Swan Housing Association Limited (202207036)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207036

Swan Housing Association Limited

27 July 2023

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of adaptation works to the rear of the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord in a one-bedroom bungalow. The resident has mobility issues and uses a wheelchair.
On 30 July 2021 the council’s Occupational Therapist (OT) contacted the landlord and requested adaptions to the front and back steps of the resident’s property. These works were agreed upon by the landlord on 14 September 2021.
On 18 November 2021 the resident contacted the landlord and asked for an update on the works. The landlord advised the resident that the target date for completion was 23 November 2021. The works were subsequently completed on 4 January 2022.
On 9 March 2022 a separate OT from the council informed the landlord that it had placed the stepped access at the rear of the resident’s property incorrectly and asked for a joint visit to discuss the issue. The visit took place on 16 March 2022 where the landlord agreed with the OT’s request that it would alter the steps so that the platform would run under the resident’s rear window. The same day the OT wrote to the resident confirming the proposed remedial works.
On 12 May 2022 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. She was unhappy with the time it was taking to complete the work and questioned why the platform was installed incorrectly in the first place. She said she wanted to access her garden from her wheelchair but was unable to do so. She said that the situation was affecting her mental health and she felt trapped in her house. As a resolution to her complaint, she wanted the landlord to remove and replace the rear platform.
On 20 May 2022 the landlord responded at stage one of its complaints process. In summary, the response said:
1. The request made by the OT in March 2022 to extend the bottom rear step had not been completed.
2. There were no records as to why the alterations were undertaken differently.
3. Its contractor visited the resident to review the work which it understood was urgent, but that undertaking this work would depend on the availability of operatives.
4. It would visit the property on 25 May 2022 to review the step and agree on a way forward.
5. The date to remove the platform was 6 June 2022.
6. It always asked for an OT to sign off the work however if this was not possible it would obtain approval from the resident.
On 13 June 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and said she was unhappy with the time taken to complete the adaptation works. On 6 July 2022, the landlord’s contractor attended the property to carry out the work. Subsequently, the resident contacted the landlord and said she was unhappy that the contractor had only attended to install a step and handrail. On 22 July 2022, the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint.
On 16 August 2022 the landlord issued its final response. In summary, the response said:
1. The original installation was installed as per the drawing signed off by the OT.
2. It accepted it was not what the resident wanted and that it was happy to change it so that the platform was running against the wall, but this would need to be signed off by an OT.
3. The OT had since left, and it had chased the council, but had struggled to find an OT to sign off the changes needed. It acknowledged that this had taken too long and that it should have addressed this earlier.
4. It discussed the issues that caused the delay and said that there were procedures in place to ensure this did not happen again.
5. It agreed to pay for and instruct a private OT to sign off the works and offered £250 compensation for the length of time it had taken to complete the works.
In the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman, she said she was insulted by the offer of £250 compensation and that the landlord had done nothing to help her throughout. She said the landlord had failed to deliver an adequate adaptation within a reasonable timeframe and that it had moved the goalposts with false promises.
The adaptation works to the rear of the property were completed by the landlord in May 2023. Subsequently, the landlord recently informed this Service that it had increased its offer of compensation to a total of £750 due to the level of stress, anxiety, frustration, and inconvenience caused. The resident, however, said that she was unaware of this new offer and wanted £1,000 compensation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of adaptation works to the rear of the property.

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:

a) Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;

b) Put things right, and;

c) Learn from outcomes.

The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
When carrying out adaptations, a landlord should ensure that these are completed within a reasonable timeframe, with the resident kept updated on progress.
The landlord’s adaptation procedure states that the surveyor must keep in close contact with the resident until the adaptation has been completed and that once approval has been obtained the surveyor will inform the resident when the works will be undertaken.

At the end of July 2021, the OT recommended major adaptation works to the resident’s property, including alterations to ‘steps at the back access’. Following the recommendations, the landlord’s contractor surveyed the works within a reasonable timescale, however, there was no evidence of any contact between the landlord and the resident following this visit. This led to the resident chasing the landlord for an update at the end of November 2021. The landlord subsequently informed the resident that its target for completing the works was 23 November 2021, however, its records indicated that this information was incorrect. These initial works were completed on 4 January 2022, over five months after the landlord became aware of the need for them. Overall, there was a lack of contact between the landlord, its contractor, and the resident during this period. The landlord did not provide a timescale for the work, and it failed to act in line with its adaptation procedure. This would have caused distress and frustration to the resident.
In March 2022 a separate OT visited the resident’s property and identified that the stepped access had been placed with the platform going out from the rear door of the property, instead of across the rear of the house, and asked the landlord to alter this. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether this was originally a mistake on the part of the landlord, however, its response to the OT’s concerns was appropriate. It conducted a visit with the OT within a reasonable timescale and agreed to make the alterations as recommended.
However, the resident was given no timescale for the completion of this alteration. This led to her chasing the landlord for an update in May 2022. The landlord failed to act in line with its procedure in this respect. This would have caused further distress and frustration to the resident.
Further, the landlord informed the resident in its stage one response that it would remove the platform at the rear of her property by 6 June 2022. However, this did not happen. Instead, the contractor attended the property on 6 July 2022 and told the resident that they were only there to install a step and a handrail. This was contradictory to the landlord’s response and caused upset to the resident. The landlord’s records indicated that this work was therefore discontinued.
The landlord’s records indicated that it was unable to locate the most recent OT assessment from March 2022. It, therefore, contacted the council to obtain a copy. However, despite concerted efforts, it was unsuccessful in doing so. While this was a reasonable action to take, it may indicate issues with the landlord’s record keeping. Moreover, this Service has seen an email from the OT dated 16 March 2022, following its joint visit with the landlord, which said: ‘Please turn the modular steps at the rear of the property around, so that the top platform runs under the rear window with the steps running towards the end of the garden and provide slabs at the bottom for access to the existing pathway to access the rear gate’.
The alterations were also confirmed in a letter to the resident from the OT and were agreed upon by the landlord at the time. However, the landlord’s records indicated that due to staff turnover, it was unaware of this email until July 2022. In view of this, it would be reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s failure to keep adequate records contributed to delays in completing the adaptations.
While the landlord’s records suggested that the resident was concerned with the proposed measurements of the alteration works, it is not entirely clear why it did not proceed with the agreed recommendations as outlined in the OT’s email in March 2022.
The landlord subsequently instructed a private OT to carry out a new assessment in August 2022. It is unclear if this was necessary and, in any case, there were long delays in getting the work approved by this OT. In addition, the landlord had to delay the works to the following financial year as its records indicated that its budget for major adaptation work was fully allocated.
Overall, it took the landlord over 21 months to complete the adaptation work to the rear of the property. The delays were considerable and would have caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident. While the landlord apologised for its failings and demonstrated learning outcomes from the complaint, it failed to acknowledge missed opportunities to complete the adaptation work sooner, following the OT’s visit in March 2022. Further, its communication with the resident was unsatisfactory and at times inaccurate, and the resident had to consistently chase the landlord for updates. The Ombudsman also considers that the landlord’s offer of £250 compensation in its final response was not proportionate to the adverse affect caused by the failings identified in this investigation. This amounts to maladministration from the landlord.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord has since offered a revised total amount of compensation of £750 for the stress, anxiety, and inconvenience caused to the resident. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests that compensation of over £1,000 should be considered where there has been a series of significant failures which have had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident.Given the detriment that the resident has experienced, the landlord’s offer of £750 is insufficient to ‘put things right’.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. In doing so, this Service notes that the landlord missed opportunities to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage two of its complaints process: Following the landlord’s stage one response, the resident informed the landlord in the middle of June 2022 and again throughout July 2022 that she was unhappy with the amount of time it was taking to complete the adaptation work. At the beginning of July 2022, the landlord noted that it may need to escalate her complaint, however, it took until the end of July 2022 to do so. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord took steps to keep the resident updated during this period, it missed an opportunity to formally respond to her concerns earlier.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) states ‘If all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage one it must be progressed to stage two of the landlord’s procedure’, and that it must respond to stage two complaints within 20 working days. The landlord failed to act in accordance with the Code. Although this was a minor failure, it would have caused inconvenience to the resident and added to delays in getting matters resolved. Therefore, the Ombudsman has made a finding of service failure in this regard and an order is made below for remedy.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of adaptation works to the rear of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Orders

The landlord must, within the next four weeks, take the following action:
1. Pay the resident £1,200 compensation for distress, anxiety, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of adaptation works to the rear of the property.
2. Pay the resident £50 compensation for the inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures identified in this report.
3. Write to the Ombudsman setting out what the procedures are as referred to in its final response and confirm that it is satisfied that these will prevent a recurrence of the failings in this case.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord review its complaint handling procedures to ensure they are in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and identify any training needs.
It is recommended that the landlord reviews its record keeping processes with reference to the Ombudsman’s report ‘Spotlight on: Knowledge and Information Management’ to ensure that accurate and accessible records are kept and maintained.