Chelmer Housing Partnership Limited (202120024)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120024

Chelmer Housing Partnership

8 June 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adaptions to their property.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 3 bedroom house. The tenancy commenced on 15 April 2002.
3. During 2019 the resident had requested adaptions to her property, this resulted in three home visits and conversations with the resident and the landlord’s General Practice (GP) surveyor. The first of these meetings took place during November and December 2019. The resident states during a visit, kitchen fitters attended and she had chosen the kitchen fittings.
4. During January 2020, the  resident contacted the landlord to chase for an update with regards to the adaptions. The landlord then spoke with her to clarify what had previously been discussed between her and its GP surveyor.
5. On 16 June 2020, the resident chased the landlord for a further update with regards to the adaptions. The landlord stated at the time that its asset management team was waiting for clarification from the Occupational Therapist regarding the adaptions. Once this was received, the landlord’s GP surveyor and contractors attended the resident’s property during July and August 2020 to determine the scope of works required and discuss the adaptions.
6. During April 2021, the resident contacted the landlord for an update. She was informed that the GP surveyor no longer worked for the landlord. It arranged a meeting for 10 June 2021, to discuss what works would be required.
7. On 14 July 2021, the landlord informed the resident that the adaptions would need to be further assessed by its surveyor.
8. On 20 August 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm it had received the Occupational Therapist assessment, however explained it now required the resident to contact her local authority to request a disabled facility grant (DFG).
9. On 26 August 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident regarding its funding model confirmation. It explained that it was required to view all adaptions in line with its policy, and that any decision made or not prior to this date would also be reviewed. It explained it required confirmation of the funding model prior to allocating a surveyor. The landlord asked the resident to contact her local authority to request a DFG application pack to complete and return. It further explained that once a DFG had been approved it would then arrange for a surveyor to attend.
10. During August 2021, the resident’s daughter was injured in the kitchen, she stated that this would not have happened if the landlord had installed the new kitchen.
11. Throughout September 2021 conversations took place between the landlord, contractors and the resident regarding the delays to work.
12. The resident raised a formal complaint on 14 September 2021 about the service which she had received from the landlord, which issued its stage one response on 27 September 2021. It understood the resident’s complaint to be about delays to the resident’s request for adaptions to her bathroom and kitchen. It explained that, due to government guidance relating to COVID-19 during 2020, most repairs and adaptions to properties were suspended until restrictions eased. This had a significant impact on adaption cases.
13. The landlord was unable to locate notes relating to the resident’s repeated attempts to contact its staff member who had since left. It acknowledged it failed to respond to the resident’s request for updates and there were unnecessary delays, and it apologised for the distress caused. In recognition of its service failures the landlord offered a goodwill gesture of £100.
14. It also explained adaptions for the bathroom had been approved and the contractor should be in touch in October to discuss this further. With regards to the kitchen and what the resident stated she was told verbally, the landlord was unable to find any record to support that these adaptions had been approved. It further explained it was unable to approve a request until funding was approved.
15. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked for her complaint to be escalated as she did not feel it fully addressed her concerns. As a resolution the resident wanted her adaptions to be completed.
16. Following the stage one complaint response, adaption works were completed for the bathroom. The landlord was still waiting for funding to be approved for the kitchen at this point.
17. An appeal meeting was held on 2 November 2021, this included the resident, the landlord and surveyor. During the meeting the parties discussed the events which had occurred and the delays.
18. Subsequently, on 9 November 2021, the landlord issued its stage two complaint response. It acknowledged the resident stated the landlord visited the property several times and had committed to completing the desired adaptions. However it explained it could not find any record of what was discussed and had been agreed with the surveyor.
19. The landlord recognised there was a breakdown in communication after its GP surveyor left in early 2021. It could not find any documentation of visits completed back in 2019 and it was unable to conclude the status of the adaption request. As a result it had to start the process again and explained it was in discussions with its contractors about the adaption work to the kitchen. The landlord sincerely apologised for the impact this had on the resident and recognised service failure which resulted in delays.
20. It was confirmed in the appeal meeting that the kitchen adaptions had since been agreed. Consequently this would be dealt with as a priority and the landlord was aiming to finalise these works as soon as possible.
21. Overall the landlord concluded:

1. It fell short of expected standards.
2. It failed to maintain a clear line of communications at times.
3. It was unable to pick up work after an employee left.

22. In recognition of its service failures it said it had since changed its internal processes to make sure that all surveyor visits are documented, detailing outcome notes and next steps.  It also increased its goodwill gesture to £300.
23. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response, noting that in the minutes from the meeting, it talked about her daughter’s injury and the fact she had been asked to apply for a DFG even though she was not the landlord, but the final response did not address these issues. As she remained unhappy she brought her complaint to this service for adjudication.
24. The works to the kitchen have since been completed.

Assessment and findings

25. The resident expressed concerns over the layout of her previous kitchen – her daughter was injured in the kitchen and she felt this would not have occurred if the kitchen had been replaced sooner. She expressed concern the landlord had not addressed this in its internal complaints procedure. Whilst we have noted this as context, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing as claims of personal injury must, ultimately, be decided by courts of law who can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The resident’s request for adaptions to their property.

26. The resident expressed upset over the length of time it took for the landlord to complete her requested adaptions to the property.
27. The resident stated the landlord first received notification of the adaptions request in 2019,  which commenced in several visits from the landlord and its contractors. We have not seen any records of this and note the landlord also had not been able to identify when the meetings took place or what was discussed at the time. Despite the lack of information, we can see this is not in dispute as the landlord acknowledged meetings took place.  The landlord should keep robust records to provide an audit trail, and enable it to understand what steps having been taken and what steps need to happen with its residents. In this instance, there was a failure on its part in the form of poor record keeping for the above period, as the landlord did not have comprehensive records in relation to the resident’s request and subsequent visits made regarding the adaptions.
28. The landlord’s lack of record keeping is of concern and has meant that it has not been able to clearly demonstrate what steps it had taken to address the resident’s requests for adaptations that were required to her home. It also meant that the landlord was not able to fully review the history of the case when investigating the resident’s complaint under its own complaints procedure.  The Ombudsman has therefore taken the landlord’s record keeping failures into account in our overall findings on this case, and has also made a recommendation to the landlord about reviewing its approach to record keeping, using the recommendations set out in the Ombudsman’s recent spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (published May 2023).
29. The type of adaption which the resident requested was considered a major adaption. The timeframe for major adaptions is not stated in the landlord’s adaption policy. However it states that in such circumstances recommendations would usually be made by a GP referral and the resident would be required to apply for DFG to fund the adaptions.
30. The resident expressed concerns over the landlord asking her to apply for DFG funding, as she felt this should have been done by the landlord. DFG is a grant which enables disabled residents to make changes to their home. This is a means-tested award provided by a local authority to meet the cost of adapting a property for the needs of a person less able. The resident also expressed concerns she had not been given clear information with regards to the DFG funding.
31. The landlord addressed this in its stage one response, explaining that it was unable to apply for DFG funding on the resident’s behalf as this funding would be a contract between the local authority and the resident. It further stated this was in line with its policies. Section 4.3 of the landlord’s adaption policy states that if a major adaption is needed, residents will need to apply for a DFG or other grant funding.
32. In this instance we cannot see that this had been requested by the landlord at the time of the resident’s initial request or that the resident had been made aware of this by the landlord. The first evidence of the resident being told to apply for DFG was in August 2021. Whilst there is a lack of information surrounding when the resident first made a request, based on the evidence available it appears the landlord was in the process of considering the resident’s adaption request and therefore ought to have made the resident aware, by not doing so it contributed towards delays in having the adaptions work approved.
33. The evidence shows that, due to lack of information, the landlord had to start the adaptions process again, which caused delays in the process to the resident. Whilst we understand the landlord needed to be thorough and ensure that procedures were followed and therefore, given the lack of information, it needed to start the process again, it is clear these delays could have been avoided had the correct processes been followed initially.
34. Once the process had been started again in 2021, we can see the landlord prioritised the resident’s adaptions to ensure they were completed within a reasonable period of time.
35. We acknowledge that, since this complaint, the landlord has been proactive and changed its internal process to reduce the risk of such circumstances occurring in the future. It was appropriate for the landlord to implement this given the circumstances.
36. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, given the significant delays, it was appropriate for the landlord to consider its compensation policy. Section 4 of the compensation and goodwill gesture policy states goodwill gestures are made in instances where:
    1. The landlord was delayed in providing a service.
    2. There was poor complaint handling.
    3. There was failure to meet target response times.
    4. There was failure to meet a service that has been charged for.
    5. There was temporary loss of amenity or use of part of the resident’s home.
37. Appendix 3 of the policy refers to scales for goodwill gestures. It states payments up to £300 are made where extensive disruption has been caused. This is considered where:
    1. There has been very high level of service failure.
    2. There has been numerous missed opportunities to resolve the problem.
    3. This has caused a significant level of inconvenience to the resident over an extended period of time.
    4. There has been failure to communication.
38. In this instance the landlord compensated the resident £300. Whilst we acknowledge this is in accordance with its policies, taken altogether, it was not an adequate amount for the length of time the resident had to wait and chase for adaptions, taking into consideration the landlord’s poor record keeping, and that it does not appear to have advised her of the need to apply for a DFG until August 2021. The cumulative failings in this case amount to maladministration by the landlord and its offer of compensation was not sufficient. Therefore we will be ordering further compensation.

Determination (decision)

39. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adaptions to their property.

Reasons

40. Whilst we recognise the landlord acknowledged its service failure and made attempts to put things right by means of compensation, the amount offered does not reflect the level of inconvenience and distress caused to the resident. This is because it did not fully take into consideration the delays, poor record keeping, the landlord not informing the resident sooner about DFG and other service failures in the overall handling of the matter.

Orders and recommendations

Order

41. The landlord to pay the resident a total of £500 compensation in recognition of its maladministration with regards to the resident’s adaptions. This includes the £300 it already offered. This should be paid within four weeks of the date of this letter and the landlord needs to provide the Ombudsman with evidence of payment.

Recommendation

42. The landlord should review its approach to record keeping, using the recommendations set out in the Ombudsman’s recent spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (published May 2023).