Woking Borough Council (202331583)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331583

Woking Borough Council

21 June 2024

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 decision to defer the resident’s adaptations works to her home to the following financial year.
2. The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord and has lived in her 1-bedroom bungalow since September 2020. She has muscular dystrophy which causes mobility and dexterity issues.
4. Following an Occupational Therapist (OT) assessment on 14 July 2023, a series of adaptations to the resident’s home were recommended. The adaptations were to:
   1. raise the bathroom wash basin to facilitate better access.
   2. install SMART remote radiator valves to facilitate access to heating controls.
   3. replace the access door handle and lock with more suitable ones designed for disabled use.
5. The OT assessment stated that it was a “non-urgent” referral.
6. On 8 August 2023 the landlord informed the resident that it would not carry out the recommended adaptations in the then current financial year. It said:
   1. it had exceeded its current budget to carry out adaptations within the current financial year. Therefore the recommended adaptations to the resident’s home had been deferred to the following financial year– 2024 to 2025.
   2. the resident would be placed on a priority based waiting list until the new financial year started in April 2024. It apologised for the delay in completing the adaptations.
7. On 24 August 2023 the resident made a formal complaint. She said:
   1. she had muscular dystrophy, which had worsened over the past 6 to 12 months. She needed the adaptations to live independently and safely in her home which was corroborated by the OT assessment.
   2. she was concerned that the adaptations needed to be carried out by autumn and winter as the existing heating system would not be suitable for her to operate.
8. On 27 September 2023 the landlord issued it stage 1 response. It said:
   1. the recommended adaptations would need to be deferred until the start of the next financial year because its 2023 to 2024 adaptions budget had been fully committed.
   2. it prioritised adaptations in accordance with the occupational health specialist’s recommendations. It was aware of its obligations in respect of delivering adaptions and also understood the importance of ensuring its residents retained functional independence for as long as possible.
   3. it was obliged to work within the limitations of operational budgets and in accordance with priorities determined by the occupational health specialists along with balancing the needs of the wider “client group” for which it was responsible. Therefore the resident’s complaint was not upheld.
9. On the same day, the resident escalated her complaint as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She said the landlord did not:
   1. consider that the adaptations had been recommended by 2 OTs and had not taken into account the OT’s recommendations when it had assessed priority.
   2. acknowledge that the OT had recommended a modification to the access door handle and it did not explain the reason for not carrying out the recommended adaptations.
   3. address her concern that deferring the adaptations to the heating controls until the following spring would leave her with a control system that was unsuitable for her during autumn and winter.
   4. address that her condition was degenerative in the priority decision-making process.
10. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 6 November 2023. It said:
    1. it did not dispute the recommendations confirmed by the OTs.
    2. its adaptations budget had been fully committed. It could only consider further requests for adaptations based on advice on urgency and risk. The OT had stated that the recommended adaptations were non-urgent.
    3. as the resident condition was of a degenerative nature, it would keep her case under review and would consider any new OT assessments.
    4. it could raise the height of the basin and replace the door handle under its general repairs remit as they were be considered “minor adaptations”.
    5. the heating control system would still need to be deferred to the following financial year.
11. The resident referred her complaint to this Service. She said that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response because it had a duty to complete the recommended adaptations and should not have deferred them. By it doing so, meant that her every day quality of life was diminished, especially through the winter months.
12. It is noted that the landlord has recently contacted the resident to start the adaptations.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

13. It is noted that the resident has recently raised concerns about the landlord’s recent handling of her adaptations. While the Ombudsman empathises with the resident’s situation, in the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord should be given the opportunity to investigate and respond to the resident’s concerns in the first instance. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

The landlord’s decision to defer the resident’s adaptations works to her home to the following financial year

14. The landlord’s major adaptations policy and procedure is silent on deferrals. However, the Ombudsman has considered whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable and fair in the circumstances.
15. In its stage 1 response the landlord explained that it had deferred the resident’s adaptation works as its budgets had been fully committed. It said that it had prioritised the adaptations in line with the OT’s recommendations.  This went some way to explain how it had made its decision to defer. While the landlord is entitled to exercise its discretion, it would have been reasonable for it to have explained how it made those priority decisions – and to provide some explanation about the factors that were taken into account. T
16. It is noted that in its stage 2 response, it explained its decision-making process further when it stated that the OT recommended adaptations for the resident were “non-urgent”. Given that the OT assessment stated that it was a non-urgent referral, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on such information to determine its decision to defer the resident’s adaptation works. Its explanation was reasonable and provided the resident with some insight into its decision.
17. In the resident’s escalation request she stated that the landlord failed to consider that the adaptations were deemed necessary by 2 OTs. In response the landlord explained that it did not dispute that the adaptations were needed. This was appropriate. The evidence does not suggest that the landlord was disputing the necessity for the adaptations. Rather, it had made the decision to defer the works as they were not considered urgent and owing to budgetary constraints.
18. The resident also said that the landlord had not acknowledged that the door handle needed modification. In its response the landlord stated that it could replace the handle under its general repair service. It also said that it could raise an order for the wash basin to be raised under the same service. The landlord’s response suggests that by raising the 2 recommended adaptations under its general repair service, the resident would not have to wait until the next financial year to have them completed. This demonstrated that it was trying to put matters right and find a solution to resolve some of the resident’s concerns, which was reasonable and appropriate. While this was appropriate, it is unclear why this course of action was not identified sooner, and prior to the resident raising her concerns as a complaint. This was a shortcoming in the landlord’s handling of the matter. It is unclear whether the resident or landlord progressed this route further after the landlord issued its response. A recommendation has therefore been made accordingly.
19. The landlord reiterated that the installation of the heating control system would still be deferred to the following financial year due to budget constraints. It explained it could only consider further adaptations based on urgency and risk and advice. It also said that it would consider any new OT assessments and as the resident’s condition was of a degenerative nature it would keep her case under review.
20. The landlord’s responses were reasonable and appropriate. It demonstrated that it had taken into consideration the resident’s concerns. It explained the reasons why the resident’s adaptations had been deferred and how it came to that decision, which were reasonable. Its explanation that it would consider any further OT assessments demonstrated that it would proactively consider any changes in the resident’s circumstances and would review its decision to defer the adaptations based on additional or new information if required.  Its response demonstrated that it wanted to reassure the resident that it had taken her concerns seriously, which was appropriate.
21. The Ombudsman acknowledges that there are times when landlords must make difficult decisions to balance the demand for adaptations against its limited budgets. On some occasions, this may lead to the unfortunate event of deferring some of its residents’ adaptations when its budgets are renewed in the following financial year. In this case, the landlord’s responses explained its reasons for its decision and why the resident’s adaptations were deferred, which were reasonable. It also demonstrated a solution focused approach by providing the resident with alternative options to complete 2 out of the 3 adaptations. This was appropriate and demonstrated that it was trying to put matters right. Therefore, while we empathise with the resident’s circumstances, we have found that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision to defer the resident’s adaptations works to her home to the following financial year.

The landlord’s complaint handling

22. At the time of the complaint the landlord operated a 2-stage complaint process. It said that it would respond to stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaints being logged. It said that it would contact its residents to let them know when they should expect a reply, if it was unable to respond within those timescales.
23. It is noted that the landlord’s response timescales outlined in its policy did not align with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2022 (the Code) that stated that landlords should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. At the time of resident’s complaint, it was acknowledged by this Service that landlords who were housing departments within local authorities would have different complaint response times in order for them to appropriately and effectively manage their multiple services they were responsible for. On 1 April 2024 a revised version of the Code (Code 2024) came into force. It is now a requirement for all landlords, including local authorities to adhere to its complaint response times.
24. In addition, under powers introduced by the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 compliance with the Code is now statutory and all member landlords will be completing a self-assessment against the Code. For this reason no order has been made for the landlord to review its policy. However, the landlord’s actions in ensuring that its policy is Code compliant will be reviewed by our Duty to Monitor team.
25. We have not applied the Code 2024 retrospectively for the purpose of this investigation. Rather, we have assessed the landlord’s actions against its own policy and the version of the Code that was in force at the time. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 24 August 2023 and the landlord responded on 27 September 2023. The evidence provided does not demonstrate when the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. Nonetheless, taking into consideration that the landlord had 5 working days to acknowledge the resident’s complaint; it responded in accordance with its policy timescales of 20 working days.
26. In the resident’s complaint she stated that she was concerned that the landlord’s decision to defer her adaptations until the following year would affect her ability to live independently in her home in the remaining year. The landlord’s response went some way to explain its decision to defer her adaptations. However, the Code 2022 states that landlords must respond to residents’ specific concerns. As such, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide a direct response to the resident’s concerns about living independently. That it did not was a failing, and a missed opportunity. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for it to have signposted the resident to support services or recommended that she discuss her concerns further with the OT. This would have demonstrated that it had taken her complaint seriously and was taken reasonable steps to resolve the matter.
27. The resident escalated her complaint on 27 September 2023. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 6 November 2023 which was approximately 4 days outside of its policy timescales. While this was a narrow departure from the timescales, it was a failing. Furthermore, there is no evidence to demonstrate that it contacted the resident to explain that its response would be delayed. That was a further failing.
28. Overall, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s specific concerns. It did not respond to the resident within its own timescales at stage 2 of its complaint process. There is also no evidence to suggest that it informed the resident that its response would be delayed. Therefore, we have found that there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord’s decision to defer the resident’s adaptations works to her home to the following financial year.
30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

31. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should pay the resident £80 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling.

Recommendations

32. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should remind complaint handling staff of the importance of responding to residents’ specific concerns in its complaint responses.
33. The landlord should review its adaptations deferral process. In particular, it should ensure that the process includes identifying works that can be carried out sooner via its repair service where appropriate.