GreenSquare Group Limited (202008527)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008527

GreenSquare Group Limited

17 May 2021

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 concerns:
   1. the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about its communication with her during her adaptation building works.
   2. the landlord’s decision not to reimburse the resident for any costs she incurred during the adaptation works.
   3. the landlord’s request for the resident to pause building work to her home.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
3. The landlord has explained (in a chronology in its complaint response to the resident in August 2020) that the resident made enquiries in February 2018 about building work to adapt her home for her partner’s medical needs. She made enquiries again in November 2018, and sent the landlord her building plans in December 2018.
4. The chronology shows that the resident contacted the landlord again on 14, 21, 22, 30 January, and 5,8,11,13, 15 February 2019 to “chase a response” following the submission of her plans. The landlord told the resident on 19 February 2019 that she had “permission in principle” for the proposed works to proceed. In May 2019 the resident made changes to the original plans, and the landlord advised her that it required more information about the work she intended to carry out before it could grant full permission.  The resident attempted to contact the landlord again on 23, 30 September, and 2 October, to which it responded on 4 October. The resident submitted her architectural plans on 18 December 2019, and called on 23 December to see “what was happening”. The landlord acknowledged that she was “given incorrect information” about the availability of a staff member.
5. The chronology shows that the resident called the landlord on 31 January 2020 to chase a response, and on the same day it sent her “the permission letter” (permission for her extension). She called on 5, 6, and 9 March 2020 to try and discuss the letter and her plans, but it is unclear from the evidence whether she spoke to the landlord or not. Also, according to the chronology up until 12 May, the resident and her surveyor made “repeated attempts” to contact the landlord.
6. On 3 June 2020 (according to the chronology) the landlord advised the resident that, although her proposals were acceptable, there were “some issues that needed clarifying before full permission could be granted and the build could start”. The resident then sent further details on 9 June. It is not clear from the evidence what these further details were.
7. On 7 July 2020 the landlord said that it had reviewed the resident’s amendments to “the internal plan layout” of her extension. It highlighted its safety concerns with the new location of the bedroom, and potential fire escapes. It asked the resident to provide more details about how the plan could “be regarded as safe”. It advised her to seek building control regulations approval for her design.
8. On 8 July 2020 a site inspector conducted an investigation, and confirmed that the “new build and proposed layout will satisfy current building regulations”.
9. On 14 July 2020 the landlord declined the resident’s revised plans. It explained how it had reached its decision, which it said was because of its concerns about potential hazards. It asked her to suspend all works to the property until further notice. It advised her that it would visit the property on 16 July to discuss the alterations, and to agree on “actions moving forward”.
10. The resident emailed the landlord on 14 July 2020 to get clarification about its “request to change the layout”. She said that she had attempted to call it, but that there had been no response.
11. The landlord visited the property on 16 July 2020. It advised what work would be required to “satisfy fire regulations”. It asked the resident to submit new plans of the proposed layout. It also gave her verbal permission to continue to install the kitchen.
12. The landlord’s chronology shows that the resident asked on 17 July 2020 to raise a complaint about its management of her extension request. On 21 July 2020 the landlord contacted the resident to confirm the “specifics of [her] complaint”. Notes from this conversation, and specific details of the resident’s complaint, have not been provided for this investigation. According to the landlord’s records on 21 July 2020, it also visited her to “gain an understanding of the background to [her] complaint”.
13. On 4 August 2020 the landlord confirmed with the resident that it approved of the plans she had submitted on 20 July 2020. It also visited the resident the same day to “see the extension and layout in person before responding to [her] complaint”.
14. The landlord issued its complaint response on 7 August 2020. It summarised its understanding of the resident’s complaint as:
    1. poor communication.
    2. unclear and incorrect information.
    3. lack of help through the process.
    4. additional stress and upset caused by its actions and failure to act.
15. The landlord provided a detailed chronology of events dating from 5 November 2015 to 4 August 2020. It explained the concerns it raised following the visit from 16 July, and confirmed the work was required “to satisfy fire safety regulations”. It acknowledged that its “process and procedure need[ed] some improvement” such as providing advice when customers first contacted it with their requests and/or plans. It said that it could have shared its expertise in “planning and building more freely to support” the resident in progressing her works, and provided more efficient communication. It apologised for having “missed this opportunity”.
16. The landlord explained that the local authority was responsible for ensuring a property was suitable for residents, and for either adapting it or rehousing a resident, if their home was unsuitable for their needs. It acknowledged that the resident had seen on its website that it “may have helped with some of the minor alterations” in her property like a wet room or a ramp. However, it explained that it did not fund wet room adaptations, and suggested that the resident seek advice from an occupational therapist and apply for a DFG (disabled facilities grants) with the local authority. It said that it did occasionally assist with funding for ramps “on a case by case basis”, but would not have done so in the resident’s case, due to the cost of the work required.
17. The landlord believed that while it had not “fundamentally failed” the resident in terms of assisting her with alteration works, it had missed opportunities to offer her more assistance. It apologised that it had not been more helpful when it “had the chance to be”.
18. The landlord considered how it had communicated with the resident through the whole process, and agreed that its communication had fallen short of what was expected of it. It acknowledged that it had not responded to her in a timely manner, and had occasionally failed to be clear. It reassured the resident that it had learnt from her complaint, and that these learnings would be “taken forward and addressed with the relevant teams”. It noted that the resident had suggested compensation “for the stress and inconvenience [its] poor service has caused”, and offered her £250. It said that this was in recognition that its poor communication “will have contributed to the stress” she had experienced.
19. The resident emailed the landlord on 10 August 2020. She declined its compensation. She attached a leaflet (dated 2012) she said she had found on the landlord’s website. The leaflet explained that funding from the landlord of up to £1500 was available for some types of home adaptations. This included ramps, and widening of doors. She said that if she had originally had the “correct support and assessment” from the landlord, her extension would not have been “to the scale” that it was. She said that although the landlord recognised that its support had fallen short, its offer of £250 compensation was not “anywhere near the contribution [its] website suggested it could provide to meet the adaptations”. She said she had been “reasonable in requesting the reimbursement of the doors, ramps, and wet room” as they were adaptations needed for her partner to use their property independently.
20. On 12 August 2020 the landlord explained to the resident that the leaflet she had provided was published in 2012. It said that this was no longer available on its website, but could still be found through search engines. It clarified that the leaflet was “out of date and no longer correct regarding what [it could] provide”. It confirmed that it would not have “provided any financial help towards the alteration” but again accepted that its communication had been poor. It explained that the resident could refer her complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about its communication with her.

21. It goes without saying that good practice requires a landlord to respond to any queries from its residents within a reasonable timeframe, and to keep them updated as needed. The evidence provided for this investigation shows that the landlord failed to respond to the resident on several occasions, from January 2019 onwards, while both parties were in communication about the extension. These instances are outlined above in paragraphs four and five, and in turn prompted the resident to “chase a response”.
22. In its complaint response, the landlord acknowledged its communication failings, apologised for the stress that would have been added to the resident’s experience, and explained what lessons it had learnt from her complaint, in terms of the information it gave to future residents with similar requests. It offered her £250 compensation in recognition that it had not responded in a timely manner and had not always been clear. The steps the landlord took in light of its communication failings were reasonable, and proportionate to the stress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced. The compensation it offered was in line with what the Ombudsman would expect in the circumstances of a resident having to repeatedly chase responses from a landlord.

The landlord’s decision not to reimburse for adaptation costs

23. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer of compensation, as she wanted it to at least partly reimburse her for “the doors, ramps, and wet room” in her property. She explained this would be appropriate because the landlord had provided insufficient help whilst she planned her extension, and that this had caused the extension to be at a much greater scale. She had also identified information online showing that the landlord could fund some adaptations, and this had not been offered to her.
24. The landlord’s website explains that it can assist with some adaptations, which can include ramps. Any adaptation request would be assessed “in line with budget and suitability”. When the resident raised this point the landlord explained that the cost of the ramp in the extensions she planned would exceed the budget limitations of the assistance it could provide. This explanation was in line with the information on its website.
25. The leaflet the resident showed to the landlord is dated from 2012. It explains that the landlord can offer up to £1500 to help with home adaptations. It is understandable that upon finding that information the resident would want to know why she had not been assisted in the same way. The landlord explained that the leaflet referred to an old scheme no longer available, and that the leaflet was not on its website. Nothing provided for this investigation indicates that the landlord’s explanation was inaccurate, or that the resident was eligible for any funding which she had not been told about.

The landlord’s request for the resident to pause work to her property

26. There was a delay in the progression of the resident’s extension works, particularly during June and July 2020, due to the landlord’s rejection of, and request for, clarification on certain plans. According to the landlord’s “tenant alterations” policy, if a resident’s request is unclear and requires further investigation, the landlord will communicate this with the resident and then visit their property. Once it has the necessary additional information, it will confirm its decision in writing within ten days. In this instance, the evidence indicates that following the site visit on 16 July 2020, the resident submitted her revised plans on 20 July, which the landlord approved on 4 August. That was one day over the 10 working day target. There is no evidence that this timeframe had any impact on the resident. 

Determination (decision)

27. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in light of its standard of communication which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
28. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in:
    1. the landlord’s decision not to reimburse the resident for any costs she incurred during the adaptation works.
    2. the landlord’s request for the resident to pause work to her property.

Reasons

29. The landlord acknowledged that it had failed to respond or delayed in responding to the resident. It apologised for these failings and made an offer of redress that was proportionate to the impact that its failures had. Its decision and explanation of why it would not reimburse the resident for some of her building costs was reasonable, and its request for her to temporarily pause the building work was in line with its policies and procedures.