Thanet District Council (202226191)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226191

Thanet District Council

30 August 2024

 

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 the resident’s request for an electric vehicle charging point (EVCP), including his concerns that his request amounted to a reasonable adjustment.

Background

  1. The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord at the property, which is a two-bedroom ground floor flat, since 13 March 2017. He lives in the property with his wife. Both are vulnerable due to being registered disabled and they are in receipt of personal independence payments (PIP). The landlord’s records show no specific vulnerabilities for the household although they note that various adaptations of the property have been carried out following recommendations by occupational therapists.
  2. The resident’s wife contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf throughout the period of the complaint. However, for clarity, in this report all contact is recorded as being made directly by him.
  3. On 31 October 2022 the resident emailed the landlord. He said that Motability had told him that they would install an EVCP if the landlord gave permission. Therefore, he asked if the landlord would either give permission for one to be installed or provide one for the resident to use. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the email on the same day and said the request would be passed to the relevant department.
  4. On 22 November 2022 the resident emailed the landlord again. He said he had still not received a response to his request. He said that he would therefore like to complain and wanted the landlord to either:
    1. Respond with written permission to install an EVCP in the car park adjacent to the property.
    2. Or, respond with information on when they would install the charger on his behalf.

He also asked the landlord to outline how it would ensure that the EVCP would only be accessible to him if he was paying for the electricity. He raised concerns about his disability rights and said that the disabled “have their rights put on the back burner whilst waiting for decisions to be made”.

  1. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint on 23 November 2022.
  2. On 23 November 2022, in an internal email, the landlord said that its policies had not yet been updated to give guidance on electric vehicle charging. It said that it had spoken to the resident’s wife previously and advised her that if she got an electric car it would need to be charged elsewhere because a dedicated parking space would also be required. It said that there would also be issues regarding who paid for the electricity. It said that occupational therapists did not support the installation of EVCP’s as a primary need and therefore only made recommendations for them in exceptional circumstances.
  3. On 7 December 2022 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised that it had not responded to the resident’s initial request on 31 October 2022. It said that it was unable to give permission for the resident to install an EVCP at the property and was also unable to install one itself. It said that the reason for this was there was inadequate dedicated off-street parking at the property and that it would not be carried out as a disabled adaptation.
  4. It said that it could not ensure that other residents would not use the charging point because it would be in a communal area. It said that it had checked the Motability website which said that “if you are unable to fit a home charging point at your property, for example if you don’t have access to off street parking, then instead you’ll be able to access a network of charging points for easy on street charging.” It said that this would apply to the resident.
  5. On 12 December 2022 the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. He said that the landlord was obliged to make reasonable adjustments where possible if required and that adaptations had already been made to the property due to his disability. He said that it would cost the landlord nothing to give permission for an EVCP to be installed and to allocate a parking space for his vehicle. He said that it would cost little to paint a disabled bay in the corner of the carpark closest to his back gate and to put up a small sign next to the space identifying that it was either for his use only or for electric vehicles displaying a blue badge.
  6. He said that using the network of charging points meant taking the vehicle elsewhere and waiting for it to be charged which was not practical. He said that it was not acceptable for the landlord to refuse permission without giving sensible alternatives. He asked why EVCP’s were not available in every car park in the area and pointed out that the reasonable adjustment he was requesting related to 2 residents with disabilities.
  7. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the request to escalate the complaint on 14 December 2022.
  8. An internal landlord email dated 15 December 2022 clarified that the request had not come from an occupational therapist. It said that the resident was requesting a reasonable adjustment under the Equalities Act and that it had spoken to an older persons and physical disabilities occupational therapist and was told that their department did not support the installation of EVCP’s because in their view an electric vehicle was a life choice not a necessity. Therefore, they “would not support a charging point any more than they would a petrol pump at the property”. It confirmed that it did not have a policy regarding EVCP’s “so it’s just a common-sense approach for now”.
  9. The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 19 January 2023. It said that it did not uphold the resident’s complaint because:
    1. The resident did not have a dedicated parking space as part of his tenancy agreement. Parking on the estate was used by all local residents and therefore the resident had no right above anyone else to a parking space.
    2. The recommendation was not made by an occupational therapist and if it had it would have considered it under its aids and adaptations policy. It explained what this policy covered but said that the request had been considered under the alterations request procedure and declined for the reason above.
  10. It also said that it agreed that it needed to start considering putting EVCP’s in its car parks to support government targets and when it was carrying out major works programmes on estates it would consider this. It would then consider a roll out to all estates in a future programme.
  11. This Service spoke to the resident on 14 August 2024. The resident informed us that he had purchased an electric vehicle and his reasons for doing so were mainly environmental.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s request for an electric vehicle charging point.

  1. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s initial request for an EVCP which was a failing that cost him time and trouble because he had to contact it again to make a complaint.
  2. This Service defines vulnerability as “A dynamic state which arises from a combination of a resident’s personal circumstances, characteristics and their housing complaint. Vulnerability may be exacerbated when a social landlord or the Housing Ombudsman Service does not act with appropriate levels of care when dealing with a resident’s complaint… if effective reasonable adjustments have been put in place, the vulnerability may be reduced.”
  3. As set out in our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management, recording vulnerabilities is the first step in providing a sensitive and responsive service. Information on vulnerabilities must also be kept up to date, be accessible, and be shared and used appropriately.
  4. The landlord’s housing system failed to identify that the resident had vulnerabilities despite it having made previous adaptations to the property. When this Service requested information on the vulnerabilities the landlord had recorded within the household the landlord advised us that it did not have “anything specific that relates to them both”. It said that there may be information shared with us by the resident, contractor or occupational therapists in general email traffic “but other than this we don’t keep any referenceable records of any residents’ vulnerabilities or disabilities”. This is concerning as it means the landlord is not recording vulnerabilities within households and how these may affect its delivery of services.
  5. The Equality Act 2010 (the Act) provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. Under the Act, the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled.
  6. The landlord considered the resident’s request for an EVCP and declined it for three reasons at stage 1. The first reason given was that there was inadequate off-street parking available. The resident did not request a dedicated parking space due to accessibility issues; he requested it so that he could charge an electric Motability vehicle. The landlord therefore correctly made enquiries regarding whether there were other options available for charging an electric vehicle. It discovered that Motability advised its customers that they were able to access a network of charging points. Therefore, it was satisfied that in line with the Equality Act, the resident was not put at a disadvantage in comparison with a non-disabled resident who wanted an EVCP but did not have a dedicated parking space.
  7. This Service has seen no evidence, however, that the landlord asked the resident if he had any specific issues with accessing the public charging points due to his disability. This was a failing that meant that it was not fully considering the resident’s circumstances when making its decision. This cost the resident time and trouble because he had to escalate the complaint.
  8. The second reason for refusal was because it would be hard to manage the dedicated parking space, including who would park there and use of electricity. In relation to these first two points, it was appropriate that the landlord considered the impact on other residents in its decision making. Providing the EPVC to the resident would effectively provide him with an allocated parking space, which would mean this space was not available for other residents. The issues surrounding the management of the space were also relevant and reasonable to factor into its decision making, in the interests of fairness to all parties that might be affected.
  9. The third reason given for refusal at stage 1 was that the resident’s request would not be carried out as a ‘disabled adaptation’. It expanded on this aspect of its decision to refuse in its stage 2 response where it said that the request was not made by an occupational therapist and therefore it did not consider it under its aids and adaptations policy. This policy said that “tenants requiring home adaptations are required to undergo an assessment of needs” which involved the resident contacting the occupational therapy team to conduct this.
  10. The landlord did not advise the resident to contact the occupational therapy team which it should have done having identified that an occupational therapist would need to approve the request in order for it to be successful. However, it did contact them itself for advice on whether they supported requests for fitting EVCP’s. This was an appropriate action to take. The occupational therapy team told it that they did not support this unless there were exceptional circumstances, because residents were able to use petrol cars.
  11. This Service has seen no evidence however, that the landlord asked the resident if there were any reasons that he needed an electric car rather than a petrol car. It should have spoken to the resident to make sure that it understood why they wanted an electric vehicle. This failing led to the resident not feeling that it had taken all his circumstances into account. This cost the resident further time and trouble because he contacted this Service for assistance.
  12. The landlord told the resident that it had considered his request to install an EVCP under its alterations request procedure. We asked the landlord for a copy of this procedure but it said that it did not have one. It said that such requests would be dealt with via section 3.6 of the tenancy agreement concerning repairs, improvements and making alterations to your home. However, there is no advice within this section regarding how to make requests for alterations and when they will be considered. This means that residents have a lack of clarity regarding how to request an alteration and under what circumstances it will be refused. This led to confusion for the resident and meant that he took further time and trouble to escalate the complaint.
  13. The landlord did not give a full explanation for its reasons for refusing to allow the fitting of an EVCP. It had taken information into account which it did not share with the resident, for example the advice it was given by the occupational therapy team. The resident has advised this Service that he believes that there are adequate car parking spaces for all residents that are eligible to use the car park and that the car park is only accessible by these residents due to gates and locks. However, the landlord did not explain the reasoning behind why it felt that there was insufficient off-road parking. This failing left the resident with further unanswered questions.
  14. In summary, the landlord took into account relevant factors and provided a clear rationale for declining the resident’s request for a EVCP. It considered whether the resident would be disadvantaged compared to a non-disabled resident under the Equality Act, its management of parking at the resident’s estate and fairness to other residents and whether it could install the EVCP as a disabled adaptation.  However, there were failings in its investigation of the request and communication about its decision. Due to the landlord failing to keep the resident’s case file up to date, failing to share information given by the occupational therapy team, referring to a policy that it did not have and failing to take all information into account there has been service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for an EVCP.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for an EVCP.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident directly a total of £200 in compensation for his time and trouble. Any compensation already paid should be deducted from this amount.
    2. Contact the resident to review the vulnerabilities within the household. It should then ensure that all its systems are updated to reflect them and consider any reasonable adjustments necessary when providing services.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, review its procedure and the advice available for residents who wish to make improvements or alterations to their properties. This is to specifically include advice on the fitting of EVCP’s. This to be completed within 3 months of the date of this report and must incorporate oversight from the landlord’s senior management team.
  3. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders by the above deadlines.