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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202212381)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212381

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

8 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to remove a shower cubicle and install a bath in her property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, in a three bedroom property with a wet room shower.
  2. The resident was rehoused in her current property in 2021 following a previous incident of domestic violence. The resident states that she raised concerns about the property having a shower at the time and advised the landlord she would need a bath due to her medical condition, as she used heat therapy for pain management. The resident stated she was advised the property was due for a bathroom upgrade, and that she felt obliged to accept the property as it was.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 22 June 2022. She requested a bath be installed in her property instead of a wet room, and complained about the landlord’s poor service and communication.
  4. The landlord provided its stage one response on 27 June 2022. It said the resident was offered a one-time move due to safety concerns, and that it understood the resident said the wet room was unsuitable for her needs. It noted that the resident contacted the local Occupational Therapy team to assess her need for a bath, which they were unable to assist with due to it being of a medical nature. The Occupational Therapy team advised no adaptions were required for the current bathroom. The landlord advised the resident to provide a medical report to support her request, and it could review the request again.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint to stage two on 5 September 2022. She remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and reiterated her need for a bath due to her medical condition. The resident complained the shower was not suitable and had broken several times.
  6. The landlord provided its stage two response on 14 November 2022. The landlord advised the resident it would need a letter of recommendation from the Occupational Therapy team with a plan, layout, and specific drawings and measurements and any equipment required. The landlord acknowledged that the resident provided medical information in support of her request, but had not provided a letter of recommendation from Occupational Therapy, therefore it could not assist. The landlord offered the resident £180 in recognition of its complaint handling failures.
  7. In March 2023 the landlord said that the pipework in the property did not allow for a bath to be fitted. The landlord stated it would be willing to explore relocation, and advised the resident to consider a mutual exchange to find a more suitable property for her needs. The resident remained unhappy with this, and disputed that the pipework would not allow for a bath. She also advised she was unhappy to move due to the investment already made in furnishing the property.
  8. An additional stage two response was provided on 13 April 2023, in which the landlord addressed the same complaint points about the installation of a bath. It apologised for poor handling of the resident’s concerns, and advised it would visit the property with a surveyor and further chase a response from Occupational Therapy. The landlord apologised for the delay in response and time and effort taken with a further £200 compensation offer.
  9. When she referred her complaint to this Service, the resident said that not having a bath had impacted her physically and mentally for over a year. Although the landlord had repaired the shower, the resident does not feel the landlord has taken her medical condition and suffering of chronic pain into account.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has stated that her medical condition has worsened because she does not have a bath to use for heat therapy, and this has also affected her mental health. Often when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts rely on expert evidence in the form of a medico-legal report. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. Without that evidence, this Service is not able to draw any conclusions on whether the resident’s health has been affected by the way in which the landlord handled her request for a bath. This question may be better for the courts to decide, where an expert can be cross examined during a live hearing. This means that this service is not able to say to any degree of certainty that the resident’s health was impacted in the way explained.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy defines a major adaptation as ‘works which are more of a complex nature and should be based upon the assessment and recommendation of a qualified Occupational Therapist’. It also states the landlord will ‘adapt properties where it is practical to do so considering the age of the property, structure and practicality of the adaptation’.
  2. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will respond to a complaint within 10 working days at stage one, and 20 working days at stage two.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to install a bath in her property.

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair- treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
    2. Put things right, and;
    3. Learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
  3. In January 2022 the local authority’s Occupational Therapy team attended the property following a request from the resident in relation to having a bath installed. In February 2022, the Occupational Therapy team emailed the resident and stated, ‘Based on the outcome of the assessment your request is based purely on medical need (pain control). I am therefore sorry to advise that we are unable to assist at this time. I will inform [the landlord] about this decision.’
  4. In its stage one response from June 2022, the landlord stated that Occupational Therapy advised it was unable to assist, and that no adaptations were recommended. The landlord said that if the resident could proved a medical report from a consultant in relation to her medical condition, detailing how having a bath would assist, the request could be reviewed again and it would consider if it could support, though no guarantees were made.
  5. This evidence supports that landlord’s position in its stage one letter that the Occupational Therapy team had not recommend that a bath be installed. As such, the landlord’s position that it would therefore not install one was in line with its aids and adaptations policy. In the Ombudsman’s view the stage one response was reasonable, as the landlord advised the resident of what it would need in order to make an adaptation to the bathroom and offered to review the request, once this had been received.
  6. The resident provided the medical information that was asked for, which included a letter of support from her consultant. In the stage two complaint response, the landlord confirmed that it accepted the medical evidence the resident had provided but this was insufficient on its own for approval of the major adaptation works that had been requested. The landlord advised the resident it would also need a letter of recommendation from Occupational Therapy with dimensions and measurements for the bathtub in order to proceed with her request, as per its major adaptations policy. As this was not provided, it could not move forward with the resident’s request. The landlord advised the resident once it had received the Occupational Therapy recommendation, it would reassess the request.
  7. Although the landlord has adhered to its major adaptations policy, it is unclear why it asked the resident for supporting medical evidence, only to then reiterate it would still need the Occupational Therapy recommendation to proceed. It is unclear whether the landlord assessed the resident’s evidence, as no further comment has been made, other than stating the evidence was accepted but insufficient by itself. The resident had taken the time to obtain supporting evidence, on the recommendation of the landlord, yet this does not appear to have been reasonably considered. This was poor communication from the landlord, and contributed to the time and effort taken by the resident in pursuing her complaint. This was a shortcoming on the part of the landlord.
  8. However, while Ombudsman empathises with the resident’s position, and it is clear that she finds living in a home without a bath unsuitable for her needs, there is no indication of maladministration on the part of the landlord here, as it acted in a reasonable manner as it adhered to its policy.
  9. Further to this, in March 2023 the landlord advised the resident the pipework in the property would not allow for a bathtub and recommended she consider alternative accommodation through a mutual exchange or home swap programme. It is unclear what evidence the conclusions about the pipework were based on, as there is no record provided of an inspection and the landlord was unable to provide one when asked by this Service. The resident has disputed the landlord’s claims about the pipework. As such, recommendations are made below.
  10. It was appropriate for the landlord to suggest exploring alternative accommodation more suitable to the resident’s needs, and provide an assessment for the resident to complete in order to make an application to be rehoused on medical grounds. The Ombudsman understands the resident’s reluctance to move, but finds the landlord has acted reasonably in the absence of the required evidence to adapt her current property.
  11. In the complaint response from 13 April 2023, the landlord said that efforts had previously been made to contact Occupational Therapy and obtain a recommendation, but they were unsuccessful. As a result, the complaint was unable to move forward. The landlord apologised for poor handling of the resident’s concerns; put the resident in touch with a specific member of staff, advised a visit would take place with a surveyor, and further requests would be made from Occupational Therapy. It was appropriate for the landlord to take steps to try and further assist the resident, though no supporting evidence has been provided to confirm this so it is unclear whether the visit went ahead. As such, recommendations are made below.
  12. Overall, the landlord has reasonably considered the resident’s request, and appropriately explored available options. It has explained that it cannot proceed without a recommendation from Occupational Therapy, and this is in line with its policy. The Ombudsman finds the landlord has acted in a reasonable manner in this regard.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The resident complained on 22 June 2022 and the landlord provided its stage one response on 27 June 2022, 5 days later. The landlord adhered to the timeframe set out in its complaints policy at this stage. However, the resident escalated the complaint to stage two on 5 September 2022 and the landlord did not provide its response until 14 November 2022, 49 working days later. This service chased the landlord for a response on behalf of the resident on 31 October 2022, which should not have been necessary. The stage two response was sent 29 days outside of its policy, which was a failing as the landlord significantly exceeded its complaint response timeframe. The Ombudsman expects that landlords ought to be able to manage complaints appropriately without this Service’s involvement. It is therefore the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has caused the resident an unreasonable delay in seeking redress through this Service.
  2. However, the landlord apologised to the resident for its failure in complaint handling, and offered £100 for the delay in its stage two response, £30 for the time and effort taken, and £50 for the inconvenience. Further to this, the landlord offered an additional £200 in its later complaint response from April 2023.
  3. It is acknowledged that the landlord’s complaint handling failings led to additional time and effort to the representative in pursuing the complaint. In accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance, awards of £50-£100 are appropriate in cases where there has been a service failure by the landlord, which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. As a result, the compensation offered by the landlord was in line with this Service’s remedies guidance and has demonstrated that it has reasonably redressed this element of the complaint. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to assess its staff training requirements regarding complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to install a bath in her property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53 c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the member has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about poor complaint handling satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should ensure that it does not make requests for medical information to residents unnecessarily.
  2. If it has not done so already, the landlord should undertake the surveyor visit as referred to in its April 2023 letter, detail the outcome of this and any recommendations made, and update the resident on the outcome.
  3. If it has not done so already, the landlord should make the further requests to Occupational Therapy as referred to in its April 2023 letter, and provide the resident with an update on the outcome.
  4. The landlord should review its processes and its staff’s training needs in respect of the application of its complaint policy and procedure.