Thirteen Housing Group Limited (202010684)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010684

Thirteen Housing Group Limited

26 July 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 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 concerns about its management of the stair lifts servicing the building.

Background and summary of events

Policies and procedures

2. As per section 3.1 of the landlord’s complaints, claims, compliments and feedback procedure, following receipt of a complaint, it will carry out a full investigation and provide a stage one complaint response which includes:
   1. The decision it had reached, and the reasons why.
   2. The steps it had taken and planned to resolve the complaint.
   3. The process to escalate the complaint if the resident remained unhappy.
3. For final stage complaints, it will:
   1. Review the investigation and decision at stage one, and determine whether its stage one complaint response decision was correct.
   2. Communicate the findings of its review, and whether it agreed with its stage one complaint response decision.
4. As per the landlord’s home adaptations and re-housing policy, moving to alternative accommodation may be the most effective solution, if a property does not meet a resident’s long-term needs, or if it is not financially viable to adapt a property, residents may be re-housed.

Background

5. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, residing in sheltered accommodation for older residents with support or medical needs.
6. In 2019, the landlord reviewed the stair lifts servicing the building, and deemed them to be unsuitable for communal use. This was because the stair lifts were designed to be set up specifically for an individual, rather than for general use.
7. It consulted with both its residents and its legal team on this matter, and it agreed to keep the lifts until it had relocated those residents who needed to use them, either to ground floor properties or elsewhere. In the meantime, it permitted access only to those who had been assessed to have a health need to use the stair lifts, with these residents being asked to complete a disclaimer form.
8. The disclaimer form sets out the responsibilities for a resident using the stair lifts, and the landlord’s responsibilities for maintaining, repairing, and managing them. The form asks for the resident to sign to show that they understand these responsibilities, and that use of the equipment is at their own risk.

Summary of events

9. On 4 January 2021, the landlord received the resident’s stage one complaint letter. He explained that:
   1. He was unhappy that the landlord had restricted access to the stair lifts. He felt that this was “veiled intimidation”, with the landlord “creating an atmosphere of uncertainty and fear…using health and safety as a weapon”.
   2. He felt that the landlord was using “blackmail and threat[s]” in asking residents to sign a disclaimer form before allowing access to the stair lifts.
   3. He did not want the landlord to “change [the] ethos of sheltered housing”. He felt that the landlord was looking to relocate residents to free the top two floors from sheltered housing.
10. On 7 January 2021, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response. It explained that:
    1. It was looking to relocate residents who had expressed a desire to do so.
    2. Those residents who needed to use the stair lifts, had been assessed, and if they did not wish to relocate could complete the disclaimer form, and use them.
    3. It apologised for the resident feeling that the disclaimer form amounted to “blackmail”. It explained that the form was intended to cover any risks of the stair lifts being misused.
11. On 10 January 2021, the resident responded to the landlord, saying that he felt that the landlord was looking to relocate residents to free the top two floors from sheltered housing.
12. On 22 January 2021, the landlord provided a copy of its stage one complaint response from 7 January 2021. It also explained that the vacated properties were not being taken away from sheltered housing.
13. On 8 February 2021, this Service wrote to the landlord to request it escalate the resident’s complaint. with the stage one response. No specific details were provided, other than that the resident remained dissatisfied.
14. On 17 February 2021 the landlord issued its final complaint response. It explained that:
    1. It had taken steps to prevent the unsafe use of the stair lifts, after concerns were brought to its attention in 2019. This was because the health and safety of its residents was of paramount importance.
    2. It had distributed information to all of its residents about the risk, and arranged for occupational therapy assessments for some residents; this was to establish whether there was a need for the stairlift, and to ensure it was suitable.
    3. The resident and his wife had not been asked to sign a disclaimer as they had not had an assessment. The landlord had therefore advised them not to use the stair lift until it had received an occupational therapy report.

Assessment and findings

15. The landlord is responsible for all communal services and equipment in the estate. The repair and maintenance of the stair lifts is part of that responsibility. The evidence shows that the landlord became aware of potential risks arising with the use of the stair lifts in 2019. It was therefore appropriate and reasonable for it to consider how to resolve those risks.
16. The landlord identified that the stair lifts were potentially being used by residents for whom they were not designed or intended for. It implemented notices on the equipment, and wrote to residents advising of the requirements for using the lifts, i.e., that they needed to have been assessed to have a need, and then to sign the disclaimer form. Given that such equipment is generally intended for use by those with the type of mobility problems especially suited to it, rather than general usage, it was reasonable for the landlord to require the assessment, to ensure that only those residents who could benefit from the lifts used them.
17. The disclaimer form was, essentially, a reminder of who should use the lifts, and what to do in emergencies. However, it includes a statement that the users do so “at their own risk.” Some of the resident’s concerns about the form are perhaps understandable because of that, given that any potential risks are not set out in the form. Furthermore, the reference to risk could only potentially relate to misuse of the equipment by a resident, but the form does not explain that. The reference is also potentially misleading, since signing the form would not absolve the landlord of responsibility if a mishap were to happen due to faulty maintenance, repairs, or similar.
18. Fortunately, the landlord clarified the intention of the disclaimer form in its first complaint response, explaining that the primary risk was around misuse, and that the form was intended to benefit both residents and the landlord. 
19. Overall, the stair lifts are the landlord’s responsibility, and it is for the landlord to decide how to manage them. It identified potential problems with their usage, and it took reasonable and pragmatic steps to resolve them. Some of its communication, i.e., the disclaimer form, was problematic, but it clarified the intent behind the form in its complaint response. It responded to and addressed each of the concerns the resident raised, and provided reasonable explanations relevant to the specific concerns he had.

Determination (decision)

20. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns over the management of the stair lifts servicing the building.

Reasons

21. The land took reasonable steps to manage the use of the stair lifts in the estate. It explained its actions, and responded reasonably to the concerns raised by the resident.