West Northamptonshire Council (202222084)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222084

Northampton Borough Council

22 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a shower bench to be fitted in her wet room.
The Ombudsman has also considered the associated complaint handling.

Background

The resident and her partner are secure tenants of the landlord. The resident is the primary carer for her partner, who has a serious progressive disease. They moved into their current property in May 2021 after adaptations were made to make it suitable for a wheelchair user.
After moving into the property, the resident raised that she was having difficulty showering her partner. She stated that she was informed that a shower bench may be suitable. An occupational therapy assessment was carried out and the landlord declined to install a shower bench in the wet room.
In October 2022 the resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of her request for a shower bench. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 14 November 2022. The landlord stated that its occupational therapist had conducted an assessment and concluded that there was no clinical need for a shower bench to be fitted. It stated that there were alternative options that would be discussed with the resident. The landlord also said that the existing shower room was not designed to take the weight of a bench on the wall, and that it was not feasible to modify the walls.
The resident escalated her complaint on 17 November 2022. She stated that the decision not to install the shower bench was made on the basis of an occupational therapy assessment that took place over a year previously. The resident said that her partner’s disease was progressive and that his needs were changing continuously. She stated that the community occupational therapist had recommended a shower bench. The resident also stated that she had raised complaints about the heating in the wet room and the fitting of her washing machine which were not considered as part of the stage 1 response.
The stage 2 response was issued on 13 January 2023. The landlord stated that its occupational therapist attended the resident’s property with an adaptations surveyor on 5 January 2023 and it was concluded that a shower bench could not be fitted due to the size of the bathroom, the structure of the bathroom wall and the height of the resident’s partner. The landlord stated that it would support the resident moving to a more appropriately adapted property.
The landlord has a 3 stage complaints process, and the resident escalated her complaint further on 2 February 2023. The resident said that had the landlord fully considered her partner’s condition before offering them the property, it would have been clear that he would have eventually required a shower bench. The resident stated that the wet room was not a sufficient size to allow manoeuvring of a wheelchair. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident stated that she would like an extension to the property to facilitate a shower bench.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 March 2023 and refused the escalation to stage 3 because the matters raised had already been considered at stage 1 and 2. The landlord stated that it had attended the resident’s home on 17 February 2023 and consideration was given to the possibility of extending the property. The landlord explained the different options for extension that were considered and concluded that none of them were feasible.
The resident responded to the landlord on 2 April 2023 and again raised that, given her partner’s progressive disease, a shower bench ought to have been considered prior to them moving into the property. The resident stated that she did not agree that every option for extending the wet room had been considered.
The landlord wrote to the resident and identified 2 further options for extending the wet room. It said that these options would be considered at an aids and adaptations panel on 3 May 2023. On 12 May 2023 the landlord emailed the resident and advised that the panel had not approved the application for an extension. In an email to the resident on 19 May 2023, it stated that an extension would cost in excess of £10,000 and that it was not financially viable to make further adaptations to the property. The landlord said that there were concerns that the strength of the walls would not allow an appropriately sized shower bench to be installed and that a shower bench could increase the risk of potential falls and would therefore not be appropriate.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman in June 2023. She said that she disagreed with the landlord’s final response letter and felt that the information provided was incorrect. The resident stated that she wanted the landlord to assist in providing a resolution that allowed her to bathe her partner. The resident did not raise the complaints about the heating or the washing machine with the Ombudsman, and these matters appear to have been resolved.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy states adaptations works are subject to a needs assessment and that the landlord is committed to delivering adaptations on a needs basis and utilising budget funding correctly. The policy states that all major adaptations work undertaken will only be carried out following an assessment by an occupational therapist to determine both immediate and long-term medical needs.
The landlord acted appropriately by arranging for an occupational therapy assessment in 2021 after the resident raised concerns about showering her partner. The resident stated that the landlord’s occupational therapist told her that she could not put through a request for the shower bench due to the associated costs. Following a further assessment in 2023, the occupational therapist documented that during the 2021 visit, she advised the resident that a shower bench was not appropriate as it was not clinically necessary and not feasible due to the size and wall structure of the wet room. She stated that a referral had been made to the specialist moving and handling team who had recommended a wheeled shower chair. The landlord stated that it has no contemporaneous notes of the 2021 visit and it is therefore unclear exactly what reasons were explained to the resident for refusing the shower bench.
Limited evidence has been provided to reflect any communication between the resident and the landlord in the months following the occupational therapy assessment. However, it appears that ceiling hoists were installed in October 2021. In November 2021, notes indicate that the resident had again raised that further adaptions were required to assist her with bathing her partner. In December 2021, the landlord’s surveyor assessed the bathroom.
It is noted that several months had elapsed since the resident initially raised concerns about the shower. It may have been prudent for the landlord to have arranged for the surveyor to attend sooner to assess the possibility of making the requested adaptation. The resident stated that the surveyor informed her that it should be possible to fit a shower bench. Again, the landlord stated that it does not have any notes of the surveyor’s visit. The landlord is responsible for maintaining a clear audit trail of events and providing evidence of this to the Ombudsman. The landlord has not been able to provide all of the pertinent evidence relating to this case.
Following the December 2021 visit, the landlord’s surveyor provided the resident with details of a suitable shower bench by email. While the landlord appears to have maintained its position that it would not install a shower bench, this does support that it may have informed the resident that it was possible to fit a shower bench on the wet room wall.
On 29 March 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and advised that she had raised £2,500 towards a shower bench, and asked whether the landlord could assist with any funding. The call notes provided by the landlord indicate that the resident made further contact on 3 May 2022 to request a response, and the landlord responded on 11 May 2022. The landlord should ensure that it provides timely responses to residents about such queries.
The landlord informed the resident that it did not consider the shower bench to be clinically essential and that her partner’s personal hygiene needs could be met with the use of a specialist wheeled shower-chair, which it was willing to supply. It is unclear why the chair had not already been supplied given that it had been recommended in 2021. The email stated that the landlord’s surveyor was of the opinion that installing a shower bench was unlikely to be feasible due to a lack of space and the strength of the stud wall, and that the landlord would not do any structural changes to the property that related to non-clinically essential equipment.
The landlord appears to have acted in line with its adaptations policy which states that adaptation works are subject to a needs assessment. It is recognised that the decision is likely to have caused significant distress to the resident given the difficulties she was experiencing in showering her partner. However, the refusal to install the shower bench appears to have been reasonable given that it was based on the assessment that there was no clinical need.
The resident stated that she was provided with a wheeled shower–chair in August or September 2022. It is concerning that this was not provided sooner given that the resident had reported the issues she was experiencing over a year previously. The resident stated that she had a bad experience using the chair and so requested an occupational therapy assessment. A community occupational therapist attended on 16 September 2022, and made a recommendation to the landlord’s adaptations team for a wall mounted shower bench to be fitted in the wet room. This was clearly in contrast to the assessment made by the landlord’s occupational therapist.
The call notes indicate that the resident contacted the landlord on 6 and 13 October 2022, and stated that she had not received any communication regarding the shower bench that was due to be fitted. Again, the landlord ought to have contacted the resident to advise of its response to the recommendation that had been made. There is no evidence that it provided any response until the resident raised her complaint on 20 October 2022. This indicates a failing by the landlord to properly communicate with the resident.
Within its stage 1 response, the landlord maintained that it would not fit a shower bench as there was no clinical need, and because the shower room was not designed to take the weight of this on the walls. The resident escalated her complaint and said that the landlord’s decision was based on an occupational therapy assessment from over a year previously. She said that her partner’s needs were changing continuously due to the nature of his disease.
A further occupational therapy assessment took place on 5 January 2023, supported by an adaptations surveyor and a specialist contractor. While it was appropriate that this assessment took place, the landlord ought to have arranged this sooner. The landlord was aware that the wheeled shower–chair was not suitable and that a recommendation for a shower bench had been made in September 2022. It is unreasonable that more than 3 months had elapsed before the landlord conducted any further assessments to try to establish suitable alternative options.
The January 2023 assessment stated that the community occupational therapist’s recommendation did not take into account that the wall was not strong enough or long enough to accommodate a shower bench. While the confusion caused was not the fault of the landlord, it is acknowledged that this decision was likely to have been particularly frustrating for the resident given she believed a shower bench would be fitted following this recommendation. The assessment stated that the landlord would make a referral to the specialist moving and handling team for advice regarding a showering solution that utilised equipment that would fit in the wet room.
Within its stage 2 response, the landlord referred to the outcome of the January 2023 assessment and stated that it would support the resident and her partner in moving to a more appropriately adapted property. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 3 and stated that her partner’s needs should have been properly considered before they were offered the property. The resident said that she did not wish to move due to the potential impact on her partner and because she had a support network within the area. The resident stated that her desired outcome was for the property to be extended in order to facilitate a shower bench. It is noted that the resident provided letters from 2 health care specialists written in support of funding to be secured so that the wet room could be extended to meet her partner’s care needs.
It appears that the possibility of an extension to the wet room was initially discussed during the 5 January 2023 visit. However, the stage 2 response did not explore this option further. The evidence reflects that the landlord met with the resident in February 2023 and following this, it made some enquiries into the possibility of extending the property. However, it concluded that planning permission for an extension would be refused as the bathroom was at the front of the property.
Given the reasonable concerns raised by the resident about moving properties, it is appropriate that the landlord gave consideration to the possibility of extending the wet room to accommodate suitable showering facilities.
The landlord refused the resident’s request for her complaint to be escalated to stage 3. In its 30 March 2023 letter, the landlord explained the options that had been considered for extending the wet room and concluded that none of these were feasible due to the layout configuration and boundary of the property. It said that there was an option to extend using internal space which the resident could consider. The landlord also commented that a referral had been made to a specialist moving and handling team on 6 January 2023. The resident responded to state that she contacted this team on 31 January 2023, and they had not received a referral. Given that more than 2 months had elapsed, the landlord ought to have followed this up.
The resident responded to the landlord and stated that she did not feel that every option for extending the property had been explored. She questioned who owned the land around the property and whether a possible extension could be discussed with the owner. On 14 April 2023 the landlord responded to the resident and set out the extension options that had so far been considered. It did not respond to her query about discussing an extension with the owner of the land. It said that there were 2 outstanding options that would be taken to an aids and adaptations panel on 3 May 2023. Although this reflects that the landlord had not previously explored all of the possible options for an extension, it was appropriate that it referred the matter to the aids and adaptations panel for this to be considered.
On 12 May 2023 the landlord informed the resident that the panel did not approve the application for an extension. On 19 May 2023 it informed the resident of the rationale of this decision. It stated that an extension would cost in excess of £10,000 and that it was not financially viable to adapt the property any further. The landlord also said that concerns had been raised by the occupational therapist that the strength of the walls would not allow an appropriately sized shower bench and that an elevated shower bench can increase the risk of potential falls and would therefore not be appropriate. The landlord stated that the best option would be rehousing the resident and her partner.
It is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine whether a shower bench was the most suitable option for the resident and her partner. However, we can consider whether the landlord acted appropriately in response to the resident’s request for a shower bench to be fitted.
It is evident that the resident felt that the shower bench was the most appropriate solution and that she had spent a significant amount of time communicating with the landlord about this matter. The Ombudsman recognises the issues reported by the resident, including her concerns about the health and hygiene of her partner due to the difficulties bathing him. It is acknowledged that the landlord’s decisions not to install the shower bench or extend the property will have caused distress and frustration to the resident.
However, the evidence indicates that the landlord acted in line with its adaptations policy by following specialist advice in order to reach a decision about possible adaptations. Given that no clinical need had been identified for the shower bench, the landlord’s decision appears reasonable. The landlord acted appropriately by exploring options for extending the property to allow for a larger wet room.
While there does not appear to have been a failing in the landlord’s decision to refuse the adaptations, there were some failings in the landlord’s overall handling of the matter. The evidence indicates that there was a delay in the landlord arranging for the further occupational therapy assessment which took place in January 2023, as well as the delays in communicating with the resident which have been highlighted above. The landlord also failed to provide all of the evidence relating to actions taken in 2021 which has impacted the Ombudsman’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation. The failings identified amount to maladministration by the landlord.
Where there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider suitable remedies in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. It is clear that the resident has spent a substantial amount of time communicating with the landlord about this matter, and the poor communication and delays identified are likely to have caused significant frustration.
An order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation in recognition of the failings identified. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for when there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident. The landlord should also conduct a review of its handling of the issue and identify any learning that can be implemented.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint and feedback policy sets out its 3-stage complaint process. The policy states that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints will be responded to within 20 working days. It states that stage 3 is an optional independent review by its complaints panel which will take place within 20 working days. The policy explains that it may be necessary to extend the time limit to ensure the landlord has all the information to deal with the complaint. It says that extensions should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason and should be agreed with the complainant. The policy also says that in instances where the landlord declines to escalate a complaint, this will be clearly communicated in writing with the reasons for not escalating.
The resident raised a complaint on 20 October 2022 which the landlord acknowledged on the same date. The stage 1 response was issued on 14 November 2022. As such, there was a delay of approximately 7 working days in providing the response. While this is not a significant delay, there is no evidence to indicate that the landlord updated the resident during this time.
The resident escalated her complaint on 17 November 2022. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 23 November 2022 and advised the resident that it had 10 working days to respond. A further email was sent to the resident on 8 December 2022 advising that the correct timescale was 20 working days, and that she would receive a response by 15 December 2022.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 and 19 December 2022 to request an update on the stage 2 complaint outcome. The landlord responded to the resident on 20 December 2022 and stated that the deadline would be extended pending a further occupational therapy visit. It gave a deadline of 13 January 2023 to supply the stage 2 response, which it complied with.
The landlord should ensure it properly communicates with residents to notify them if it will not meet a previously agreed deadline. The landlord failed to provide a timely update to the resident, and she was required to chase it twice for a response. Furthermore, the new deadline exceeded the 10-working day extension limit by approximately 6 days. However, while there were some minor failings regarding the landlord’s communication with the resident, it appears reasonable that it delayed the response so that a further occupational therapy assessment could take place.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 3 on 2 February 2023. The landlord visited the resident’s property on 17 February 2023 and wrote to her on 24 February 2023 stating that an extension to the wet room was not an option. On the same date, the resident again confirmed that she wanted her complaint to be escalated. The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 March 2023 and refused the escalation. There was an unreasonable delay in notifying the resident that her complaint would not be escalated to stage 3.
The landlord refused the escalation to stage 3 because the issue had already been considered through its complaint process and, following the stage 2 determination, no further action could be taken. Given that the landlord’s position on installing a shower bench had remained the same throughout the stage 1 and 2 complaints, it appears reasonable that the landlord chose not to escalate the complaint to stage 3, which is an optional stage.
On 14 April 2023 the landlord advised the resident that her request for an extension would be referred to its aids and adaptations panel. The landlord stated that 2 options for extending the property that had not previously been considered would be taken to the panel. It is appropriate that a further review took place and that the outstanding options for an extension were referred to the landlord’s aids and adaptations panel, rather than through the complaints process.
The delays in providing the resident with complaint responses and the lack of timely updates to the resident amount to a service failure by the resident. As stated above, where there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider suitable remedies in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The resident incurred time and trouble due to the delayed complaint responses and the requirement to follow up with the landlord. In order to put things right, an order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for the complaint handling failures. An order has also been made for the landlord to review its handling of the complaint and learn from outcomes.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s request for a shower bench to be fitted in her wet room.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord regarding its complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord should pay the resident £350 compensation, made up as follows:
1. £250 for failures associated with the request for adaptations.
2. £100 for complaint handling.
The landlord should review its handling of the resident’s request for adaptations. It should identify any measures that can be put in place to ensure that the need to conduct an updated occupational therapy assessment is identified and arranged as soon as possible, as well as any measures to ensure timely communication with residents. The outcome of this review should be provided to the Ombudsman.
The landlord should review its handling of the complaint and identify any measures that can be put in place to ensure timely communication with residents about delays in providing complaint outcomes. The outcome of this review should be provided to the Ombudsman.
The landlord should review its record keeping processes and take any necessary steps to ensure it maintains clear audit trails of assessments relating to requests for adaptations. The outcome of this review should be provided to the Ombudsman.
The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 28 days of this report.