Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (202317016)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317016

Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council

19 August 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

This complaint is about:
1. The Council’s decision to end the resident’s previous accommodation and offer him his current property.
2. The landlord’s handling of adaptation works at the resident’s property.
3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. The tenancy commenced on 25 April 2017.
The landlord is aware of the resident’s disabilities and health issues including that he is a wheelchair user, following a stroke in 2009, and that he has stress/light induced epilepsy, paralysis in his hip and shoulder, sight loss and tinnitus.
On 6 September 2022, the resident’s Occupational Therapist (OT) completed a recommendation for adaptations at the resident’s property. The OT referred to the resident having a Single Point of Contact (SPOC) with the landlord and asked that it be ensured that the SPOC advocated for the resident throughout the adaptations process. The OTs recommendations were received by the landlord on 14 September 2022.
A meeting was held on 1 December 2022, which the resident, his SPOC, OT and Care Manager attended. The purpose of the meeting was to ‘find a way forward to complete’ the works required at his property. The minutes from that meeting confirm that:
1. The works required included:
  1. Back door (non-roadside) to be removed, opening made larger and new door fitted.
  2. Automatic door opener to back door.
  3. Wheelchair ramp, external to back door.
  4. Front door and side window to be replaced with more rigid version.
  5. Automatic door opener to front door.
2. It would be impractical for the resident to remain in the flat during the works. A move to alternative accommodation, such as a hotel or the resident’s mother’s home in Cyprus or another mutually agreed alternative, was considered preferable.
3. With regards to logistical details for the decant:
  1. The resident’s ‘master computer’, would be moved by the resident into his bedroom. The resident would arrange for this to happen at his ‘own effort and cost’. The resident’s bedroom would have the door closed and sealed by contractors to minimise the ingress of dust.
  2. All of the resident’s other items he believed could be at risk would be taken out of the flat and put into suitable storage. The resident would arrange for this to happen at his ‘own effort and cost’.
4. The resident was insistent that his CCTV would remain on and active 24/7 throughout the period he was away from his flat, as he wanted to be able to monitor the workers ‘live’ and record them. It was noted that all works would be dependent on the necessary contractors agreeing to this. It was also noted that the resident ‘must agree not to’ post any CCTV footage online.
5. If the resident had issues he should liaise with his OT and Care Manager so that they could act as an intermediary between him, the landlord and the contractor.
6. With regards to snagging. Once the works were completed the OT and Care Manager would visit the resident, with or without the landlord and its contractors, to review the works and if necessary, draft a list of snagging to be resolved.
On 13 April 2023, the landlord’s Design and Adaptations Surveyor confirmed that a start date of 15 May 2023 had been agreed with the contractors.
On 28 April 2023, the resident confirmed the flights would be booked and that he would be departing for Cyprus on 26 May and returning on 12 June 2023. The landlord confirmed that it would reimburse the resident for the costs of the flights and parking at the airport.
Between 17 and 22 May 2023:
1. The resident emailed the landlord to say that as Adult Social Care were no longer overseeing the works, his CCTV would be in operation throughout. In response the landlord advised that the resident needed to ensure that the CCTV within his flat was not recording and that a Housing Officer and Design and Adaptations Surveyor would attend his flat whilst he was away to check on the work being completed.
2. The landlord noted that the resident had said that he had remote access to electrify his front and rear doors, which he said could be activated should he see ‘someone unauthorised’ trying to access his property and would send a number of volts to the person touching the door. The resident said that if he called the Police and they took too long, he would activate it. The landlord reported this to the Police the following day who said they would put this on their system for ‘Officer Awareness’ .
The resident flew to his mother’s home in Cyprus on 26 May 2023 and returned on 12 June 2023. During this time the resident emailed the landlord on a number of occasions, approximately 11 of which have been seen by this Service. In his emails the resident said that:
1. His friend was the only person he had given permission to access his home and monitor the works. The resident said that an email of an intended visit by the landlord was not permission.
2. The Design and Adaptations Surveyor was not on site when he asked to speak to the contractor. The resident said that this was exactly what he had foreseen would happen, with thousands of pounds worth of computer equipment being left unattended.
3. There was clear glass in the roadside door, and not opaque as had been agreed by his OT, and that both doors had a letterbox, which again was not agreed by his OT. The resident said that this could cause confusion with having post delivered.
4. The landlord had damaged his front doorbell by covering the camera lens with gaffer tape. The resident said that this would leave a permanent film across the camera lens which he considered to be criminal damage of his equipment.
In response, the resident’s Housing Officer spoke to the resident at his mother’s house in Cyprus and noted that he did not think the works were being carried out properly. The Housing Officer also noted that they had asked the resident to stop emailing and calling and let them get on with the work. They also emailed the resident on 8 June 2023 to advise him that they had been out to his property that day to review the works with Adult Social care.
The resident logged his formal complaint with the landlord on 9 June 2023 referring to:
1. Mistakes in the work that had been overlooked by surveyors.
2. Damage to his personal property and bad workmanship of the landlord’s employees and their subcontractors.
3. Had the landlord put as much effort into completing the work as it did in failing to disable his cameras, the work could have been done ‘with a higher success’.
On 13 June 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident, following its telephone conversation with him that day. The landlord confirmed that it would be visiting to review the works, at a time mutually agreed, suggesting 15 June 2023 at 4pm. The same day the resident also emailed the landlord a video showing how his front door would not open correctly. The landlord’s repairs records note that an operative from its in-house Property Maintenance team visited out of hours and found that the front door did open randomly and refused to shut using the remote control. The records go on to note that the door eventually closed, and the operative was able to secure it.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 15 June 2023, saying that it would aim to provide its response by 14 July 2023. The landlord confirmed that the resident’s complaint included:
1. The door thresholds being impassable.
2. The roadside glazing allowing too much visibility into his home.
3. New ramps being too steep for unassisted access.
4. The door entry system not being fit for purpose.
5. Tampering with and disabling his camera system during the works including damage to two video doorbells.
6. Issues with his blackout curtains.
7. His computer being left to overheat.
8. A letterbox being fitted in the rear door after it was agreed that this would not be included.
9. Allegations of multiple instances of trespass at the property by the landlord and its contractors.
The following day,16 June 2023, a housing officer visited the property with the OT Team Manager. It was noted that:
1. The doors were fully operational, but the thresholds were above the maximum of 15mm set out in Part M of the Building Regulations. It was noted that this was not a repair issue but ‘snagging’ following completion of the adaptations works. The landlord noted that the issue was ‘easily correctable’ and would be booked in with the resident.
2. It was noted that the front door had clear glass which the resident had said offered no privacy and that the sunlight caused issues for his health needs. It was also noted that the resident had claimed that the blackout curtains he currently had affected the use of the door. The landlord also noted that at the time of the visit the door was operating effectively and that the OT Team Manager had advised that window film would be a proportionate resolution rather than the resident’s wish to have electronic voice operated blinds.
On 27 June 2023, the resident emailed the landlord a video which he said showed how his front door was not operating correctly. The landlord’s electrician visited the property but was unable to rectify the issue. This was followed by a visit, on 28 June 2023, by the company responsible for the installation of the automatic door opener. It was noted that there were some difficulties getting the company responsible for the installation of the automatic door opener to attend earlier because of defamatory comments posted on their company social media page by the resident.
On 3 July 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to report that:
1. The previous week the rear door had failed and he was stuck outside without his medication, which was inside his property. The resident said that this meant that the roadside door was his only way in or out of the property, and the roadside ramp gradient was so high that he had no emergency exit in case of fire.
2. Nothing but blackout film on the roadside door would resolve the issue with too much visibility into his home.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 14 July 2023, in which it said:
1. The door thresholds were the only aspect of the works that had not been signed off. It went on to explain that its Design and Adaptations Surveyor carried out a visual inspection on the last day of the works, which noted no visible concerns, but he was yet to return to measure the height of the threshold. The landlord said that its housing officer was attempting to organise an appointment, which the resident had been unable to accommodate, and asked that he let them know when he was ready for the inspection to take place. If its inspection concluded that the thresholds did not meet the OTs specification and / or the relevant Building Regulations, it would ‘of course’ organise the appropriate remedial work to rectify this.
2. That it recognised the resident’s concerns around privacy and the roadside glazing allowing too much visibility inside his home. The landlord said that this could be resolved by the fitting of privacy film, which it would normally expect residents to do themselves. However, given the resident’s situation it would supply and fit the privacy film for him. The landlord said that its Design and Adaptations Surveyor would discuss this with the resident when they attended to inspect the thresholds.
3. Its Design and Adaptations Surveyor had measured the gradient of the new ramps and found these to be within acceptable parameters, and in compliance with building regulations and the OT specification. The landlord noted that it had been informed that the resident was using a wheelchair, that required attendance by a second person. The landlord said that this made ramps and thresholds more difficult to manoeuvre and noted that he had been offered the opportunity to look at alternative wheelchairs but had elected not to.
4. With regards to the resident’s complaint of the door entry system not being fit for purpose, the landlord said that:
  1. The issue with the overhead door opener was caused by the sensor being out of position and this had now been moved and fixed more securely to reduce the risk of it being accidently knocked or moved in the future.
  2. Its contractor had checked all other aspects of the door opening equipment on both doors and was satisfied that these were in good order and operating correctly. The landlord said that its contractor noted that the resident was satisfied that the equipment was operating correctly following their repair
  3. It was important that the immediate area around the doors was kept clear at all times, noting that in a video shared by the resident there was a large television box propped next to one of the doors. The landlord advised that items left near the doors have the potential to interfere with the sensor and the operation of the equipment.
5. During the works a piece of card was used to cover each doorbell camera. It said that was done because the operatives did not consent to being filmed as they were uncomfortable with the privacy implications of this and the potential for the footage to be published without their consent. Duct tape was carefully applied above the doorbell cameras to hold the card in place. The landlord said that no damage was done to the doorbell cameras during this process and that this was confirmed by its Design and Adaptations Surveyor by way of a visual check when the job was completed.
6. The team who carried out the works did not interfere with the blackout curtains in any way as it was not necessary to do so to facilitate the works. The landlord said that looking at the photos taken before and after the works, the blackout curtains can be seen to be in the same position in both sets of photos.
7. It had no knowledge of the special security screws mentioned. However, it had asked its surveyor to clarify the location and function of these missing screws with the resident when they visited his home to carry out the inspection of the thresholds. The landlord said that its surveyor would arrange for any missing screws to be replaced at the landlord’s expense.
8. It had no record of any agreement being made for it to top up the resident’s electric meter following the works and such an agreement would not be usual when carrying out works of this nature, which would require only a minimal amount of electricity. The landlord confirmed that its housing officer did recall a verbal conversation with the resident around the steps that operatives would need to take to top up the electric meter, if the credit ran out during the works. However, it had questioned the contractors who attended and they said that it was not necessary to top up the meter at any point.
9. The resident’s computer was not touched or tampered with in any way during the works and ventilation to it would not have been obstructed in any significant way. The landlord said that it was unable to find any evidence to support that the computer could have overheated and been damaged as a result of the adaptation works.
10. It did originally agree to fit a fixed plate to the letterbox opening on the garden side door to support the resident’s preference and to prevent the opening being used to deliver mail. The intention was to fit this plate at the same time as carrying out the adaptation works but this was not done, for which it apologised. The landlord said that this appeared to be a failure of communication on this point between the previous and current surveyor. The landlord said that it would ensure that the work to fit this plate is completed and that its surveyor would discuss the arrangements for this with the resident when they attended to inspect the thresholds.
11. It was a requirement of the building regulations for an “ACO” drain to be fitted to prevent surface water flowing back onto the highway and other hardstanding areas. The landlord said that it was sorry to hear that the resident’s keys were dropped into the drain, however, the drain would have to remain in place.
12. Its officers and contractors always obtain a resident’s permission before entering their home and it had been unable to find any evidence that its officers or its contractors had entered the resident’s home without permission at any stage.
The resident escalated his complaint on 28 July 2023 and the landlord issued its final response on 9 August 2023, in which it said:
1. Its review found that the Stage 1 response adequately dealt with the issues raised in the resident’s complaint. However, there were some issues that needed to be resolved which could be arranged once the resident had informed it of an appropriate time for its Design and Adaptations Surveyor to visit.
2. While reviewing the complaint it was noted that several other issues were raised by the resident in subsequent emails. One of these issues was the visit by his housing officer at 1pm, which was not in line with his request not to be contacted before 3pm. The landlord said that this should not have happened, which the housing officer had acknowledged, and offered its apologies for this error.
3. That it had noted that the resident had stated that he was unable to respond by e-mail because this caused him pain, he had also raised concerns regarding telephone contact. The landlord said that it would arrange for its Senior Housing Officer, to write to him to arrange a time to discuss a suitable contact plan to help deal with his queries going forward.

Matters that occurred following the landlord’s final response

On 11 September 2023 the Senior Housing Officer, referred to in the landlord’s final response, emailed the resident to say that, following their visit to his property on 4 September 2023:
1. They understood that the resident did not want their Design and Adaptations Surveyor to come to his flat. However, they were best placed to check the threshold. The Senior Housing Officer said that, if it would help, they would attend with the Design and Adaptations Surveyor when they visited. They also explained that until the threshold was inspected, the landlord could not move forward with the issues the resident was raising with regards to access using his wheelchair.
2. It had been agreed for film to be placed on his windows, and if he would like this fitted, to let them know and they would arrange this for him. The current glass in the resident’s window met the required standards and therefore did not need to be replaced.
3. They had spoken to the tenancy support team regarding the resident’s support needs, and they had advised that the Sight and Hearing team could help him with this. The Senior Housing officer asked the resident to let them know if he would like them to make a referral for him.
On 16 October 2023, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that, with regard to lowering the door threshold, it had requested that an OT submit a request for a ‘fillet’ ramp. With regards to the film on the windows, the landlord said that it was waiting for some samples so that the resident could choose which one he needed. Once it received the samples, the landlord said that its senior housing officer would bring them round to the resident, so that he could choose.
On 14 May 2024, the landlord advised this Service that:
1. There were 3 issues left to resolve in relation to the adaptation work completed in June 2023. These were:
  1. The installation of threshold strips to provide level access through the doors.
  2. The removal of a letterbox and replacing this with a letter plate.
  3. The fitting of privacy film.
2. Issues (ii) and (iii) did not form part of the OT recommendation but it had agreed to do this work for the resident.
3. Its senior housing officer had contacted the resident on the 22 February 2024 to ask him to let them know about organising the completion of the work.
4. Its senior housing officer had also visited the resident on the 6 March 2024 for him to select a sample for the window film. The landlord said that it was working with its repairs team and the resident to arrange a time to complete the work.
5. All of these works (threshold strip, letterplate and privacy film) would be completed ‘in the coming weeks on a date to be mutually agreed with the resident’.
On 21 May 2024, the landlord emailed the resident to book for its contractor to attend on 29 May 2024 at 3pm to install the window film and threshold ramp. The landlord asked that the resident let it know if this date was convenient for him. The landlord also advised that it was still trying to obtain the plate for the letterbox and, if it arrived in time, it would be completed too.
On 24 May 2024, the landlord advised the resident that the date needed to be changed to carry out the work to 3 June 2024 at 3pm. The landlord asked that the resident let it know if this date was convenient for him.
On 25 June 2024, the resident told this Service that outstanding work from his formal complaint had not been completed. The resident referred to his rear garden door, that daylight was still visible through the film on the roadside door, the letter box had been mastic glued as ‘‘a quick bodge job’’ and the threshold of both doors remained inaccessible.
The Court issued an order for an interim injunction on 11 July 2024. The terms of the injunction were that the resident:
1. Must not obstruct or attempt to obstruct any employee or agent of the landlord in the course of their employment.
2. Must not record without consent any employee or agent of the landlord in the course of their employment.
3. Must not upload any videos or recording to any social media platform of any employee or agent of the landlord in the course of their employment without their consent.
4. Must allow access to employees or agents of the landlord to his property, upon having been given 24 hours’ notice in writing. Unless such access is required as a matter of urgency as permitted by the terms of his tenancy agreement.

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.
Paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, all properly fall within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
Prior to being offered his current tenancy, the resident occupied temporary accommodation that was leased by the council from a private landlord. As the lease was coming to an end, the resident was offered his current property as part of the council’s homelessness duty towards him.
The operation of a council’s housing allocation scheme and policies, and its responsibilities for homelessness under Housing Act 1996 Part 7, fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
The Housing Ombudsman Service investigates complaints about the actions of local authorities and councils, in connection with their housing activities in so far as they relate to the provision or management of housing. This Service cannot, however, consider complaints about councils’ statutory decisions on housing allocations or homelessness applications, as these decisions are not taken as part of the councils’ role as a landlord, but rather as part of its wider obligations.
As a result, and in accordance with Paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the Council’s decision to end his previous accommodation and offer him his current property is outside of this Service’s jurisdiction to consider.

The landlord’s handling of adaptation works at the resident’s property.

The landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of its Adaptations Policy. Given that the landlord is a local authority, this report will therefore use the Government’s Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) delivery: Guidance for local authorities in England, to assess the landlord’s handling of the adaptations works at the resident’s property.
In this case, the landlord received the OT’s referral on 14 September 2022 and, with the exception of the window opener, completed the works by the resident’s return to his property on 12 June 2023. This was in line with the expectation set out in the Government’s Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) delivery: Guidance for local authorities in England, which states that works must usually be completed within 12 months of the approval date.
Just prior to, and on, his return on 12 June 2023, the resident raised a number of concerns about the works that had been carried out. The resident also made allegations of multiple instances of trespass at the property by the landlord and its contractors.
With regards to the allegations of trespass, the tenancy agreement states that the resident must allow the landlord’s staff and/or its agents and/or its contractors, and/or companies who provide utilities (including electricity, gas and water), access to their property to carry out any inspections, maintenance, improvements or repairs that the landlord considers necessary, or for any other reasonable purpose. The resident will usually be given a minimum period of 24 hours’ notice in writing unless there is an emergency, and this is not possible. Whilst this Service cannot take a position with regards to trespass, as this is a legal matter, no evidence has been seen of the landlord acting outside of the requirements for access set out in the tenancy agreement.
In response to the resident’s concerns about the works that had been carried out, the landlord attended his property with Adult Social care at some point prior to 8 June 2023, and then agreed to revisit and review the works again. This visit took place on 16 June 2023 and was attended by the OT Team Manager.
This again was in line with the expectation set out in the Government’s Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) delivery guidance, which states that if there are any disagreements or doubts about the suitability of the works to meet the needs of the disabled person, then the supervising officer should arrange a joint site meeting with the person who carried out the assessment.
Following the visit on 16 June 2023 it was noted that the doors were fully operational, but the thresholds were above the requirement of 15mm and needed to be resolved in order to make transitions over the threshold ‘more comfortable’. It was also suggested by the OT Team Manager that window film would be a proportionate resolution to the resident’s concerns that the clear glass to his front door offered him no privacy. The resident’s concerns that his blackout curtains were affecting the use of the door was not observed. There was also no evidence of any other concerns being raised by the OT Team Manager during the visit.
With regards to the threshold, given that the landlord had noted on 16 June 2023 that this was ‘easily correctable’ and that it would book the works in with him, it would be reasonable to have expected these works to have been completed within a relatively short period of time. It is unclear why, given that the threshold had already been identified as being above the required level, that the landlord would say in its stage 1 response, approximately 1 month later, that its Design and Adaptations Surveyor still needed to establish this. The last seen email from the landlord to the resident to arrange an appointment was on 3 June 2024 and the resident advised this Service on 25 June 2024, that the thresholds of both doors remained ‘‘inaccessible’’. Even if the works had been completed on 3 June 2024, and taking into account the access issues in this case, this would still represent an unreasonable delay in the landlord carrying these out, most especially given the known vulnerability of the resident and the impact this was having on him.
With regards to the film to the front door. Whilst it is acknowledged that the resident had concerns that nothing but blackout film would resolve the issue with the clear glass to his front door, there is no evidence that this formed part of the original OT’s recommendation. Film was however suggested as a proportionate resolution by the OT Team Manager that visited on 16 June 2023. The landlord agreed to install the film, which was a change in its usual process and evidences that it took into account the resident’s vulnerabilities with regards to the installation of the film. The landlord also offered to bring samples round for the resident to select a film of his choice, which again was both fair and reasonable. Having agreed to install the film, the landlord would then be expected to carry out the works within a reasonable period of time.
However, some 4 months later, 16 October 2023, the landlord was still waiting for some samples. It was then a further 4 months, on 6 March 2024, that the landlord provided the resident with samples of window film to select from. The film was then installed at some point between 14 May 2024, when the landlord advised this Service that the installation of the film remained outstanding, and 25 June 2024, when the resident advised that daylight was still visible through the film. Even if the film had been installed shortly after 14 May 2024, this would still represent a delay of almost a year in this work being completed.
With regards to a letterbox being incorrectly fitted in the rear door. In its stage 1 response of 14 July 2023 the landlord acknowledged a delay in actioning this, explaining that this was due to a failure of communication between the previous and current Design and Adaptations Surveyors. To put this right the landlord said that it would ensure that the work to remove the letter box and replace it with a letter plate was completed. The landlord said that its Design and Adaptations Surveyor would discuss the arrangements for this with the resident when they attended to inspect the thresholds. The works to the letter box were carried out at some point between 14 May 2024, when the landlord advised this Service that this remained outstanding, and 25 June 2024, when the resident advised that the letter box had been mastic glued as ‘‘a quick bodge job’’. Again, this was a long time for the resident to have to wait for works, which the landlord had agreed to, to be completed.
With regards to the gradient of the new ramps. These were measured by the landlord’s Design and Adaptations Surveyor, who found them to be within acceptable parameters and this was not flagged as an issue by the OT Team Manager. Had there been an issue with the gradient or if the ramp were not suitable for the resident’s needs, it would be for the OT Team Manager and not the landlord to review this and, if necessary to make recommendations to the landlord for any necessary adjustments. In this case, there is no evidence that any such recommendation was made.
The resident reported that his doors were not operating correctly on 3 occasions, during the period covered by the investigation. These reports were made on 13 June, 27 June and 7 August 2023. On each occasion the landlord or its contractor promptly attended, moved and fixed the door sensor to reduce the risk of it being accidently knocked or moved in the future and, each time left the door in working order. The landlord has advised this Service that there were no further issues reported. However, in his most recent communication with this Service the resident reported that he was still experiencing issues with the doors. As that is the case a recommendation has been made for the landlord to re-visit this to see if there is any further action that it can take, such as requesting an independent inspection by a specialist contractor. The purpose of this is to see if it might be possible to find a permanent solution to this issue, or to provide the resident with reassurance that the doors are operating correctly.
The resident also complained of damage to his computer and camera system, including damage to two video doorbells. In cases where a resident reports that their property has been damaged by the landlord, its operatives or agents (in this case contractors), the landlord would be expected to investigate whether it did in fact cause damage to the resident’s possessions. In this case, it is evident that the landlord considered the resident’s concerns but disputed that any of the reported damage was the result of it or its contractors actions/inactions. As the landlord was unable to definitely confirm whether it did or did not have any liability for the alleged damage, it would have been reasonable to expect that it would refer the resident to its liability insurance to consider his claim. However, it did not do so. This was an oversight on its part, and a missed opportunity to seek to resolve this element of the resident’s complaint.
In addition to the above Government guidance, under the Equality Act 2010, the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled.
Further, the Social Housing Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard also requires registered providers, which includes local authorities, to “demonstrate that they understand the different needs of tenants, including in relation to the equality strands and tenants with additional support needs” with a specific expectation that providers will “demonstrate how they respond to those needs in the way they provide services and communicate with tenants”.
Importantly the landlord would also be expected to be able to identify itself where it or those acting on its behalf had failed to do so and to take appropriate action to address this.
The landlord has advised this Service that it has the following reasonable adjustments in relation to its routine contact with the resident:
1. That the resident has always had a Single Point of Contact (SPOC) to support him in his contact with it.
2. That no contact is made, or work carried out to his home before 3.00pm unless by prior agreement with him.
3. All correspondence is sent by e-mail using a specified font size. The landlord noted that the resident had asked that e-mails do not contain any attachments and that correspondence is within the body of the e-mail.
It is evident that between 6 September and 1 December 2022, the resident’s SPOC was actively engaging with him and supporting him in his contact both with the landlord and other relevant third parties:
1. In internal emails on 11 October 2022, the resident’s SPOC noted that the resident had a number of conditions that needed to be complied with before he would accept the works going ahead. They explained that the resident had said that he needed to sleep until 3pm and so works could not be started before then. The SPOC said that the resident had referred to a noise abatement order he obtained to stop a rail company doing works at night, which the SPOC said they were awaiting a copy of.
2. The SPOC noted that the resident said that being disturbed before 3pm would ‘kill him’, as would loud noise. They were awaiting medical evidence to allow the landlord to make appropriate adjustments and suggested that until these points were supported by medical evidence, the landlord should consider not proceeding with the works.
3. On 20 September 2022, the resident forwarded a letter from his GP confirming that he had significant sight loss. The GP noted that the resident had not given his consent for them to discuss information relating to his sleep or seizures with the landlord.
4. On 1 December 2022, the SPOC attended the meeting held on 1 December 2022, with the resident, his Occupational Therapist and Adult Social Care Manager.
In recognition of the resident’s significant vulnerabilities the landlord also went beyond what this Service would expect it to do by reimbursing him for the cost of flights so that he could stay with his mother in Cyprus whilst the work was undertaken. The landlord also provided assistance with packing and reimbursed the cost of airport parking.
All of the above actions evidence that the landlord had taken a number of reasonable and appropriate steps to ensure that it complied with its obligations under both the Equality Act 2010 and Social Housing Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard.
However, just over 2 weeks after the meeting on 1 December 2022, the SPOC had left the organisation and there is no evidence of the resident being advised of this until 19 December 2022, when he was contacted by the landlord’s Neighbourhood Tenancy Manager. At this point the Neighbourhood Tenancy Manager asked that the resident forward any emails he may have previously sent his SPOC to them. The Neighbourhood Tenancy Manager also said that they would be working with the resident’s OT and Adult Care Manager.
However, their response was unclear as to whether they had taken on the role of the resident’s SPOC and if not, who had. They also failed to make it clear what the resident might expect from them, or whoever his new SPOC was, going forward. This was despite the resident raising concerns that he had had a lot of housing officers, and the advice given by the resident’s OT in their referral of 6 September 2022, in which they asked that the landlord ensure that the SPOC advocated for the resident throughout the adaptations process.
Further, and despite having agreed that no contact would be made, or work carried out to his home before 3.00pm unless by prior agreement with him, this Service has seen evidence of the landlord both emailing the resident and contacting him outside of this agreed timeframe. This includes but is not limited to:
1. Its acknowledgement of his complaint, that was sent at 10am.
2. Its housing officer attending the resident’s property at 1pm, which it acknowledged and apologised for in its final complaint response.
3. On 18 May 2023, emailing the resident to inform him that an electrician and its Building Surveyor would be attending his property at 14:30hrs on 22 May 2023.
Given the resident’s vulnerabilities it is understandable that its failure to consistently comply with the reasonable adjustments that it had agreed to, would have been unsettling for him. Whilst it is not possible to conclude that this caused the difficulties experienced by both the resident and the landlord, it is evident that this caused the resident unnecessary distress and that it clearly exacerbated what was already a challenging situation.
In summary, the landlord’s handling of the initial adaptations works was fair and reasonable. It carried out the works within the timescales set out in the Governments guidance and carried out a post inspection with the OT team manager.
However, there were excessive delays in the outstanding works being resolved. It is acknowledged that access issues were a mitigating factor in these delays, and that the landlord has taken action to seek to resolve these through the interim injunction that was ordered by the court, on 11 July 2024. However, these factors alone do not account for the excessive delay in completing the outstanding works. As the landlord acknowledged itself, some of the delay in addressing the letter box issue was down to its own internal communication failures. The 4 months taken by the landlord to get samples of window film would also not have been as the result of access issues. Further given that it had been identified in the landlord’s visit, with the OT Team Manager, on 16 June 2023, that the threshold exceeded 15mm requirement, it remains unclear as to why in its stage 1 response the landlord would state that this still needed to be established.
Further, whilst it is acknowledged that the landlord took a number of actions which evidenced its understanding of its obligations under both the Equality Act and the Social Housing Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard, that it failed to ensure that the reasonable adjustments it had previously agreed to, most especially in terms of the resident having a SPOC and the timing of its contact with the resident, were consistently applied, represents an additional failure which resulted in further unfairness to the resident.
As a result, taking into account the length of the delays in this case, the issues with access, the vulnerability of the resident, and balancing both the failures by the landlord and the evidence of good practice, a finding of maladministration has been made. It should be noted that were it not for the evidence of both the mitigating factors and the elements of good practice by the landlord, a finding of severe maladministration would have been made in this case.
It is important that the landlord is able to identify where its actions, or those acting on its behalf, have fallen short of what is expected and to learn from its findings. For this reason, in addition to being ordered to apologise to, and compensate, the resident for the failures identified, the landlord has also been ordered to carry out a review of in this case and to consider what steps it might take, such as staff training, to ensure similar failures do not occur going forward.

Handling of the associated complaint.

The resident raised his initial formal complaint with the landlord on 9 June 2023. In accordance with this Service’s Complaint handling code (the Code), the landlord should have acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 5 working days and provide its stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged, a maximum of 15 working days.
In this case the landlord acknowledged the complaint in accordance with the Code on 15 June 2023. Having done so the landlord would have been expected to provide its stage 1 response by 29 June 2023, but did not do so until 14 July 2023, just over an additional 10 days later.
The Code recognises that, in situations such as these where the complaint is complex, the landlord may need to extend the timescale for its response if needed. However, in such circumstances any extension must be no more than 10 working days without good reason, and the reason(s) must be clearly explained to the resident, which there is no evidence that it did in this case.
The resident escalated his complaint on 28 July 2023. In accordance with the Code, the landlord should have provided its stage 2 response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. This it did, issuing its final response on 9 August 2023.
In addition to responding within required timescales, the Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. Again, the landlord complied with the Code, providing detailed complaint responses which addressed all the points raised by the resident.
Having considered both the complexity and the standard of the responses provided by the landlord, whilst it is understandable that it may have needed longer to provide its stage 1 response, that it did not provide the resident with an explanation for this represents a service failure on its part.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of adaptation works at the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

That within 28 calendar days of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £550 compensation, made up of:
  1. £250 for the delays in it completing the follow up works following the adaptations works at his property.
  2. £250 for the unnecessary distress, upset and inconvenience resulting from its failure to consistently apply the reasonable adjustments it had previously agreed with him.
  3. £50 for the delay in it providing its stage 1 complaint response.
3. Carry out a review of its failures in this case and to consider what steps it might take, such as staff training, to ensure similar failures do not occur going forward.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord re-visit the resident’s concerns regarding his door opening system to see if there is any further action that it can take, such as requesting an independent inspection by a specialist contractor. The purpose of this is to see if it might be possible to find a permanent solution to this issue, or to provide the resident with reassurance that the doors are operating correctly.
If it has not done so since 25 June 2024, it is recommended that the landlord arrange for a joint inspection with the resident’s OT to re-assess the threshold of both doors, which the resident has recently advised remain inaccessible, and the film to the door, which he has said daylight was still visible through. During this visit it is also recommended that the landlord inspect the works to the letter box given the resident’s recent comments to this Service about this.