Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

One Housing Group (202214682)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214682

One Housing Group

27 July 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:
    1. the resident’s request for adaptations to the doors in communal areas of her building.
    2. the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the property, and the landlord is the freeholder. The resident’s son is representing her in this complaint. The resident’s son has stated that the resident has mobility issues. The resident is also elderly.
  2. On 16 April 2021, the resident submitted an aids and adaptations request to the landlord. She requested that some of the doors in the communal areas be changed to automated doors.
  3. The resident’s son submitted a complaint to the landlord on 29 April 2022. He explained that he was unhappy with the poor communication and the landlord’s delay in completing adaption works to the doors in the communal area.
  4. On 12 May 2022, the landlord provided its stage one complaint response. The landlord confirmed it had been in contact with the local authority to check which organisation was responsible for the adaptions to the doors. The landlord had ultimately accepted responsibility for the works. It upheld the resident’s complaint due to the length of time it had taken to reply to the local authority about the aids and adaptations request. The landlord apologised for the service failure. It offered £50.00 for the delay in responding to the request sent from the local authority’s occupational therapist on 28 February 2022.
  5. The resident’s son requested his complaint to be escalated on 3 October 2022. He stated that it had taken almost eighteen months from his initial request to complete the adaptation works. The resident’s son also stated that the landlord initially provided him with incorrect information about who was responsible for carrying out the adaptation works.
  6. On 27 October 2022, the landlord provided its stage two complaint response. It stated that it had decided to increase the amount of compensation offered to £550.00. The landlord stated that the increased compensation was in recognition of the impact of the delay in completing the works to the communal doors, which it considered as high impact in line with its compensation policy. The landlord also stated that it would review its aids and adaptations policy and ensure that the training is undertaken by its admin team to ensure the advice it offers is correct. The landlord also confirmed in its response that the works to adapt the doors had been completed on 27 September 2022.
  7. The resident’s son remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted the complaint to the Ombudsman. The resident’s desired outcome is to receive increased compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request adaptations to the doors in communal areas of her building.

  1. The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy states if a resident requests for an adaptation to be carried out, the staff member receiving the request should instruct the resident to contact their local authority. It states that the local authority will then arrange for an occupational therapist to attend and make an assessment. The landlord will then consider whether it can follow the recommendations of the occupational therapist and adapt the building accordingly. The policy explains that requests for adaptation works will only be taken into consideration when an official report/referral is sent by an occupational therapist.
  2. The resident’s son mentioned as part of the complaint that communal doors presented a problem for the resident. He stated that the doors were closing quickly and hitting her arms, causing pain and bruising. The resident’s son has also mentioned that the resident experienced mental and physical pain as a result of trying to use the doors. This Service does not doubt the resident’s comments about her injuries. However, it would be more appropriately suited for a court or liability insurer to investigate a personal injury claim. Courts can award damages in a different way to the Ombudsman and review medical evidence. However, this service can consider any distress and inconvenience caused by any errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her injuries.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord in April 2021 and submitted an aids and adaptations request. The resident requested for some of the doors in the communal areas to be changed to automated doors to support her mobility issues.
  4. The landlord obtained quotes from two different contractors for works to change three of the doors located in the block to automated doors. The first quote was obtained on 10 May 2021 and then an updated quote for the same contractor was obtained on 8 June 2022. The landlord also obtained a quote from a different contractor on 21 June 2022.The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord is required to obtain several quotes before it carries out works to a leasehold property to ensure it selects the most cost-effective option to carry out the work. The landlord also had to consider whether the costs of the works would cost any one leaseholder more than £250. The landlord would have been required to consult all the leaseholders of the property in line with Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 if the cost equated to more than £250 per leaseholder. Therefore, the Ombudsman acknowledges that some of the delays would have been due to the landlord obtaining multiple quotes.
  5. On 18 August 2021, the landlord instructed the resident and her son to contact their local authority about the adaptation request in line with its aids and adaptations policy. The landlord explained that the local authority’s occupational therapist would need to carry out an assessment for the resident to confirm which adaptations were required. The Ombudsman believes that the instructions the landlord provided to the resident were reasonable in this instance, as they were in line with the landlord’s aids and adaptation policy.
  6. On 28 February 2022, the local authority emailed the landlord and explained that the landlord would be responsible for changing the doors because they were in the communal areas of the building. The Ombudsman recognises that it was appropriate for the landlord to check with the local authority to confirm who would be responsible for paying for the adaptations to the doors. The landlord needed to check if the local authority would provide funding for the adaptations for the doors. It was reasonable for the landlord to check this as if funding was available, this would save money for the landlord and ultimately for leaseholders who would otherwise have to pay for the adaptations through their service charges.
  7. The local authority and resident’s son chased the landlord for an update on the adaptation works on multiple occasions between April 2022 and September 2022. The landlord eventually completed the adaptation works to alter the doors in the communal areas to automated doors on 27 September 2022.
  8. It is evident that there were considerable delays in the landlord handling the resident’s adaptation request. It took approximately seventeen months from when the resident first submitted her adaptation request for the adaptation work to the communal doors to be completed. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the delays would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to keep the resident and her son updated on the progress of the works. Also, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to complete the adaption works within a quicker timescale, as it is evident that some of the delays could have been avoided.
  9. The landlord did acknowledge the failure in its stage two response and, as a result, it offered the resident £550 compensation for the delay in fulfilling the adaptation request and completing the works to alter the doors in the communal area to automated doors. As a resolution, the landlord also stated that it would review its aids and adaptations policy and ensure that training is undertaken by its admin team to ensure the advice it offers is correct. The landlord also provided a formal apology to the resident in its stage two complaint response.
  10. The compensation offered to the resident exceeded the maximum available in the landlord’s compensation policy. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it awards compensation of between £250 to £500 for cases where a serious service failure has taken place. The compensation offered was also compliant with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, (published on our website) which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The Remedies Guidance suggests awards of £100 to £600 where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident but there was no permanent impact. Although the resident experienced distress and inconvenience as a result of the time taken to complete the adaptation works to the communal doors, there was no permanent impact as works to the communal doors were eventually completed. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the compensation proportionately reflected the delay in completing the adaptation works to the door, and it amounts to reasonable redress in this case.

The landlords handling of the associated complaint.

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that any remedy offered must reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident as a result. It also explains that the remedy offer must clearly set out what will happen and when, in agreement with the resident where appropriate. It states that any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion.
  2. The landlord stated in its stage two complaint response that as a resolution it would arrange for a senior manager of the property team to contact the resident and personally offer an apology when they returned from annual leave. The resident’s son has informed the Ombudsman that his mother has not received the verbal apology which was referenced in the landlord’s stage two complaint response.
  3. The Ombudsman believes the landlord failing to provide a verbal apology to the resident was unreasonable and not compliant with The Code. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to ensure that its remedies are followed through completion. Therefore, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to arrange for the senior property manager to contact the resident with the verbal apology as soon as possible.
  4. Given this service failure, it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. The amount of the compensation is appropriate to recognise the landlord’s failure of providing the agreed verbal apology to the resident. It is also compliant with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, as referenced above. The Remedies Guidance suggests awards of £50 to £100 where there has been a minor failure by the landlord in the service provided and it did not appropriately acknowledge this and fully put it right.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling the resident’s request for adaptations to the doors in communal areas of her building.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. pay the resident £100 compensation for errors in its complaints handling.
    2. arrange for the senior property manager to contact the resident and provide a verbal apology which was referenced in its stage two complaint response.
  2. These orders should be complied with, within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident its original offer in its stage one complaint response of £550 in compensation within four weeks if it has not already done so. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress is based on the understanding that this compensation will be paid.