Southern Housing (202230114)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230114

Southern Housing Group Limited

17 September 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 resident’s reports about the landlord’s handling of;
   1. Adaptations to the property.
   2. The resident’s request to be transferred to another property.
   3. The associated complaint (including the landlord’s communication).

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom maisonette and it is located on the first floor of a block. There are stairs to access the flat and there is no lift. The resident lives with her partner and children, 1 of whom has autism and needs his own bedroom. The resident has physical health problems which affect her mobility and her ability to grab railings to support herself.
3. On 5 October 2022 an Occupational Therapist (OT) contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf. They asked the landlord to install grab rails in the resident’s bathroom. They said that she needed the rails to steady herself when getting in and out of the bath, and whilst taking a shower. They explained that her safety was compromised without them because she had experienced falls.
4. The OT had to chase the landlord for a response about the grab rails on at least 5 occasions. They complained about the landlord’s lack of response on 13 December 2022. They said the resident had fallen again and therefore needed rails. During these communications, the landlord said it needed a more detailed report from the OT. It also said it needed the exact size of the rails and details of where they should be positioned. The OT provided this on 6 January 2023.
5. The resident contacted this Service on 1 March 2023 because she said the landlord was not responding to her. She said she had complained because the landlord had not dealt with her request for grab rails to be installed. She said she had also asked the landlord to install a wet room in her property. Alternatively, if this was not possible, she asked the landlord to consider transferring her to another property. This Service contacted the landlord to say the resident was expecting a response to her complaint.
6. During communications, the landlord suggested that instead of installing a wet room it would be in the resident’s best interests to move. It noted that this was a better option because she was struggling to manage the stairs to her property. It said she would need to complete forms and provide medical evidence to support a move. It said it would help with this and would contact her OT. The resident gave consent for the landlord to contact them.
7. The landlord installed the grab rails on 27 March 2023. The resident said they were not installed properly as they were coming off the walls. She asked the landlord to fix this. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord apologised for the delay in installing working grab rails. It said it rebooked the work in for 11 April 2023. It also apologised, as it had misinformed her that it had needed an OT assessment for this minor adaptation. It offered the resident total compensation of £115. It said that it had contacted her OT about a move and she would need to complete the forms and gather the required medical evidence.
8. The resident formally escalated her complaint to the landlord’s second stage of its complaints process on 11 April 2023. She said the grab rails that had been installed that day were not fit for purpose as they were coming off the walls. She also communicated with this Service. She said the landlord had promised to help her with rehousing, but she had not received any contact from it. 
9. In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for the delays in its complaint handling and offered compensation for this. It gave details of how she could make a personal injury claim. It said that the resident was not on the managed transfer list. It said that she would need to complete an application and provide further medical reports to support a move. It apologised for its miscommunication about who would be contacting the OT. It made an additional compensation offer of £350. 
10. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response and asked this Service to investigate. She said that the landlord’s complaint responses had misunderstood the issues and she wanted a proper apology. She said that following the final response, the landlord had reinstalled the grab rails but they were in the wrong position.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

11. The landlord said it had given the resident information on making a personal injury claim because she said she had fallen. It is noted that the resident may not wish to follow this route. However this Service must explain its remit when investigating these matters. The Ombudsman is unable to determine whether a landlord’s actions or lack of actions have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can this service calculate or award damages for such issues. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court, or via a personal injury, or insurance claim. Should the resident want to pursue this, she is advised to seek independent advice.
12. Following her complaint response the resident informed this Service that she supplied medical evidence to the landlord about her need for a larger property. It is noted that the landlord acknowledged receipt of this information on 12 March 2024. The resident said that had she refused an offer of accommodation as it was too small and she was concerned the landlord would not make another offer. This Service has advised the resident to engage with the landlord about this matter. Should the resident experience dissatisfaction in the landlord’s handling of this, she has been advised to raise this as a new complaint with the landlord.
13. In the interest of fairness, under paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) we may not consider issues that were not raised under the formal complaint’s process. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this Service. Within the scope of this investigation, we have only considered matters relating to the issues that the resident has raised within the internal complaints process.

The resident’s reports about the landlord’s handling of the request for adaptations.

14. The Equality Act 2010 (the Act) provides legal framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. Under the Act, 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. Section 149 of the Act created the ‘Public Sector Equality Duty’ which also requires public bodies to have ‘due regard’ to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not.
15. When the OT contacted the landlord on 5 October 2022 to request that grab rails were installed in the bathroom, it initially responded within 2 days. It said that its Property and Estate Team (PET) would respond within 5 working days. The OT chased the landlord for a response on 1 November 2022. The landlord replied two days later, saying it needed to see the OT’s report. The OT sent the report the following day, on 4 November. The report said the rails were needed as the resident had had 3 accidents in the shower, and an ambulance had been called on at least 1 occasion.
16. Over 28 November 2022 the OT contacted the landlord to say that they were still waiting for someone to contact them about the grab rails. They sent a further email on 13 December whereby they expressed their dissatisfaction. They said the resident “should be independent”. They said she had experienced falls which had needed medical attention. They said “This could be prevented if the rails were in place”. They chased this again on 16 December.
17. The landlord contacted the OT on 4 January 2023. It said the OT’s report did not state the size or the exact location of the grab rails. The OT attended the resident’s property on 6 January. They photographed the marks they had made outlining the positioning of where the grab rails needed to be. They sent the images and the size specifications of the rails to the landlord the same day. The landlord acknowledged the email on 11 January, it said it would respond to the OT’s request within 5 working days.
18. In March 2023 the resident told this Service that she was still waiting for the grab rails to be installed. She also said her medical conditions were worsening and she was struggling to manage in her property. She said her OT had said the landlord would contact her about the possibility of having a wet room, or a transfer. The landlord contacted the resident on 22 March about her request for a wet room, or a transfer. It suggested a move may be the best option. It was acknowledged that even if a wet room was installed, the property may be still be unsuitable due to her difficulties in climbing stairs, and her property had no lift. As a move could take time, it had agreed to install the grab rails.
19. The landlord has an ‘Aids and Adaptations’ policy. This says that major adaptations, such as level access showers (wet rooms), cannot be done in-house. However it says that grab rails are minor adaptations. It says it will “provide a fully funded responsive adaptations service, including in-house assessment, for other minor adaptations which do not require a specialist Occupational Therapist assessment”. It says that it will make an appointment for an assessment within 10 working days of the request. It aims to “complete fast-track adaptations within 22 working days”.
20. In this case the landlord failed to adhere to its policy. It requested that the OT provided a full report and specifications of the grab rails, when its policy said this was not required for a minor adaptation. This failure led to delays in the grab rails being fitted. It is positive to note that in its first complaint response, the landlord acknowledged it had misinformed the resident. It said that the OT assessment for the grab rails was “unnecessary”. The landlord said it had booked the works in for 20 March 2023 but this was postponed to 27 March because the rails were not in stock.
21. The landlord installed the grab rails on 27 March 2023. However the resident said they were faulty as they would not support any weight and were coming off the walls. She also said that the screws used had gone through to the kitchen wall and were sticking out. She provided a video and photograph of this to the landlord. This Service has seen images of the rails coming off the walls and the screws coming through the other side of the wall. In its first complaint response on 11 April, the landlord apologised for the failings and offered the resident total compensation of £115. It said that its contractor would inspect the work to come up with a resolution.
22. The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of her request for adaptations. In its first complaint response, the landlord said it had spoken with the OT team and she was on a waiting list to be assessed for the wet room. This Service has found that the landlord could have better managed the resident’s expectations in relation to the wet room. This in on the basis that its Aids and Adaptations policy says that it may decline requests for funding of adaptations where it believes it is not effective use of funds, and suitable rehousing options are available within a reasonable period.
23. The resident contacted this Service on 11 April 2023 to say that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s lack of communication about her adaptations. This included its response to installing a wet room. She said that she had chased the issue with the landlord in April and May but had not received a response. This Service has found that the landlord did not explain the process of applying for the wet room until its final complaint response on 21 June.
24. The issue with the grab rails also remained unresolved following the landlord’s first complaint response. The resident chased the landlord on 24 April and 11 June 2023. This Service contacted the landlord on 30 May and asked it to respond to the resident’s adaptations requests. The landlord said it visited the resident on 20 June, which was over 2 months since it had installed the grab rails. It took a photograph of the grab rails. In an internal email, the landlord commented that the rails had not been installed properly and “came out of the joint with little effort”.
25. The landlord’s Safeguarding Adults policy says that it is committed to responding to the needs of its customers. It says that it will work with local authorities (LA) and facilitate adaptations where required. This Service has found that the landlord did not adhere to its policy in safeguarding the resident within a timely way in this case. It should have been more proactive in dealing with the proper installation of the grab rails, especially as it had been made aware the resident had experienced falls. It should also have offered more support and better communication about the process of applying for a wet room.
26. In its final complaint response, the landlord said the resident should engage with the OT and obtain a full report, setting out exactly what aids and adaptations were required. It said if a wet room was required, it could undertake the works. However it said that, subject to the cost, she would need to apply for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) via the LA. It is our opinion that the landlord missed an opportunity within this response to address whether it was worthwhile for the resident to apply for a wet room.
27. In its final complaint response on 21 June 2023 the landlord offered further compensation of £250 to the resident. However it did not specify which element of the complaint this payment related to. Nonetheless, whilst the landlord acknowledged its failings and made an offer of compensation, this service does not consider the final offer to be proportionate in this case. The resident had waited over 6 months for the grab rails to be installed and when they were, the evidence shows they were not fit for purpose. It failed to remedy this before its final response. It had also not offered timely or clear communication about the wet room, or offered to support the resident with this, in line with its policies.
28. The Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s request for adaptations, in particular its delays in installing grab rails which she needed in relation to her physical disability. It did not adhere to its policy which says “proactive case management practices are in place to ensure that all residents are provided with up to date information on the progress of their application”. This Service found substantial delays, misinformation and poor communication throughout the handling of this case. These failures caused significant detriment to the resident, as the OT commented that she had fallen in the shower on several occasions whilst waiting for the works to be done.
29. It is noted that when the landlord came to replace the rails on 10 July 2023, the resident said that it had placed them in the wrong position. It is further noted that the landlord did not remedy the issue until 10 November. Which was over 12 months since the grab rails had first been requested. This Service found that the landlord failed to resolve the issue under its internal complaints procedure. As such the Ombudsman has factored this further delay into consideration when determining an appropriate amount of compensation for its failures.  

The resident’s reports about the landlord’s handling of the request to transferred to another property.

30. As noted earlier in this report, the landlord had corresponded with the resident on 22 March 2023 about her concerns regarding the suitability of the property due to her mobility problems. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns that even if a wet room was installed the property would still be unsuitable as she was struggling to manage the stairs to access her property. There was no lift. It suggested a transfer may be a better option.
31. In the aforementioned email, the landlord promised to support the resident in applying to the LA for a “priority move to a more suitable home”. It said “We will of course support you in this, and assist with the submission of the necessary forms and medical evidence that they will require such as letters from doctors and OT’s reports”. It asked for the resident’s consent so it could liaise with the OT team, which she duly gave.
32. The landlord contacted the OT team on 27 March 2023. It asked them to assess the suitability of the resident’s current property and provide a report of the outcome. It said it would need this to assist with a priority move. In its stage 1 response, the landlord noted that the OT team had said that there was currently a 4 to 6 month waiting list for assessments. It said it had asked them to prioritise her assessment if possible, because it needed the report to explain her struggles with the stairs. It said that it would add this report to the medical evidence she had already provided which it would submit to the LA to help with a move to a more suitable home. It said that “the priority move process takes some time as it is dependent on when a suitable property becomes available”.
33. It is noted that the most recent OT report the resident had was on 15 September 2022. The OT had provided this to the landlord on 4 November.  This report said that the resident could use the stairs but she did so slowly and “with use of rails. If there is a lift, will prefer this.” However the report did not make any specific recommendations for the resident to be moved from her current property. As such this Service found that it was reasonable of the landlord to request further clarification about this from the OT to facilitate a move.
34. The resident was confused about who was responsible for liaising with the OT. This was another reason she asked to escalate her complaint. In its second complaint response the landlord said the resident would need to supply the medical evidence to support the request to be transferred to another property. Whereas in its emails leading up to the complaint it said it would liaise with the OT and submit the necessary information. Furthermore, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord’s complaint responses miscommunicated how it would support the resident with rehousing. In its first response, it had said it would support her with an application to the LA. Whereas in its second response it had said it would consider a managed move through its internal procedure. Both of which are separate routes of attaining alternative accommodation.
35. It is however positive to note that in its final complaint response on 21 June 2023, the landlord apologised for any confusion about who would contact the OT. It said that it would await her medical evidence including doctor’s letters and the updated OT assessment. The resident asked this Service to help as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. She said that she had already provided medical evidence and had completed a transfer application in February.
36. This Service has seen that the landlord had completed a Priority Move Request Form for the resident at some stage. The resident suggested that this had been completed in June 2023. However as there is no date on the form it is unclear when it was completed. It is recommended that the landlord updates this form to include a field to record a completion date so it can adequately track when the form was received and thus when it needs to be actioned. 
37. The landlord has a Management Moves Procedure which says it may visit the customer to understand their living conditions. It is positive to note that the landlord followed its policy and met with the resident to discuss the move on 20 June 2023. It said it had told the resident what evidence it needed to process a managed move. It is reasonable to assume that it completed the application form on this date, as within internal emails on 21 June it said it would open up a transfer case. The resident said that she also supplied her medical evidence in June.
38. The landlord’s procedure says that the manager will request evidence to support the move and complete a Management Move Panel Request Form. It says on receipt of the completed form and supporting evidence (which includes doctor’s letters), the manager will arrange to discuss the case at a panel within 3 working days. This Service has found that the landlord delayed in processing this transfer request and it failed to communicate and update the resident. 
39. The Ombudsman has found that the resident chased her transfer application and asked for an update on its progress at least 3 times since its final response in June 2023. In September, the landlord apologised for the delay. It said that her application was under assessment and waiting to be reviewed by the panel. It is noted that on 18 October, the landlord said that there had been an IT problem and the documents were missing from its systems. However it had managed to access the documents via email. It contacted the resident the same day to apologise for the delay.  
40. It is positive to the note that the landlord contacted the resident on 8 November 2023 to say that it had approved the resident’s transfer request following a panel meeting. She expressed her gratitude and thanks to the landlord for its help in resolving the matter. However this Service found that it took the landlord too long to process this transfer application. It acted outside of its policy timescales. It is appreciated that this further delay extended beyond the landlord’s internal complaint responses. Within para 42.a. of the Scheme rules this Service has considered the landlord’s overall handling of the transfer request when determining the outcome and remedy for this part of the complaint.
41. The Ombudsman has found maladministration with the landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s transfer request. It miscommunicated its procedure, failed to keep the resident informed and did not follow its own policy regarding the request. It is appreciated that the landlord offered additional compensation of £250 to the resident within its final complaint response. As aforementioned, it is unclear what this payment related to. As the resident experienced a considerable delay in the handling of this matter, this Service does not consider this offer to be a proportionate remedy. Furthermore, whilst it did eventually resolve the issue, it failed to offer appropriate redress to the resident for the delay which extended beyond its final complaint response.

The resident’s reports about the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

42. Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord’s complaint process lacked customer focus, did not remedy the problem and took too long.
43. The landlord’s policy adheres to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’). It says:
    1. Stage 1 complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days, and a full response will be provided within 10 working days. It may extend up to an additional 10 working days, but will provide reasons why.
    2. Stage 2 complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days, and a full response will be provided within 20 working days. It may extend up to an additional 20 working days, but will provide reasons why.
44. The Code contains guidance that landlords were expected to follow at the time of this complaint. It says that a complaint is defined as: ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents. In this case the OT expressed dissatisfaction on the resident’s behalf on 13 December 2022. This Service has found that the landlord should have logged this communication as a complaint.
45. On 13 March 2023 the landlord confirmed to this Service that it was investigating the resident’s complaint. It is also positive to note that its first response the landlord apologised and made an offer of compensation of £50 for its delay in the handling of the complaint. The resident remained dissatisfied with this response and with help from this Service the landlord was asked to formally escalate the complaint on 11 April.
46. The landlord sent its final response to the resident on 21 June 2023, which was outside of its policy framework and the Code. It is positive to note that the landlord apologised for this delay and it offered further compensation of £50 for this. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. She said that the landlord’s complaint responses had been contradictory and failed to manage her expected outcome. In communications with this Service, she said she had not wanted information on making a personal injury claim, and wanted a proper apology for the failures.
47. This Service appreciates that the landlord would need to ensure that the resident had been advised of making an injury claim should she wish to pursue this option. It is also appreciated that the landlord did offer an apology at both stages of its complaints process. Notwithstanding this, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s overall handling of the residents complaint. Whilst it made an offer of compensation regarding its delay in the handling of the complaint, this Service does not consider this offer to be proportionate in this case.
48. The Ombudsman has found that the landlord failed to remedy the resident’s issues within its internal complaints process. The landlord’s delays in the handling of the adaptations and the transfer request extended to November 2023. The landlord failed to address this and did not demonstrate it made a further offer of compensation to acknowledge the detriment to the vulnerable resident. It is noted that the resident had taken a lot of time and trouble in chasing a response from the landlord.
49. Furthermore, the resident has informed us that she was upset by the wording of the landlord’s final response. She said she thought it had implied that she had complained about the quality of the grab rail, when instead it was defective and poorly installed. This Service has found that it could have worded the letter more appropriately as it is clear from the photographic evidence, and the landlord’s own comments, that the rails had been inadequately installed.
50. Overall the Ombudsman has found that the landlord missed an opportunity to put things right during its complaint’s process. Whilst it made an offer of compensation, it failed to resolve the issues, which resulted in delays which extended way beyond its final responses. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will consider the impact and time taken. It bases its compensation levels on the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance. As such the landlord is ordered to make an increased compensation offer to the resident. It should also provide a written apology to the resident for its failures in the handling of the complaint, including the distress the wording of the responses caused the resident.

Determination

51. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme;

1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adaptations.
2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be transferred to another property.
3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

52. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report the landlord is ordered to;
    1. Pay compensation of £650 to the resident in recognition of the landlord’s handling of adaptations to the resident’s property.
    2. Pay compensation of £250 to the resident in recognition of the landlord’s handling of a request to be transferred to another property.
    3. Pay compensation of £200 to the resident in recognition of the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
    4. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report. In particular, acknowledging the severe delays in installing the grab rails and for the distress the wording of the complaint responses caused the resident.
53. The above amounts for compensation to include what the landlord has already offered to the resident in respect of the complaint.

Recommendations

54. It is recommended that the landlord updates its Priority Move Request Form to include provisions for recording the date the form was completed and received. This will enable it to better monitor its responses to requests within its policy timeframe.