Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited (202329287)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329287

Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited

12 June 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the resident’s subject access request (SAR).
   2. Response to the resident’s reports that a contractor damaged his property and caused him an injury during bathroom adaptation works.
   3. Delays to approve accessibility adaptations.

Background

2. The resident held an assured tenancy of a 2-bedroom first-floor flat. The tenancy started in March 2011. The landlord is a housing association and the freeholder of the property. The resident has now purchased the leasehold for the property. The landlord recognises the resident as a person diagnosed with schizophrenia who also experiences seizures.
3. In 2021 the landlord approved a wet room adaptation for the resident’s property. The local council had responsibility for appointing a specialist contractor and the co-ordination of the work as part of a disabled facilities grant (DFG). The council informed the landlord that it had stopped work at the resident’s request during 2021. The council said it encountered ongoing access difficulties and had not completed the work.
4. In 2022 the resident asked the landlord to rehang his internal doors to open outwards. An Occupational Therapist (OT) recommended this due to the resident’s seizures. The landlord approved this work in July 2022. It informed the resident that it required him to allow the council access to complete the wet room adaptations prior to work starting on the doors.
5. On 17 March 2023 the resident submitted a SAR to the landlord and complained on 22 March 2023. He wanted to know why the landlord refused work to his doors. While not part of his original complaint, correspondence from the resident said the appointed wet room adaptations contractor caused damage to his property in 2021. He also said he had suffered an injury due to the contractor’s poor workmanship.
6. The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 2 April 2023. It explained that it had approved adaptations to his doors and the council would appoint a specialist contractor. The landlord explained the resident needed to allow access for the council to complete the wet room before the work to the doors could start.
7. On 26 July 2023 the resident escalated his complaint. He said the landlord had “lied.” The resident said the council had told him the landlord had refused the adaptation work to his doors. He was also unhappy as the landlord had not responded to his SAR request.
8. On 22 August 2023 the landlord sent its stage 2 response. The landlord repeated it had approved adaptation work to the resident’s doors and explained the council’s need to access his property. The landlord encouraged the resident to engage and acknowledged it had not correctly responded to his SAR. It apologised, provided the contact details to submit his request again, and informed him of the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) to raise a complaint.
9. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought the complaint to us. He said the landlord had lied to him and refused his adaptations. He wanted compensation as redress for the effects on his mental health and for an injury caused in 2021.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

10. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme governs what we can and cannot consider and what is within our jurisdiction. When a resident brings a complaint to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why we cannot investigate a complaint.
11. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraphs 42.j. and 42.f. of the Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s subject access request (SAR).
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that a contractor damaged his property and caused him an injury during bathroom adaptation works.
12. Paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
13. The Ombudsman is unable to investigate complaints concerning the landlord’s handling of data and failures to respond to a SAR request. The resident also made a complaint to the ICO who investigated his concerns. While the landlord does not dispute that it missed opportunities to respond to the resident’s request, the ICO decision addressed the landlord’s delays in its approach. Therefore, the resident was correct to contact the ICO and this matter will not form part of this investigation.
14. Paragraph 42.f of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
15. In contact with us in September 2023, the resident described suffering an injury and damage to his property in 2021. The resident considered the appointed wet room contractor responsible. The local council appointed the contractor as part of the approved disability adaptation works. Therefore, the resident should have complained at the time and directly to the local council. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice regarding this matter as this will not form part of our investigation.

Scope of investigation

16. The resident says the landlord’s handling of his adaptation requests worsened his anxiety and suicidal thoughts. He also states the increased stress brought on seizures.
17. Although we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to prove legal liability. Nor can we award damages for personal injury. These matters require a decision by a court or an insurance claim. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if he wants to pursue a claim for damages.

Delays to approve accessibility adaptations

18. The landlord’s adaptations policy states it will review cases along with the local council within 3 months from an OT referral.
19. The same policy also states the landlord and local council will jointly review and prioritise individual cases through a multi-agency adaptation panel meeting every 5 to 6 weeks. The landlord will then inform residents in writing of the panel meeting decision to approve any adaptation work.
20. On 21 July 2022 the landlord’s aids and adaptations panel met following receipt of an OT assessment for the resident. It approved adaptation work to rehang the resident’s internal doors and wrote to the resident on 4 August 2022. The landlord explained how the local council would take responsibility for the work and contact the resident to arrange. This was consistent with the landlord’s adaptations policy.
21. Following the resident’s complaint in March 2023, the landlord sent a stage 1 response on 3 April 2023. It explained it had not refused the work as the resident claimed, and said the local council required access to his property to complete wet room adaptations before the doors could be rehung. As the landlord was not leading on the adaptation work, it was reasonable for it to encourage the resident to engage with the council to progress matters.
22. That said, the landlord was aware of the required work and the resident’s vulnerabilities. It is therefore unclear why its communication did not demonstrate a co-ordinated approach with the council at the time. Had it done so, the landlord may have been able to ensure the resident understood why the council needed to complete work in a particular order. This may have reassured the resident and managed his expectations.
23. Between July to August 2023 the resident continued to say the landlord refused the work. While we note he states “the council told him” this, we have identified no evidence which indicates this. The landlord acted reasonably by repeating its position to the resident, reassuring him it had approved the work, and encouraged him to engage with the council.
24. However, it is again unclear why there is no evidence of how the landlord monitored the outstanding work. While the local council had responsibility for the adaptation works, it is reasonable to have expected the landlord to have demonstrated communication with the council to monitor progress. It should also have shown how it supported the council’s attempts to access the resident’s property. That it did not, indicates gaps in the landlord’s knowledge and information management practices at the time. We have therefore recommended the landlord considers this point for future learning opportunities.
25. Furthermore, we note the landlord did not update its customer records regarding the resident’s vulnerabilities until August 2023. While its communication always acknowledged the resident’s health, it took for its complaints team to identify and correct this issue. We have therefore made a recommendation for the landlord to ensure staff are aware of the process to, and importance of, maintaining accurate customer records.
26. A resident does have the right to quiet enjoyment of their home. This includes their right to not engage with the landlord unless for a reason specifically mentioned in the tenancy agreement or a statutory requirement. In this case, it was not the landlord’s responsibility to enforce engagement. There were no statutory works and the local council had responsibility for the progress of the adaptations approved by the landlord.
27. However, while we do not find the landlord delayed its approval of the adaptation work, there were gaps in the effectiveness of the landlord’s communication. This caused the resident avoidable time, trouble, and distress.
28. Our determinations should also recognise the fact that the distress caused to an individual resident is unique to them. Not all residents will experience the same distress in response to the same instance of maladministration. This might be due to their particular circumstances, or as a result of a vulnerability (‘aggravating factors’). Consideration of any aggravating factors could justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident.
29. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities, it was reasonable to have expected the landlord to have demonstrated how it engaged with the local council to aid access to the property. It was also reasonable to have expected the landlord to have ensured the resident understood the reasons why the doors could not be rehung before the bathroom’s completion. Had the landlord taken steps to adapt its communication based on the resident’s needs, it may have avoided the misunderstanding and reassured the resident.
30. Therefore, based on our findings and consideration of aggravating factors, we find service failure with the landlord’s handling of this matter. We order the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation. This is consistent with our remedies guide when there has been a loss of confidence in the landlord’s services.

Determination

31. In accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s subject access request (SAR), is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
32. In accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that a contractor damaged his property and caused him an injury during bathroom adaptation works, is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s delays to approve accessibility adaptations.

Recommendations

Orders

34. We order the landlord to take the following action within 4 working weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £50 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s delays to approve accessibility adaptations.

Recommendations

35. We recommend the landlord:
    1. Reminds staff of the importance of updating customer vulnerability records.
    2. Use this case as learning to consider how it would support the local council with access difficulties in the future.