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

Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (202233574)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233574

Bury Metropolitan Borough Council

10 March 2025


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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. An appointment to inspect the disability adaptations in the resident’s home.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has been a secure tenant of the property since 2006. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor adapted flat. The landlord records note that the resident has mobility impairment and a musculoskeletal disability.
  2. On 22 January 2023, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. The resident said:
    1. She was sent a letter by its technical advisor on 17 November 2022 saying they would be in contact in the coming weeks to make an appointment to inspect the disability adaptations in her home. She had heard nothing more about this until the technical advisor knocked on her door on 11 January 2023, without notice or an appointment.
    2. The technical advisor attended again on 19 January 2023 but this was for just 5 minutes and they only took photos of the kitchen and bathroom.
    3. The technical advisor clarified that the purpose of their visit was to ensure the landlord had the correct adaptations recorded on its systems. The resident said this put her mind at rest about the possibility of being asked to give up her flat for a family who may be considered as more needing of it.
    4. She would like information about what adaptations had been made during her tenancy, and when.
  3. On 7 February 2023, the resident chased the landlord for its response to her complaint. The landlord provided the resident with its stage 1 letter the same day. This was dated 3 February 2023. In its response the landlord:
    1. Apologised that its technical advisor attended the resident’s home without an appointment on 11 January 2023 and recognised the upset and distress this had caused. The landlord acknowledged that this was a failure on its part, for which it offered the resident £100 compensation.
    2. Explained that the technical advisor had been employed with the sole purpose of carrying out inspections of properties with adaptations. This was a project to update its records which it noted were outdated.
    3. Said the letter sent on 17 November 2022 was not sent to the resident to ‘heighten anticipation, apprehension and anxiety’ as she had indicated. It had been sent to alert its residents that this project was to take place. The landlord said that it was sorry this was how the resident perceived it and that it was glad that its technical advisor’s further explanation had put the resident’s mind at rest.
    4. Said that the resident’s home was listed as adapted and not general needs. Its records from when the resident moved in was that the property had a walk-in shower, support frame around the toilet, low level light switches and low-level kitchen units. The landlord said that the visit was to check whether these details were correct.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 24 February 2023, saying that although £100 compensation was offered, the stage 1 response did not address all of her questions and contained ‘false and incomplete information. She had expected a stage 1 response by 6 February 2023 but received nothing until she chased the landlord on 7 February 2023. The resident said that the following questions remained outstanding:
    1. What was the purpose of the letter dated 17 November 2022 if not to heighten anticipation, apprehension, and anxiety.
    2. Was she was listed as general needs and, if not, what records the landlord held about the adaptations at her property.
    3. Whether the assessment of the adaptations in her home could have been left until she moved out of the property and whether another visit would be needed at that time.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 13 March 2023, in which it:
    1. Confirmed that the purpose of the visit was to verify the disabled adaptations it had previously recorded as being installed in the resident’s property. This was to ensure that its records were accurate and up to date. The landlord said that this was the sole purpose of the visit. The landlord reassured the resident that it had no plans to move her out of her home.
    2. Acknowledged that although its letter of 17 November 2022 was about a proposed visit, it had failed to get back to her to agree an appointment. The landlord recognised this as a failure for which it apologised. It acknowledged that when it said it was going to do something, it should have done it.
    3. Said that the resident did not receive a response to her email of 12 January 2023 after it ‘disturbed’ her on 11 January 2023.
    4. Said that it had requested that refresher training be provided to staff to ensure that they were aware of any preferred methods of communication its residents may have told it about and to ensure that appointments were confirmed either over the phone, by text or in writing.
    5. Said that it had discussed the resident’s concerns with its technical advisor to prevent a further occurrence. It had also updated the resident’s account to ensure that it made no further unannounced visits in the future.
    6. Acknowledged that despite the resident’s request for prior notice of visits, it had identified at least 2 other occasions, when it had attended her property unannounced, for which it again apologised.
    7. Offered the resident’s £250 to put these failings right.
    8. Said it would update its records following the resident’s advice that her light switches were not low and she had no frame around her toilet. The resident reassured the resident that it had no plans to change the position of her light switches.
    9. Said it had noted the resident’s comments about the condition of the equipment and advised her to raise these with its repairs team who would arrange to inspect and carry out any required repairs.
    10. Acknowledged that there was a delay in it sending its stage 1 response for which it offered £100 compensation. The landlord explained that this had been ‘in-hand’ when it received her email of 7 February 2023. However, it should have provided the resident with an update regarding the delay. The landlord said that it had spoken to the relevant staff to ensure they were aware of the requirement to respond to complaints within the given timescales.

Assessment and findings

  1. The Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case. When considering the landlord’s handling of the matter, the Ombudsman is guided by the landlord’s policies and procedures and our own Dispute Resolution Principles, which are:
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair process.
    2. Put things right.
    3. Learn from outcomes.
  2. When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, the Ombudsman considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to a complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.

The landlord’s handling of an appointment to inspect the disability adaptations in the resident’s home.

  1. On 17 November 2022, the landlord’s technical advisor wrote to the resident to advise that they were looking to update the landlord’s records with regards to disability adaptations in its properties. The technical advisor said they would be in touch in the next couple of weeks to make an appointment for an inspection of the disability adaptations in the resident’s home.
  2. There is no evidence of any further contact being made by the landlord’s technical advisor regarding this until they made an unannounced visit to the resident’s home on 11 January 2023, approximately 8 weeks after their letter of 17 November 2022.
  3. There can be unexpected delays in a landlord doing what it said it was going to do and that these would not necessarily be a service failure. However, in this case we have seen no evidence that would suggest the delay was reasonable, nor is there any evidence of the landlord providing the resident with any updates during the 8 weeks between 17 November 2022 and 11 January 2023. As that was the case it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge that writing to the resident in November 2022 and then making no further contact until attending, unannounced, on 11 January 2023 was a failure on its part.
  4. As the landlord acknowledged in its complaint responses it also failed to act in accordance with the resident’s tenancy agreement by not providing the resident with the required notice. This is because Section 7a of the resident’s tenancy agreement (“right of access”) says the resident ‘must allow (the landlord) into (their) property, so long as it is during reasonable hours. (The landlord) will try to give (the resident) at least 24 hours’ notice if (it) need(ed) to access (their) property”.
  5. It is evident that the technical advisor attending, unannounced, on 11 January 2023 caused the resident unnecessary upset, inconvenience, and distress. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for this. It also identified at least 2 occasions where it had also attended the resident’s property unannounced, for which it again apologised.
  6. To put this right, the landlord offered the resident £250 compensation. It also took steps to learn from the complaint by requesting that refresher training was provided to its staff, speaking to its technical officer to prevent a further occurrence, and updating the resident’s account to ensure that it made no further unannounced visits in the future.
  7. In addition to the delay in attending and then attending unannounced, the resident also raised concerns about the content of the letter of 17 November 2022. There is no evidence of the resident contacting the landlord to raise her concerns about its letter of 17 November 2022 until 12 January 2023, the day after the unannounced visit of 11 January 2023.
  8. Whilst the landlord said in its complaint responses that it did not respond to the resident’s email of 12 January 2023, we have seen evidence that its technical advisor did respond the same day. In that response the technical advisor confirmed that the purpose of their visit was to correctly identify the disability adaptations in the resident’s property. The technical officer explained this was so the landlord’s internal systems could be updated. The technical advisor explained that previously properties had been let to general needs families where they should have been offered to families who needed these adaptations.
  9. The resident responded to the landlord’s technical advisor and agreed to them completing their inspection on 19 January 2023. The ‘disabled adaptations stock intelligence survey’ completed on that day noted that the resident’s property had an adapted kitchen, with low units, a full level access shower, grab rails and lever taps.
  10. In her formal complaint of 22 January 2023, the resident confirmed that during their visit of 19 January 2023, the technical advisor had clarified that the purpose of the visit was to ensure the landlord had the correct adaptations on the system. The resident said this put her mind at rest about the possibility of being asked to give up her flat for a family who may be considered as more needing of it.
  11. However, by the time of her escalation request the resident evidently remained concerned about the purpose of both the letter of 17 November 2022 and the technical advisors visit.
  12. The landlord recognised the resident’s continuing concerns in its stage 2 response. It again sought to reassure the resident that the purpose of the visit was to ensure its records were correct and that it had no plans to move her out of her home. It also said that it had passed the resident’s request for further information about what might happen were she to leave the property to the relevant team. The landlord had already explained in its stage 1 response what the process was for assessing the suitability of a property and that an occupational therapist would do that assessment.
  13. In her escalation request, the resident again asked the landlord whether her property was listed as general needs and for confirmation of what adaptations it had listed for her property. The landlord did not respond to this particular issue in its final response. However, as it had already confirmed in its stage 1 response that the resident’s home was listed as adapted and not general needs, confirmed what adaptations it had listed and that the purpose of the visit was to check that these were correct, this would not be considered a failure on its part. Nevertheless, it would have been good practice for it to have referred the resident back to the answer it had previously given.
  14. Whilst there were evidently failures by the landlord with regards to this element of the resident’s complaint, the landlord acknowledged these and offered the resident compensation that was proportionate to its failings. This is because the £250 offered falls within the range suggested in our Remedies Guidance in situations where there are failures by the landlord which adversely affected the resident but not permanently. The landlord also took steps which shows that it sought to learn from the complaint. As a result, a finding of reasonable redress has been made with regards to this element of the complaint.

Handling of the associated complaint.

  1. At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord had a 2 stage complaints policy. This stated it would acknowledge complaints at both stage 1 and 2 within 1 working day. It would then send a full written response within 10 working days at both stage 1 and stage 2.
  2. The resident logged a stage 1 complaint on 22 January 2023. This was acknowledged, in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy on 23 January 2023. The landlord would have been expected to have provided its stage 1 response within 10 working days, by 6 February 2023. However, it did not do so until this was chased by the resident on 7 February 2023. The landlord then provided the resident with its response the same day.
  3. Whilst the landlord did not acknowledge the delay in its stage 1 response, it did so in its stage 2 response, in which it offered the resident £100 compensation. This figure is in line with amounts suggested in our Remedies Guidance in situations where there has been a failure by the landlord which was of short duration and which did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident.
  4. In addition to offering compensation, the landlord also explained the reason for the delay and confirmed that it had spoken to the relevant staff to ensure they were aware of the requirement to respond to complaints within the given timescales.
  5. The resident escalated their complaint on 24 February 2023, which was acknowledged by the landlord on 27 February 2023, the next working day. In accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy at that time, it would have been expected to have provided its stage 2 response within 10 working days, by 6 March 2023. However, it did not do so until 13 March 2023, 1 week later.
  6. Whilst this was outside of the 10 working days set out in its complaints policy, the landlord providing its stage 2 within 20 working days was in line with the expectations of our Complaint Handling code at that time. This stated that landlords must respond at stage 2 within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated, which the landlord did in this case.
  7. Whilst there were evidently failures by the landlord with regards to its handling of the resident’s complaint, the landlord acknowledged these and offered the resident compensation that was proportionate to its failings. It also took steps to learn from the complaint. This it did by speaking to the relevant staff to make sure they were aware of the required timescales. As a result, a finding of reasonable redress has been made with regards to this element of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress in respect of its handling of an appointment to inspect the disability adaptations in the resident’s home.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident the £350 compensation offered in its final response if this has not already been paid. The finding of reasonable redress being dependent on this being paid to the resident.