Southampton City Council (202113005)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113005

Southampton City Council

28 April 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s decision not to reimburse the resident for the cost of a shower seat he purchased for his home.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a one bedroomed flat in an extra care complex, designed to enable adults with care and support needs to live independently. The tenancy start date was 15 June 2021.
  2. Prior to 15 June 2021 the resident was residing in a property that had been assessed to be in a state of disrepair and not suitable for his needs. On 4 June 2021 the resident had an accompanied viewing of a property at a newly built extra care complex which would better suit his needs, especially showering, which he had not easily been able to do at his previous home. During the viewing the landlord’s officer explained that shower seats were on order and would be fitted once they had arrived. The landlord offered residents the option of delaying their tenancy start date until the shower seats had arrived. The resident signed the tenancy agreement on 7 June 2021 and moved into the property on 15 June 2021.
  3. On 2 August 2021 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about a number of issues, including the lack of shower seat in the property when he moved in. He asked the landlord to reimburse him for the one he had purchased. In its stage one response on 17 August 2021 the landlord said its manager had explained to the resident that they were awaiting delivery of shower seats, and that the resident had been “happy” to purchase his own.
  4. In his escalation request on 24 August 2021 the resident said that the manager had spoken to his OT but had not spoken to him, therefore the manager’s claim that he had told him he was happy to purchase his own shower seat was a “fabrication”. He also said that, as the landlord was aware of his disability and had not provided a shower seat, it had failed to meet his needs or make reasonable adjustments for them. He felt that this was disability discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 and that he was entitled to compensation for the cost of the shower seat.
  5. In its stage two response issued on 1 September 2021, the landlord quoted the OT as saying she had offered to order a seat for the resident, that the manager had said they were awaiting delivery of some, and that the resident had said he would order himself a shower seat in the meantime. It also said that at the property viewing, the landlord had offered the resident the option of delaying his tenancy start date till the shower seats had been delivered. The landlord said it would not be upholding his complaint as other options had been offered to the resident (by the OT and the landlord) that did not necessitate him buying his own shower seat. It advised him how to contact this Service if he remained dissatisfied with its response.
  6. The resident contacted this Service in September and explained in subsequent emails that he remained dissatisfied as he had not (as the landlord’s responses suggested) been “happy” to purchase his own shower seat. He had only done so as he needed one and felt he had no other choice and he felt that the landlord should reimburse that cost. He also explained that the landlord’s offer of delaying the tenancy start date was not an option for him as he needed to urgently move out of the unsuitable property that he was residing in at the time.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident has said that he feels that the landlord’s failure to provide a shower seat was disability discrimination. In accordance with paragraph 39 (i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure. This investigation cannot consider whether discrimination has taken place, as that is a legal matter, better suited to a court to decide. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s request for reimbursement for the seat he purchased.
  2. As the extra care complex was designed for residents with additional needs the landlord took reasonable steps to order enough shower seats that every property could have one if required. When it became apparent that the shower seats would not be delivered in time for the opening date of the complex, the landlord acted reasonably by offering prospective residents the option of delaying their tenancy start dates till the seats had been delivered. As the property he was residing in at the time had been assessed as being unsuitable for his needs, had mould and damp issues and he needed to move out as soon as possible, the resident did not feel he could delay the start date of the tenancy. Therefore, he was aware that the shower seat would not be installed by the time he moved in.
  3. When the resident moved into the new property and requested to speak to the manager about the lack of shower seat, the manager acted appropriately by going to the resident’s property to discuss the issue. The resident’s OT was present at the property and the manager spoke to her and explained that he was awaiting delivery of the shower seats. As the OT offered to order a shower seat for the resident and the resident said he would order his own, it was not unreasonable that the landlord did not contact the resident again about the shower seat until 8 July 2021, when it attended his property with the intention of installing the shower seat.
  4. In his complaint of 2 August 2021, the resident asked the landlord to reimburse him the cost of the shower seat he had purchased. The landlord did not reimburse him and responded that its manager had said that the resident had been “happy” to buy his own shower seat. Although the word “happy” may not have been the most helpful or accurate word to use to describe the resident’s feelings, the landlord’s response was reasonable as there had never been any agreement for the landlord to reimburse the cost of the shower seat.
  5. In his escalation request the resident disputed that he had spoken to the manager when he came to his property on 17 June 2021 and said the claim that he had said he was happy to pay for the seat was “fabrication”. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord addressed the issue of whether the resident had agreed to pay for his own shower seat, in its stage two complaint response. To do so it quoted the OT who had spoken to the manager at the resident’s property. Although the detail of whether the resident told the manager directly that he would pay for the seat may still be disputed by the resident, the OT confirmed that the manager had told her that the shower seats were on order, that she offered to order a shower seat for the resident and that the resident told her he would order his own.
  6. The landlord’s stage two response concluded that as the resident had been offered the option of delaying his tenancy start date till the shower seat had been fitted and had also been given the option of his OT ordering a shower seat for him once he had moved in, he had been given two options, neither of which required him to purchase his own shower seat. Therefore, it would not be upholding his complaint (or reimbursing him for the cost of the shower seat.) Although, as explained previously, the resident did not feel that delaying the tenancy start was feasible, the option of the OT ordering a seat was available. Importantly, there is no evidence of agreement being sought from the landlord to reimburse the resident prior to the seat’s purchase. Overall, in the circumstances of this complaint, the landlord’s decision not to reimburse the resident was not unreasonable.  

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.