to look at events going back to 2018. From this it had identified that:
    1. It had received a referral from an OT in early 2020 to install a ramp to the resident’s home and the work took longer than expected because a neighbour objected to the plans.
    2. Following a request to install a ramp on the communal pathway from the resident in late 2021, the landlord put the plans on hold in March 2022 until the next financial year.
    3. The resident and her OT notified it in May 2024 that she still required the ramp for independent access outside her home.
    4. It had obtained a design for the ramp and had written to the resident in August 2024 advising it was not feasible for several reasons, including that it posed a risk of trips and falls.
    5. Both stages of the complaints processes had been delayed.

The landlord concluded that it had taken too long to find a solution. To put this right it said it had appointed a different contractor to look for an alternative design. It said it would look to improve working across departments to resolve issues early-on and recommended an internal review of its handling of the resident’s case. It also awarded compensation of £1725, made up of:

  1. £1000 for the distress and inconvenience.
  2. £500 for its handling of the issue.
  3. £150 for its lack of communication.
  4. £75 for the delayed complaint responses.
  1. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman because she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said that the delay in installing the ramp made it more difficult for her to leave her home alone. The resident initially wanted the landlord to install the ramp. However, after the complaints process ended, the landlord obtained a new design and quote for a concrete ramp. This was installed in mid-March 2025. The resident has since confirmed that she would like to be compensated further.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In her escalation to stage 2, the resident said she had been requesting a ramp on the communal path since 2018. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints in a timely manner. This is because the quality and availability of any evidence that may have existed at the time may not be present or reliable. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) also provides that it is reasonable for landlords to limit the scope of their complaint investigations to issues arising no more than 12 months previously. In this case however, the landlord agreed to consider events from 2018 onwards. While true, it also said that the communal ramp was first requested in September 2021. The earlier reference to a ramp was to the resident’s home and was not an issue she had complained about. There is also no evidence, that we have seen, that the ramp on the communal path was requested any earlier. We have decided therefore to focus our investigation on events from mid-2021 onwards.

Ramp on communal path- August 2021-July 2024

  1. When the resident requested the adaptation to the communal area in late-2021, there was an obligation on the landlord to consider it under the Equality Act 2010 (the Act). The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy recognised its obligations. It states it aims to “support tenants to live independently in their home” and in line with recommendations made by a healthcare professional. Where an adaptation to a communal area was concerned, the policy stated it would consider them “where feasible” and in consultation with other residents who may be affected.
  2. Around 2 weeks after the resident requested the adaptation, the landlord informed the resident in writing on 16 September 2021 that it had liaised with the Local Authority’s OT about assessing her. It also said it had instructed a specialist ramp company to provide options for installing a ramp on the pathway and would consult with the resident neighbours once recommendations were received. In our view, the evidence supports that the landlord was taking appropriate actions to consider the resident’s request at this early stage.
  3. It is apparent from the evidence that installing the ramp fell under the landlord’s definition of major works. The adaptations policy included no timescales for when someone could expect a decision on recommendations or requests. In the circumstances, we would expect to see evidence in the records that the landlord was proactively attempting to progress matters. We would also expect to see that it was keeping the resident updated and informed about the situation.
  4. The evidence shows that between September and November 2021 the landlord was liaising with both the ramp contractor and the resident. In its email to the resident on 22 October 2021 it explained that only 1 of the 2 options given by its ramp contractor was potentially viable. It said it had asked for detailed drawings and costs for it to consider the option further but also said it may take some time because of the complexities. It is apparent from the evidence that the landlord acted appropriately, both in line with its adaptations policy and our expectations, up to this point.
  5. The landlord received the details and quote from its ramp contractor on 26 November 2021. There is no evidence, that we have seen, that the landlord did anything further to consider the quote or to update the resident until after she contacted it on 7 March 2022. In its update, the landlord said its consideration of her request had been put on hold because of the lack of available budget. This position was not unreasonable. The adaptations policy made it clear that the budget was determined annually and that cases it was unable to fund would go on a waiting list for the next financial year. Even so, it is a failing that the landlord was not proactive about updating the resident and did not set her expectations sooner.
  6. According to the available records, the landlord advised the resident on 8 March 2022 that it was still finalising the options for the ramp. It said it aimed to complete this in 3 months and would be in touch with her. On 14 June 2022, the resident told the landlord that she wanted to move to accommodation that better suited her needs. We have seen no evidence in the intervening 3 months that the landlord updated the resident about its consideration of the ramp adaptation. It was a shortfall that the landlord did not keep to the given timescale.
  7. The landlord offered to meet with the resident to discuss her rehousing options. According to an internal email we have seen from late June 2022, the landlord decided to wait for the outcome of the meeting before doing anything further. It was reasonable to support the resident in exploring options to move to a house and area that may be better adapted to meet her needs. However, it would also have been appropriate for the landlord to provide an update on its consideration of the ramp up to that point. There is also no evidence, that we have seen, other than it seeking a quote for a third option in April 2022, that the landlord was progressing the matter. For example, we have seen no evidence that it carried out a feasibility study of the 2 available options, as it later did. It is a failing that the landlord cannot demonstrate that it was actively seeking a resolution to the resident’s difficulties in leaving her home independently.
  8. On 22 July 2022, the landlord sent an email to the resident as a follow up to the meeting a few days prior. It confirmed the steps she needed to take to make an application to be moved on medical grounds. The next available record we have seen was the OT’s recommendation from 16 May 2024. We have seen no evidence to suggest that the landlord revisited the matter between the meeting and receiving the recommendation. This was a gap of almost 2 years. The landlord also acknowledged in its complaint response that it took “an unreasonable length of time.” This was therefore a significant failing and a departure from its obligations under the act.

Ramp on communal path- May 2024-March 2025

  1. The OT advised they had visited the area and had provided some basic recommendations. This included the gradient requirements. Three weeks later the landlord contacted its ramp contractor. It asked it to quote for a ramp based on the OT’s recommendations and that turned onto the grass. The ramp contractor reported on 29 July 2024 that it had revisited the site and had found the landlord’s suggestion would not meet the recommended requirements.
  2. It is apparent that the landlord was still exploring options for the ramp. We recognise the issue was complex and the landlord needed to be satisfied that the available options were feasible. Obtaining a further quote, while the landlord may have felt it was necessary, added more time to the already protracted process. Given the history of the case, we would expect the landlord to have prioritised the issue and kept the resident informed about the status of it. There was nothing in the evidence showing that the resident was being kept updated. In fact, the records show that she chased updates 3 times before making her complaint on 2 July 2024. The landlord therefore handled the recommendation from the OT inappropriately and, in doing so, caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience.
  3. Within the stage 1 response from early August 2024, which focused on the most recent events, the landlord acknowledged it failed to:
    1. progress its consideration of the OT’s recommendation in a timely way.
    2. adhere to its adaptations policy by consulting with the resident and others who may be affected by the installation of a ramp.
    3. keep the resident updated on the situation.

Its response, in our view, was appropriate, considering its limited scope, because it recognised the extent of its failings in the handling of the OT recommendation. It also took steps to put this right. This included apologising, awarding compensation, and confirming when the resident would receive a decision on the adaptation.

  1. After its stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed the outcome of a feasibility study on 12 August 2024. This gave a detailed explanation of how it had considered the recommendation for the ramp based on the options it had received. It also set out the reasons for not finding the adaptation feasible. The landlord followed its process in considering the OT’s recommendation. The fact that it did not find the ramp was viable was not an indication of a failing. However, the time it took to reach this, at almost 3 years from the resident’s original request, was clearly inappropriate.
  2. The resident escalated her complaint because she was unhappy that the landlord had not considered the history of her requests for the ramp. Appropriately, the landlord reconsidered its position on the time limit because its complaints policy states it makes an exception where the issues relate to safeguarding or health and safety. It was also appropriate that the landlord acknowledged in its October 2024 stage 2 response that overall, it had:
    1. handled the resident’s request for the adaptation poorly.
    2. “unreasonably” delayed the process.
    3. had not communicated well with the resident.
    4. delayed at both stages of the complaint.
  3. The landlord also took reasonable actions to remedy the complaint, including apologising, awarding compensation, and taking learning. It also agreed to and did explore a different solution for the ramp.
  4. We have seen evidence that the ramp was installed in early March 2025. It therefore took around 42 months from when the resident first requested it to the works being completed. The resident is understandably distressed by the time it took to install the ramp. She explained that not being able to use her wheelchair impacted her ability to leave her home freely. She believes the compensation it awarded is not proportionate.
  5. The landlord awarded compensation of £1725. This was made up of £75 for the delays in the complaint and £1650 for its poor handling of the request for a ramp. Its compensation policy allows for payments between £50 and £200 for low impacts, such as “minor” distress and inconvenience resulting from its service failure. The policy states it may pay between £500 and £1000 for cases where a high impact is caused by a “serious failure” and is experienced over a long time.
  6. The landlord’s award for its delayed complaint responses was, in our view, appropriate to put right the impact of the failing. This was that it exceeded its timescales by 15 working-days at stage 1 and 29 working-days at stage 2.
  7. We also find the amount awarded for the impacts arising from its handling of the request for a ramp was appropriate. It was above the amount its compensation policy allows for serious and long-lasting impacts. It is also within the range our guidance on remedies states should be awarded for cases where there has been a significant failing and impact. We have considered that, while it took 42 months to install the ramp, not all this time was avoidable. It was necessary and part of its process to obtain designs for the ramp and consider the feasibility of them. The available evidence also shows that, once an appropriate solution was found, the landlord had to obtain planning permission, consult with neighbours, and procure 2 specialist contractors to complete the work. It is reasonable to expect that these processes took time. Therefore, we cannot say that the difficulties the resident experienced over the period concerned can be linked solely to failings on the landlord’s part.

Conclusion

  1. The landlord’s handling of the ramp issue caused some unnecessary delays and contributed to the overall time it took. We are satisfied, however, that the landlord took accountability for its failings and took appropriate actions to put the impact of these right. We are therefore not awarding any more compensation or ordering it to take further actions. However, the landlord said in its response that it would consider reviewing its handling of the case to look for further learning and improvements. Therefore, if the landlord has not already completed a review, we have recommended that it does.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord offered redress, which in our view, reasonably resolved the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests to install a ramp on a communal path.

 

 

Recommendations

  1. If the compensation of £1725 has not been paid to the resident, the landlord should reoffer it as this recognised the genuine aspects of service failure in this case. It was also one of the reasons we decided that the landlord had taken reasonable action to put right the complaint.
  2. In January 2024 we published our spotlight report on attitudes, respect, and rights, which highlighted learning from our casework about treatment of vulnerable residents. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our spotlight report, unless the landlord has self-assessed already.
  3. We also recommend that the landlord reviews its handling of the case and considers taking learning to improve its adaptation policy and/or process.