NSAH (Alliance Homes) Limited (202224581)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224581

NSAH (Alliance Homes) Limited

17 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s Subject Access Request.
2. The resident’s request for adaptations to his existing property.
3. The resident’s request for a transfer to a new build property.
4. The resident’s reports of outstanding repairs.
5. The resident’s complaint.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Background

The resident lives in the property, owned by the landlord, under an assured tenancy. At the time the complaint was raised the property was a 3-bedroom semi-detached house which has since had an extension built which includes an additional bedroom. The resident lives there with his wife and children. He underwent hip surgery during the period under investigation and his wife has arthritis.
The resident first contacted the landlord to discuss his need for adaptations to the property on 23 February 2021. At this time the resident also asked about moving home and was told he would have to register for a home swap following its usual process. During April and May 2021 the landlord made contact with the resident’s Occupational Therapist (OT) to discuss the possibility of carrying out adaptations.
In November 2021 the resident raised repair requests for damaged fencing, which was fixed on 3 February 2022, and cracks to the garage wall.
On 25 January 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to discuss the adaptations request. The landlord had not received anything further from the OT and on 2 February contacted them to find out why the case appeared to have been rejected at the OT stage. The OT replied on 3 February 2022, saying that the adaptations the resident had requested were not possible. The OT said they had suggested the possibility of downstairs living, but the resident said that there was not enough space.
On 3 February 2022 the resident told the landlord that he thought the garage was unsafe and needed to be pulled down, however the landlord’s contractor had visited the previous week and said it was repairable. The cracks in the walls were repaired on 19 April 2022. The same day the resident asked for a complaint to be raised about the adaptations he had asked for, as he said the OT had told him that they had closed the case as they had not heard from the landlord.
On 22 March 2022 the landlord spoke with the resident who agreed to have the complaint closed as the local authority were willing to re-open the case and review the property for a ground floor wet room. The landlord’s contractor visited the property on 26 April 2022 to carry out a feasibility assessment, and drawings were prepared the following day for a ground floor extension with a bedroom and wet room.
In May 2022 it became apparent that there were some new build properties that might be suitable for the resident due for completion soon. The resident said he and his wife were positive about moving to one of these properties and arrangements were made for the OT to visit the property to assess suitability. A property was offered to the resident in August 2022, however the resident subsequently declined the offer in October 2022, and the landlord then reverted to looking into the adaptations to the current property.
The resident raised a further complaint, however evidence has not been provided to this Service of what was raised or when this was raised. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 21 October 2022 in which it said that it has offered the resident a property, and he had refused this, so the case had been referred back to the local authority to discuss an application for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG).
The complaint was escalated, however again no evidence has been provided of when this was requested, or why the resident asked for the escalation. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 20 December 2022, in which it said it had communicated regularly with the resident throughout the process. It said that it had no records of any outstanding repair issues with the current property and that the garage was in a good condition. It said it did not recall the resident requesting help with moving and that it had provided reasonable notice of the possible move. The resident remained unhappy with this response and contacted this Service on 13 January 2023 to ask us to investigate.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme, 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.
Part of the resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of his Subject Access Request (SAR) request. The Information Commissioners Office (ICO) are the independent regulator for upholding information rights in the interest of the public. As complaints about SAR requests fall under the ICO’s jurisdiction, the resident is advised to approach the ICO if he wishes to pursue this aspect of his complaint.

Request for adaptations

The landlord’s policy on adaptations says that where major adaptations are required it will refer the resident to the local authority for an assessment. The policy says it will liaise with the local authority in securing a DFG for the resident and in doing so will act as an agent for the resident in dealing with the DFG process. Where appropriate it will liaise with other statutory and voluntary agencies to ensure the resident’s needs are met.
The resident first contacted the landlord to discuss his need for adaptations on 23 February 2021. At this time he said he needed the staircase changing to allow for a stairlift to be installed and for the bathroom to be changed to a wet room. He also asked about the possibility of moving to a property that was already adapted to meet his needs, and he was told he would have to register for a home swap under the landlord’s normal process. During April and May 2021 the landlord made enquiries with the OT about the feasibility of the adaptations, however there is no evidence it received a decision or response from the OT or local authority.
On 25 January 2022 the resident spoke to the landlord about the adaptations they had discussed the year before. The landlord looked into this and found that it had not received any approval from the OT in relation to a DFG application, and on 2 February 2022 it contacted the OT to chase this up. They replied on 3 February 2022 to say that the case had been closed because 2 companies had assessed the property and found that the requested adaptations were not possible.
The OT said that downstairs living was discussed with the resident, but that he had said it was clear there was not enough space for this. There is no evidence that the outcome of this assessment was communicated to the landlord by the OT when the decision was made. Based on the landlord’s obligations under its policy, it could have been more proactive in chasing a response from the OT, however it is also noted that the resident did not chase this up with the landlord between February 2021 and January 2022.
On 3 February 2022 the resident asked to raise a complaint about the adaptations, as he believed that the OT had closed the case due to a lack of contact from the landlord. The landlord contacted the resident on 17 February 2022, when it explained that the OT had closed the case as the adaptations were not possible. As this decision was for the OT to make and not the landlord, it is reasonable that the landlord was not in control of the closure of the case, and this Service has seen no evidence that the OT closed the case because of anything the landlord did or did not do.
On 22 March 2022 the landlord spoke to the resident again and said the local authority were willing to re-open the case and review the property for a ground floor wet room, and the resident accepted that the landlord had not been made aware by the OT that the adaptations were not possible and agreed for the complaint to be closed at this time.
On 26 April 2022 a feasibility assessment was carried out and the following day drawings were prepared for adaptations to meet the resident’s needs. Due to the small room sizes in the house it was not possible or practical for a through floor lift or stairlift to be fitted, so the resident required a ground floor extension with a bedroom and wet room.
On 10 May 2022 the landlord conducted an internal meeting where it discussed the possibility of the resident moving to a new build that may be suitable and was due for completion imminently. On 12 May 2022 it updated the OT about this option and looked to arrange a meeting at the new build site for the OT to assess the suitability.
The resident contacted the landlord on 18 May 2022 to say he had heard nothing more, and the landlord responded to say it had no update to provide and would let him know when it had a definitive answer on the suitability of the new build. The resident’s MP contacted the landlord the next day to express concerns on behalf of the resident and asked to be briefed on the situation.
The landlord responded to the MP on 24 May 2022, explaining that it had first become aware of the resident’s concerns on 17 February 2022 when it had called him to discuss his complaint. It explained that the case had been reopened but that it was currently looking at whether a new build was more suitable for the resident. It assured the MP that it was liaising with the local authority to push on as quickly as possible.
On 14 July 2022 the landlord let the resident know it had attended the new build with the OT and they would be in contact with him soon to discuss it. On 4 August 2022 the landlord offered a new build property to the resident, but it was not yet ready for him to view it. On 30 August 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to say that he was told he would be able to view the property himself around this time and wanted an update.
The resident viewed the potential new property on 29 September 2022 and on 6 October 2022 declined the property, and said he would like to proceed with looking into the ground floor extension. On 24 October 2022 the landlord contacted the local authority to find out how far the application had been processed. It explained to the local authority that it would need planning permission which could take up to 8 weeks and then would need to put the work out to tender for a further 6 weeks. This Service has seen no evidence that these timeframes were communicated to the resident.
In its stage 2 response of 20 December 2022 the landlord said that it was not made aware by the local authority or OT that it had closed the case, but once this was established it liaised with them to re-open the case and progress the application for adaptations. It also said that it had kept the resident regularly updated, however this Service has not seen evidence of this.
On 10 February 2023 the local authority said that the OT confirmed that the drawings it had received would meet the resident’s needs and asked the landlord to submit them for planning permission. On 8 June 2023 the landlord updated the local authority that it had sent enquiries to 9 contractors but had received only 1 tender. The local authority said it would need 2 more quotes, which the landlord agreed to obtain.
On 16 August 2023 the tender was approved and a pre-start meeting took place on 20 August 2023. The work started in September 2023 and was expected to take 3 months to complete, and was due to finish in December 2023. This Service has not received confirmation that this was completed, however it is reasonable to conclude that the work has been completed as there is no evidence of the resident having raised further concerns on this issue.
The progression of major adaptations relies on the cooperation and decision making of the OT and local authority, and the landlord was not responsible for deciding on the feasibility of the requested adaptations. Once the work was approved, there were processes that had to be followed, such as getting planning permission and tenders for the work, which take some time to be completed.
Once the resident had declined the new build property, the landlord took prompt action to move along the request for the major adaptations, and there is no evidence of it causing any delays during this period. However, as per its obligations under its adaptations policy, it could have done more in the year following the initial request to chase up the OT to find out the outcome of its assessment, which it did not do.
There is also no evidence that the landlord set out clear expectations with the resident of how long it would likely take for the work to be completed once the drawings had been submitted to the local authority.
The Ombudsman considers that there has been service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for adaptations. Whilst the majority of responsibility for delays did not lie with the landlord, it could have been more proactive in chasing the OT and local authority and should have set realistic expectations for the resident, given his vulnerabilities.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for compensation from £50 for cases where “there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided and it did not appropriately acknowledge these and /or fully put them right”. An order has been made for the landlord to pay compensation of £200 to the resident to reflect the distress caused by the landlord’s handling of his request for adaptations.

Request for a transfer to a new build property

It is not clear from the landlord’s records exactly what the resident raised in his complaint in relation to the transfer. However, in its complaint responses, the landlord has addressed issues relating to the amount of time he was given to decide whether to take the property, and if he took it, the amount of time he had to move, and the landlord’s failure to offer any assistance with moving.
The landlord first suggested the possibility of the resident moving to a new build property in May 2022. At this time the properties were not yet completed and the site was not safe for the resident to visit himself. The landlord arranged to visit the site with the OT for them to assess the suitability of the property, and it requested that a stairlift installer visit at the same time, to ensure a stairlift could be fitted.
This site visit went ahead on 14 July 2022 and the landlord let the resident know that the OT would be in touch shortly to discuss it further. The landlord said it offered the property to the resident on 4 August 2022, and whilst its notes are not clear, it appears that the property was still not yet ready for him to visit it. He was able to visit the property on 29 September 2022 and was initially given the weekend to make a decision on whether to accept the property.
He asked for more time to make a decision, as he wanted to be able to visit the local school before making a decision. The landlord said a weekend was the usual timescale given, due to the number of people waiting for properties, however it agreed to extend the deadline to 5pm on 10 October 2022.
The resident had recently had hip surgery and his wife has arthritis, so he requested assistance with moving as it was going to be difficult for them to move without help. On 5 October 2022 the landlord told the resident that if he chose to accept the property, its resettlement support team could look at accessing any grants available to assist with the cost of moving.
The resident replied to say that grants would take time to obtain and he had previously been told during a visit to his home that help would be available. The landlord’s staff member dealing with the case said they did not remember offering assistance, and said that it had not been discussed at length as it was not their area.
On 6 October 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to say he was declining the property. He said that it had put pressure on him and had unrealistic expectations of how quickly he would be able to move.
In its stage 1 response of 21 October 2022 the landlord said that the resident had refused the property and so had been referred back to the local authority to look into a DFG application.
In its stage 2 response of 20 December 2022 the landlord said that it did not recall him asking for help to move and it does not normally assist with this. The evidence this Service has seen shows that this was not accurate, and that the resident had made the landlord aware he would need help moving, and the landlord had said it may be able to help him obtain grants. It is also important to note that the resident’s reason for needing to move was due to his mobility, and therefore it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have understood that moving would not be a straightforward process for him.
The landlord also said that it kept him updated of potential move dates up to 2 months before, which is more notice than its tenants usually get. However, for much of this 2 month period the house was not ready for the resident to view. Once he was able to view the property, it only gave him a few days to make a decision, which it then extended by 10 days. It is not reasonable for the landlord to have expected the resident to use the previous 2 months to pack up his home, when he did not yet know whether the property would be suitable and if he would actually be moving.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s request for a transfer to a new property. It offered the option to apply for grants to help with moving, but subsequently said that the resident had never asked for help, which was not the case. When it said grants could be applied for, it still only gave 5 days for the resident to make a decision, which was unlikely to be enough time for these grants to be sought.
Given the resident’s vulnerabilities, the discussion about grants should have taken place earlier in the process to allow these to be available for when the landlord was ready to offer the property to the resident, or it should have allowed the resident to apply for these grants before giving a decision on whether to accept the property.
The resident was put in a position by the landlord where he felt he had no choice but to turn down the property. Had he been aware of the timescales that he would be expected to adhere to, he may have chosen to continue with the adaptations process at that time, however no action was taken regarding adaptations whilst the landlord and the resident were considering the new build property. Whilst it is understandable that the landlord would not consider both routes at the same time, its actions in relation to the transfer ultimately impacted on finding a suitable resolution for the resident.
An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £300 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the transfer request. An order has also been made for a senior manager at the landlord to apologise for its role in making him feel pressure and ultimately deciding not to proceed.
A recommendation has also been made for the landlord to carry out a case review in relation to its transfer process to ensure it is able to offer support to vulnerable residents at the appropriate time during the transfer process.

Outstanding repairs

The tenancy sets out the landlord’s obligation to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the home, as well as fences and floors. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out 7 different categories of repairs priorities with response times ranging from 2 hours to 150 days.
As part of his complaint, the resident said that there were a number of outstanding repairs to the property.
On 9 November 2021 the resident reported that the garage walls had cracks in that were letting in water. This was raised as a P4 priority with a target of 90 days. The landlord initially inspected the garage on 4 February 2022 and found it to be structurally sound. The resident disagreed, saying he felt the garage had ‘concrete cancer’ and was unsafe and should be pulled down.
The landlord arranged a further inspection on 10 March 2022, which had been slightly delayed due to the inspector contracting Covid-19. The inspection found that the garage was in a good condition and was fit for its intended use as an external storage space. The roof sheets possibly contained asbestos but were free from damage. As per the landlord’s asbestos policy, it was not required to remove asbestos unless it was disturbed or damaged.
The landlord’s repairs logs shows that the cracked walls were repaired on 19 April 2022. Whilst this was outside the 90 day timeframe, this delay was largely down to the resident’s request for a further inspection, which drew the same conclusion as the first, so the landlord did not act unreasonably in relation to this repair.
Meanwhile, the resident reported that some fencing panels had fallen down as a truck had reversed into them. This was logged as a P4 priority with a 90 day target.
On 24 May 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that the floorboards beneath the bath were rotten. This was raised as a P2 priority with a target of 7 days. The landlord’s contractor visited the next day, in line with the timescale, and found that the bath legs needed adjusting but that the floorboards under the bath were not rotten, and were in good condition.
It was, however, found at this visit that there were some loose floorboards on the landing. The contractor said these did not present a health and safety hazard so this job was logged as a P4 priority with a target of 90 days. The repair was completed on 29 June 2022, which was within the target timescale.
The landlord’s repair log states that the fence repair was carried out in September 2022, however in it stage 2 response of 20 December 2022, it said that this repair was still outstanding and was with a contractor awaiting completion. The landlord has provided no further records to confirm whether this repair was completed.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been service failure by the landlord in relation to outstanding repairs at the property. Its records show that is has completed most repairs within a reasonable timescale, and has carried out inspections into issues the resident was concerned about. However, it took too long to repair the broken fence, and it is not clear whether this was completed. Whilst this repair was not carried out in a reasonable timescale, there is no evidence of any detriment caused to the resident by this issue.
An order has been made for the landlord to provide evidence that this repair has been completed, and if not, carry out the repair within 28 days of this report.

The resident’s complaint

Landlords must have an effective complaints process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaints process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will acknowledge a complaint by close of business the working day after it is received and provide a response within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 10 working days of the escalation request at stage 2.
The resident first asked to raise a complaint to the landlord about his request for adaptations on 3 February 2022. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the complaint, and the resident called to chase it up on 17 February 2022, by which time the landlord should have already issued a stage 1 response. The landlord discussed the complaint with the resident on 22 March 2022 and gained the resident’s agreement to close the complaint. This was not in line with its process, and given how much time had already passed, it was not appropriate for the landlord to not have responded to the complaint in line with its policy.
The resident’s MP emailed the landlord on 19 May 2022, and this email clearly expressed the resident’s dissatisfaction. So, whether or not this was when the landlord logged a complaint, this was when it was clear the resident was not happy with the progress of his adaptation request. However, the landlord’s records do not indicate that it raised a complaint at this time.
The complaint the landlord responded to at stage 1, on 21 October 2022, only addressed the resident’s dissatisfaction in relation to the handling of his transfer request. It is not clear when the resident raised the complaint about this issue, however as he declined the property on 6 October 2022, it cannot have been earlier than this.
The landlord has also not provided evidence of the resident’s escalation request, so the Ombudsman is unable to determine whether it adhered to the timescales set out in its policy. In its stage 2 response, sent on 20 December 2022, it did address all of the resident’s complaint points, some of which were raised in February 2022 and May 2022, despite having not addressed these at stage 1.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. Its failure to keep full records relating to the complaint means it has been unable to demonstrate it responded to the resident’s complaint in a reasonable manner. It is clear that it did not respond to the complaint raised in February 2022 in line with its policy and that it missed an opportunity to address some of the resident’s concerns in May 2022. However, it did pick up all of these outstanding issues when it sent its stage 2 response, allowing the resident to escalate all his issues to this Service.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for compensation from £50 for cases where “there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided and it did not appropriately acknowledge these and /or fully put them right”. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £50 to recognise the impact of its complaint handling failures on the resident.
A recommendation has also been made for the landlord to carry out a review of its complaints process to ensure that it adheres to its complaints policy.

Knowledge and information management

Effective knowledge and information management plays a vital role in landlord’s ability to manage both repairs and complaints effectively.
As explained above, the landlord has failed to provide this Service with full records of the resident’s complaints, and evidence that the fence has been repaired. The records it has provided evidently do not include all correspondence between the landlord and the resident during the period investigated. In its stage 2 response it said that it had kept the resident updated throughout the adaptations process, but its records do not reflect this. This poor record keeping led to its complaint handling failures.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its knowledge and information management as it has failed to keep complete records and update the resident’s records where appropriate.
An order has been made for the landlord to self-assess using the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of his SAR request is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s request for adaptations.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s request for a transfer to a new build property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in relation to its handling of outstanding repairs at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its knowledge and information management.

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident total compensation of £550, made up of:
1. £200 in relation to its handling of the resident’s request for adaptations.
2. £300 in relation to its handling of the resident’s transfer request.
3. £50 in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord to repair the fence, if it has not already, and provide evidence to this Service that the repair has been completed.
A senior manager to provide a written apology to the resident.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this service within 28 days of this report.
The landlord to self-assess using the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on knowledge and information management. The landlord should produce a report setting out the findings and learnings from the review, and provide a copy of this to this Service within 8 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord to carry out a case review in relation to its transfer process to ensure it is able to offer support to vulnerable residents at the appropriate time during the transfer process.
The landlord to carry out a review of its complaints process to ensure that it adheres to its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.