Moat Homes Limited (202208721)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208721

Moat Housing Group Limited

30 August 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:
1. The level of priority awarded by the local authority for rehousing.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s query about an arrears letter.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a wet room.
4. The landlord’s handling of communal repairs.
5. The landlord’s response to the resident’s queries about planning permission for a new development.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 41(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The level of priority awarded by the local authority for rehousing.
The resident’s complaint is about the local authority’s assessment of his application for re-housing and the priority that has been awarded. Paragraph 41(d) of the Scheme provides that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which “concern matters in respect of Local Housing Authorities in England which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing”.
The local authority housing allocation scheme is a function of the local authority that sits outside of its capacity as a landlord and therefore, falls outside of the jurisdiction of this service. The resident is advised to approach the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) if he wishes to pursue this aspect of his complaint further.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. His tenancy began in November 2019. The property is a one bedroom, ground floor flat with a low level shower fitted. The landlord is a housing association. The landlord has it recorded that the resident is vulnerable.

Policies and procedures

The resident’s tenancy agreement says that:
1. Rent is payable weekly in advance.
2. The landlord will repair any shared parts of the building.
3. The landlord will carry out repairs within a reasonable period of time.
The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy defines a major adaptation as work that is of a more complex nature and can include specially equipped bathrooms or showers. It says medical evidence must be provided; however, the landlord will permit such adaptations wherever practicable, reasonable, and cost effective to do so.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy and commits to respond to stage 1 complaints within ten working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days.

Summary of events

On 21 June 2022, the landlord raised a works order to repair a broken communal gate. It attended in August 2022, but the work was not completed. The landlord’s records note that an appointment was completed on 18 March 2023 and works carried out.
On 18 July 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to ask for a wet room to be installed in his property. He said that he had recently received a letter from an occupational therapist (OT) confirming that he needed this. The resident made further contact with the landlord about this request on two occasions and on 27 July 2022, he made a formal complaint.
The landlord contacted the resident about his complaint the same day and he said he believed a wet room was due to be installed by the end of August 2022. The landlord responded that it had not received any OT paperwork and needed to see this before any works could be carried out
On 31 July 2022, the resident provided a copy of a housing needs assessment report dated 26 April 2022, completed by an Occupational Therapy Assessment Officer from the local authority. Within the report it said “due to medical reasons the resident requires a low level or flush floor shower”.
The resident said that he received an arrears letter dated 31 July 2022 advising that he was £66 in arrears. The landlord has been unable to provide a copy of this letter, despite this service asking for this.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 4 August 2022. It confirmed the OT paperwork had been received and that this would be reviewed and a response provided on any proposed works.
On the same day the landlord advised the resident that the report provided was a housing needs report, completed by the local authority to support his rehousing application. He was told that he would need to apply for a disabled facilities grant for this work and was provided the contact number to start this process. It discussed other properties that may have a wet room and advised that any potential move would be via a management move on medical grounds and would need to be approved.
On 9 August 2022, the resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2. The landlord advised that the outcome would not change at stage 2 as it did not have the required paperwork to progress with installing a wet room as it needed an OT report and suggested he approach his GP for this.
The resident made a complaint to this service the same day stating that the landlord had refused to escalate his complaint. He was advised to go back to the landlord to request this in writing. The resident did this on 15 August 2022, and the following day the landlord acknowledged that his complaint had been escalated. Included in this acknowledgement was reference to a phone call of the same day but no record of this call has been provided.
On an unknown date, the landlord spoke to the resident about his complaint. It is possible this was the call that took place on 16 August 2022; however, it is not clear from the records provided. During the call the resident raised additional concerns regarding outstanding communal repairs, an arrears letter received and contradictory information given by the landlord and an MP regarding planning permission for a new build development.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 9 September 2022, which said:
1. He had a housing needs assessment carried out as part of his housing application with the local authority but this was different from an OT report and it could not use this assessment to determine whether a wet room could be installed or a management move arranged. It could explore the option of building a wet room and/or facilitating a management move but needed an OT report recommending this. It advised him to approach his GP or the local authority to request this.
2. It agreed to write to the local authority to confirm that his property did not have a wet room and did not meet his needs. It asked him to confirm where it should send this letter.
3. It could not explain comments made by an MP regarding planning permission for a new development. It clarified its position that the development was subject to planning permission, which had been halted because of the COVID-19 pandemic. This would be continuing as things were returning to normal and this was the reason for different bits of information being given.
4. He was previously advised to apply for a disabled facilities grant to fund the wet room as he did not have an OT report and it wanted to ensure he was taking advantage of all options available to him.
5. All communal repairs to gates, windows and skirting boards had been raised and an appointment booked but this was not kept, which the landlord apologised for. It was chasing its contractor and would be back in touch with an update.
6. It confirmed his rent account was in credit and maintained well but as the rent debited weekly and his universal credit was paid monthly, this meant part of the rent was paid in arrears. This had caused confusion and resulted in an arrears letter being sent. It apologised for this and confirmed thorough investigations would be carried out in the future before sending letters of this kind to residents.
7. There was no evidence of service failure and it believed it had acted appropriately.
On 1 December 2022, the landlord attended and carried out a repair to a communal window handle.
In December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord twice asking it to send a letter to the local authority about his property and his needs as committed to in the stage 2 complaint response. The landlord subsequently had contact with a Senior Contract Assessment Officer at the local authority and noted that they reviewed the resident’s paperwork and were going to look in to this and get the paperwork sent over to the relevant department. The landlord advised the resident to make contact in the new year if he had not heard anything so it could assist him in chasing the local authority.
In January 2023, the landlord advised that it had made contact with the local authority officer who completed the housing needs assessment and that they had confirmed he had all the aids required but if his health got worse he would need to ask for another OT assessment. It advised him to keep bidding on properties but acknowledged he had been given a low banding as his property met his current needs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In recent contact with this service, the resident has raised additional concerns regarding cracks and pests in communal areas. As these issues have not been considered by the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, they fall outside of the scope of this investigation. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to contact the resident regarding these issues to address any ongoing concerns he has.
The resident has reported to this service that he has ongoing concerns relating to damp and mould in his property. The Ombudsman determined a complaint for the resident in January 2022 regarding damp and mould and so this issue falls outside of the scope of this investigation. A further recommendation has been made below for the landlord to contact the resident regarding this issue and address any ongoing concerns he has.
From the records provided, it is not clear when the resident first reported the window and skirting board repairs; however, in recent contact with this service he said that it was around three years ago and that all of the issues were still outstanding. The Ombudsman does not doubt what the resident has said but there are no records to confirm this and in the absence of any evidence, it appears that the first report of these issues was during the call in August 2022. As this was the first record of the repairs being reported, this would be classed as a service request, rather than a complaint and so these issues have not gone through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and fall outside of the scope of this investigation.

Response to the resident’s query about an arrears letter

The landlord has been unable to provide a copy of any arrears letter dated 31 July 2022. When asked for a copy of this, it told this service that there is no evidence a letter was ever sent. This contradicts the stage 2 complaint response, which acknowledged that a letter was sent. It is not for the Ombudsman to determine whether a letter was sent or not, only whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s query about this was appropriate.
When the resident raised his query about the arrears letter, the landlord investigated and provided an explanation for why this had been sent. It apologised and confirmed that it had learnt from the situation and identified how it would do things differently going forward; not just for him but other residents as well. While receiving this letter is likely to have caused upset to the resident, the landlord’s response to the resident’s concern is considered reasonable redress.

Response to the resident’s request for a wet room

The installation of a wet room would be classed as a major adaptation under the landlord’s aids and adaptations policy. While the landlord is not required to carry out this type of work, it commits that it will do where reasonable and practicable and where medical evidence has been provided. The landlord is entitled to set its own criteria for the type of medical evidence required to progress with adaptation works and so while frustrating for the resident, its refusal install a wet room was, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, reasonable. The landlord informed the resident of this during a telephone call on 9 August 2022 and confirmed this in writing within its formal stage 2 complaint response, which was appropriate.
Over the period of a week in August 2022, the resident was given two different responses to his request for a wet room. While it was appropriate for the landlord to give the resident multiple options to explore, there is no record that it clearly explained its reasons at the time for the different responses and this is likely to have caused confusion. It did later go on to explain the reason for this within its stage 2 response, which was reasonable.
In August 2022, the landlord explained that a management move to a property with a wet room would need to be approved, which was appropriate in order to help the resident understand the potential limitations in respect of this. As part of the same conversation it also suggested alternative properties which had wet rooms for the resident to apparently consider. It is unclear why the landlord would do this when a management move had not been approved and by doing so, it is likely to have raised the resident’s expectations unfairly.
The landlord advised the resident to approach his GP or the local authority to get an OT report. While reasonable advice, it would also have been appropriate for the landlord to provide further support in making contact with the relevant department at the local authority, either by providing the contact details or making contact on his behalf. Local authority processes can be complex and identifying the correct department can at times be challenging for residents; particularly, where the resident is vulnerable and so it would have been appropriate in this case for the landlord to provide some further support in ensuring the resident was able to make contact and progress his request.
Overall, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for a wet room. While its decision not to agree the request was reasonable, its initial responses were likely to have caused confusion. It gave the resident appropriate advice on other actions he could take but did not do enough to support him in progressing these actions, particularly considering that it was aware of existing vulnerabilities. Orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident, contact him and agree how it will support him to request a further OT report from his GP or the local authority and pay him £100 compensation for its handling of this issue.

Handling of communal repairs

A works order was raised in June 2022 regarding the gates and works completed around nine months later. The landlord commits to carry out repairs in a “reasonable” period of time and it is understandable that this will vary depending on the type and location of the repair. As this is a communal repair that appears non-urgent, it is reasonable that it might take longer to repair than a more urgent repair in a resident’s property; however, with no clear explanation given for the length of time taken to carry out this repair, it is the view of this service that nine months was an unreasonable delay and amounts to service failure. While the delay was significant and no doubt frustrating for the resident; as this relates to a communal gate that is not directly associated with his property, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the level of detriment to him as a result of this delay would have been minimal.
Within its stage two complaint response, the landlord committed to chase its contractor and provide updates to the resident on the progress of the repair; however, there is no record that it did this. This amounts to service failure and would have been frustrating for the resident and led to him feeling ignored by the landlord. Orders have been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £75 compensation for its handling of this matter and to carry out an inspection of the building with the resident present to identify any outstanding repairs and progress the required works.

Response to the resident’s queries about planning permission for a new development

The only evidence provided by the landlord of communication with the resident about this issue was the stage 2 response. When asked by this service for evidence of other communication with the resident about this matter, it advised that it had nothing further to provide.
It was reasonable that the landlord could not explain conflicting comments made by an MP, as they did not work for the landlord and so it had no control over them or any information they had provided.
From the lack of evidence provided, it is unclear what the resident was told by the landlord regarding this issue and whether conflicting information was given; however, within its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that different information had been given and explained that this was because of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is reasonable that this would have impacted the planning permission process and created uncertainty, which could have led to contradictory information being given. However, the landlord’s lack of records will have also contributed to this as staff would have been unaware of what information had been previously given to ensure consistency. This was particularly important during the COVID-19 pandemic due to the level of uncertainty surrounding various issues and so recording what had been communicated was vitally important.
The inconsistent information given to the resident regarding this issue would have been frustrating. While the landlord was not responsible for the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, its lack of records would have contributed to inconsistent messages being given to the resident and this amounts to service failure. Orders have been made below for the landlord to provide staff training on the importance of keeping good records and pay the resident £50 compensation.

Complaint handling

When the resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2, the landlord responded that the outcome would not change, which the resident interpreted as a refusal to escalate his complaint and resulted in him contacting this service for advice. While landlords are entitled to refuse to escalate complaints, residents should be notified of this in writing and provided details on their escalation rights to this service so they are clear on what they can do if they remain dissatisfied. That did not happen in this case and resulted in him seeking advice from this service and taking additional time and trouble to go back to the landlord a second time to request this.
When the resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2, he spoke with the staff member who had investigated and responded to his stage 1 complaint. Their assertion that the outcome would not change was inappropriate, as the purpose of the stage 2 process is for an independent review of the stage one investigation, which would have been conducted by another, more senior member of staff.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response 23 days after the resident’s initial request to escalate, which is slightly over its committed response time. This happened as a result of the landlord’s initial refusal to escalate his complaint which, the Ombudsman considers was unreasonable. It also only appeared to escalate the complaint after a second request from the resident following intervention from this service.
The landlord has been unable to provide records to this service referenced within its stage 2 response, namely, an arrears letter dated 31 July 2022 and repair records for communal skirting boards. These issues raise further concerns about the landlord’s complaint handling including how thoroughly the resident’s concerns were investigated and how it monitors the actions committed to within its responses to ensure these are completed.
Overall, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. The delay in the final response being provided was minor, however, this happened as a result of the landlord’s apparent refusal to escalate the resident’s complaint, which was confusing for him and resulted in him taking additional time and trouble to seek guidance from this service and then follow up with the landlord. Orders have been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation in respect of this and provide staff training on complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 41(d) of the Scheme, the complaint relating to the level of priority awarded by the local authority for rehousing is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its response to the resident’s query about an arrears letter.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s:
1. response to the resident’s requests for a wet room.
2. handling of communal repairs.
3. response to the resident’s queries about planning permission for a new development.
4. complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord apologised to the resident for the arrears letter sent and identified learning to avoid this error happening again in the future.
The landlord’s decision not to install a wet room was reasonable but it gave what would have been confusing responses and did not do enough to support the resident with suggested follow on actions.
There were unexplained and unreasonable delays to the gate repair, which would have been frustrating for the resident. The landlord committed to chase its contractor and provide updates to the resident within its stage 2 complaint response but it failed to do this.
The landlord’s records contributed to the conflicting responses given to the resident about planning permission for a new development, as staff could not know what had been said previously, and so there was a lack of consistency in its responses.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to escalate his complaint was unreasonable and left him confused about how he could progress his complaint. It was only after advice from this service and a second request to escalate his complaint that the landlord progressed this, meaning that the resident took additional time and trouble for his complaint to be escalated.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for its response to his requests for a wet room.
2. Pay the resident £375 compensation, made up of:
  1. £100 for its response to the resident’s requests for a wet room.
  2. £75 for its handling of communal repairs.
  3. £50 for its response to the resident’s queries about planning permission for a new development.
  4. £150 for its complaint handling.
3. Contact the resident to agree how it will support him to request a further OT report from his GP or the local authority.
4. Carry out an inspection of the communal areas of the building with the resident present to identify any outstanding repairs and provide a written update to him confirming what actions it will take and a timeframe for these to be completed.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within four weeks.
Within six weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide staff training on the importance of keeping good records, making reference to the Ombudsman’s special report on knowledge and information management, which can be found here https://hos.dev.civiccomputing.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf.
2. Provide staff training on complaint handling.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within six weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord to contact the resident regarding his reports about cracks and pests in communal areas and agree any actions required to address these issues.
The landlord to contact the resident regarding his report of damp and mould and agree any actions required to address this issue.
The landlord to inform this service of its intentions regarding these recommendations within four weeks.