Hyde Housing Association Limited (202303573)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303573

Hyde Housing Association Limited

26 June 2024

Amended 5 December 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 the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the installation of handrail adaptations to the resident’s property.
2. Response to the resident’s request for the laminate flooring in her bedroom to be replaced following the installation of a through floor lift adaptation by the council.
3. Record keeping with respect to the resident’s vulnerabilities and the impact of this on her.
4. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 6 August 2007. The property is a 2-bedroom house. In its evidence submission to this Service the landlord said, ‘vulnerabilities are not stated.’
On 13 August 2021, the landlord received a letter from a council occupational therapist (OT) requesting a handrail to right hand side of the internal stairs in the resident’s property. In their referral the OT described the resident’s vulnerabilities as a Spectrum Neuro-Inflammatory Disorder, cervical lesions, and Fibromyalgia. The OT also explained that the resident’s mobility had deteriorated over the past few years and that she struggled to negotiate the stairs to access her bedroom and washing facilities.
On 4 October 2021, the resident emailed the landlord’s contactor saying that she had been trying to call them but had been on hold for 50 minutes. The resident went on to say that she had an an appointment for 15 October 2021 to install handrails and wanted to check if these was just for downstairs. The resident said that this was because she needed them in the whole of her property including the bathroom, upstairs landing, down the main stairs and the downstairs toilet. The resident explained that she had a condition that made her very unsteady on her legs and feet, and her hands had constant spasms and pins and needles.
On 10 February 2022, the resident’s representative called the landlord to ask if whether it was showing on its system that the resident had a disability. The landlord noted that it advised that it did not. The landlord said that the resident signed her tenancy with another landlord who had not recorded her disability and so when the tenancy was transferred to it, the same was transferred.
On 11 April 2022, the resident’s representative emailed the landlord advising that they would be handling the complaint on the resident’s behalf. The representative said that the resident wanted her complaint to include:
1. Unnecessary delay with the landlord adding disability and vulnerability status to her account. The representative said that the landlord had been aware of the changes in her status since August 2021 if not before.
2. The outstanding handrails. The representative said that when the landlord’s contractor attended, the works order was only for a handrail to the staircase and so the resident refused the work asking for the works order to be amended. The landlord’s contractor had failed to responded or contacted the resident regarding this since her request to amend the work order.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 7 June 2022, in which it said that:
1. It was sorry for the poor standard of its communication and that it could understand why this had been so frustrating for her.
2. It could have done the works quicker and was sorry it had let her down, acknowledging that:
  1. Following the instructions from the OT, it was agreed that council would install the lifts and it would install the handrails.
  2. It arranged for its contractor to attend in October 2021 to fit the rails, but the resident refused this as she was not happy with the measurements. The operative told her they would contact the landlord who would be back in contact.
  3. It was clear that there should not have been a delay in it following up on this. This was due to poor communication and the contractor not reporting back to its adaptions surveyor. The landlord said that this meant that it was therefore unable to contact the OT to go back and remeasure. The landlord said that the resident should not have had to keep contacting it to chase the works and updates, acknowledging that this was unacceptable.
  4. The landlord said that it could understand the inconvenience this caused.
3. To put this right the landlord said that its adaptations surveyor had now instructed the OT to reattend and provide further instructions for the works to be carried out. Once the OT had reported back, it would arrange for its contractor to attend and complete the works.
4. It had noted the resident’s concerns that she was asked to send over the OT report without using a secure system to protect her data. The landlord said that this was caused by human error as the staff member was focused on trying to help move the repairs forward.
5. It understood the resident was not happy that her disability/vulnerability had not been updated on its system until March 2022 following the instructions, it had received from the council. The landlord explained that this was not normally updated until adaption works had completed but it was sorry if there was delay.
6. It was unable to arrange for the replacement of the laminate flooring following its removal when the lift was installed by the council. However, it understood that its ‘foundation’ team had directed the resident to ‘RAB’ to see if any grant can be offered to help her.
7. It acknowledged that there should not have been a delay in the resident’s complaint, raised on 24 March 2022, being investigated and resolved, for which it apologised.
8. It offered the resident £50 in recognition of her time and trouble in pursuing this matter and £100 for the delays in its arranging the repairs and investigating the complaint.
The resident’s representative escalated the complaint on 23 June 2022 saying that:
1. The handrail installation had been an issue since 2020. Whilst the council had a lengthy ‘tick list’ to complete before contacting the landlord, the landlord was advised in August 2021 regarding the installation of the handrail and 10 months later it had failed to do so.
2. The landlord failed to liaise with relevant team to highlight the resident’s concerns as to why she refused the work. This proved the knock-on effect caused by the landlord’s failure to update the resident’s disability and vulnerability status on her account.
3. The landlord’s failure to update the disability status of the resident was an ‘‘obvious flaw’’ in its policy and an ‘‘un-acknowledged’’ service failure. The representative went on to explain that the third-party authority was put in place to avoid the resident communicating when she feels unwell and/or under strong pain medication.
4. Neither they nor the resident were aware of who or what a ‘RAB’ was nor had they received any communication from the landlord’s ‘foundation’ regarding this issue.
5. £50 was nowhere near recognition of the time and trouble taken pursuing this matter, nor was the £100 sufficient for the 10 month delay in arranging the installation of handrails or the 11 week delay in investigating the complaint.
The landlord issued its final response on 1 December 2022. In its response the landlord said that it did not believe that the stage 1 complaint response appropriately acknowledged the inconvenience caused, addressed areas of learning, or demonstrated a full assessment of all issues raised. It went on to say that:
1. It took too long to resolve the handrail installation. It acknowledged that it should have proactively engaged with the council, the OTs, and its contractors to ensure that this was resolved long before the complaint was raised. It said that this was not appropriately addressed within the stage 1 complaint, which it accepted as an additional service failure.
2. It was pleased that the handrail installation took place on 8 November 2022 and that all further adaptations currently required were in place.
3. The disability status information should have been updated on receipt of the OT’s report and it recognised that essential information on the needs and vulnerabilities of its residents should be recorded as early as possible. The landlord said that its stage 1 review should have acknowledged that changes were needed to its policy, which it recognised was an additional service failure.
4. It should not have used acronyms within its complaint response and explained that RAB was the ‘Resident’s Assistance Budget’, grant funding to be provided to residents in need. The landlord said that it was pleased that it was able to receive funding for the flooring installation and payment was being made to the approved contractor for the resident to arrange the works at her convenience. The landlord also said that it would be in touch with the resident to arrange an appointment to relocate the radiator to facilitate the works. It went on to say that when the resident was ready for the flooring works to take place it would ensure everything happened at the same time.
5. It had taken too long to investigate the stage 1 complaint and to provide an outcome. There were insufficient updates to all parties as the investigation continued, which had continued into the stage 2 escalation, and there were additional service failures through both the stage 1 and stage 2 case management investigations.
6. To make this right, it had increased compensation offered in its stage 1 response to £800, made up of £300 for the distress and inconvenience, associated with its disability status updates, handrail installation and support for flooring replacementand £500 for the delays in its complaint handling.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. The 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution are:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, the Ombudsman considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what, if anything, the landlord has done to put things right. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
The amount of compensation we decide upon does not reflect a definitive loss, as we are not able to quantify this, but it is a recognition of the overall distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the particular circumstances of the complaint. This will take into account the impact of the distress and inconvenience, the severity of the situation, the length of time involved, any disabilities or particular vulnerabilities of the resident, and any other relevant factors.
When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, also need consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. It is evident that the resident has concerns about the actions of the council’s occupational therapist (OT) and its adaptations team. However, these fall properly within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) and as such are outside the jurisdiction of this Service to consider under paragraph 42(j). Whilst this report will make reference to the council’s services this will only be to provide context to the subsequent actions or inactions of the landlord.

Handling of the installation of handrail adaptations to the resident’s property.

The landlord’s aids and adaptations procedure includes grab rails and handrails in the examples of minor adaptations. It states it will complete minor adaptations within 20 working days. This is in line with Government guidance on the delivery of disabled facilities grants (March 2022), which sets out the timescales for delivering adaptations. The guidance also says it is important to keep the resident updated on progress and any delays.
In this case the landlord received a letter from the resident’s OT on 13 August 2021 requesting a handrail to right hand side of the internal stairs in her property. Considering the nature of the work involved, the installation of the handrail would be classed as a minor adaptation and as such would be expected to be completed within 20 working days. The landlord would therefore have expected to have arranged for the works to be completed by 10 September 2021.
However, the landlord did not arrange for its contractor to attend until 15 October 2021, almost 1 month outside of the timescales set out in its adaptations procedure. This Service has also seen no evidence of the landlord keeping the resident updated on progress and any delays during this time.
It is not disputed that the resident declined the initial handrail installation on 15 October 2021, asking that handrails be installed to corridor staircase, first floor landing and toilet. However, this does not provide any mitigation for the landlord for the delay in its completing the works. This is because:
1. Prior to its contractor attempting to install the single handrail on 15 October 2021, the resident had already raised concerns on 4 October 2021 that the single handrail may not be sufficient to meet her needs. Given the resident’s evident concern it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have promptly contacted the OT to advise them of the concerns raised and to seek their advice regarding her request. However, due to its contractor failing to pass the resident’s concerns back to the landlord, it took no action. This not only highlights a significant issue in the communication between the landlord and it contractor but also a failure by the landlord to effectively manage the handrail installation through to completion.
2. This is further evidenced by the landlord response to the resident’s contact about the handrails in March 2022 when, despite clearly having received the OTs referral in August 2021, it appeared to have no knowledge of the adaptation and asked the resident to send it a copy. It is noted that there were concerns raised about the method suggested by the landlord for the resident to send to forward this information. However, whilst this was clearly of concern for the resident and her representative, the key issue here is that the landlord should have had this information in its records already and, were it not for a failure in its record keeping, this information would not have had to be requested again.
These failures were acknowledged by the landlord in its stage 1 response of 7 June 2022, it which it said that it would now go back to the OT. Whilst this was an appropriate step for the landlord to take, that it had not done so in the 8 months since the initial installation was declined was a serious failure that would have had a significant detrimental effect on the resident.
There were then further delays in the handrail installation, this not taking place until 8 November 2022, a further 5 months later. It is acknowledged that these works included additional handrails and that there may have been a delay in the landlord obtaining a further referral from the OT. However, the landlord has not provided any evidence of it chasing the OT for their response or of it keeping the resident updated during this 5 month period.
Further, an internal landlord email suggest that the additional handrails had been agreed and that the resident’s representative had been advised of this as early as 22 September 2022. As such, the landlord would have been expected to have completed these works within 20 working days of 22 September 2022. However, again it failed to do so with the works not being completed until 8 November 2022, some 33 working days after 22 September 2022.
Overall, the landlord failed on multiple separate occasions to deal with adaptations in line with its obligations over the 15 months period between when the OT referral was received and the works completed. These included:
1. A failure attend the resident’s property, to complete the minor adaptation referred by her OT on 13 August 2021, within the 20 working day timescale set out in its adaptation process and Government guidance.
2. A failure in its communication with its contractor and in its oversight of the works which resulted in an 8 month delay in it taking any action following the resident declining the single handrail on 15 October 2021.
3. A failure to maintain accurate records which resulted in it having to request a copy of the OT referral from the resident, which it had clearly already received in August 2021.
4. A further unreasonable 5 month delay in these works being completed after it sought further advice from the resident’s OT following its stage 1 response.
5. Despite the landlord confirming on 22 September 2022 that the additional handrails had been agreed, it failed to compete the works within the required timescales. Not doing so until 8 November 2022.
These were serious failings over an excessive period that had a significant detrimental effect on the resident including unnecessary distress and inconvenience, and a significant impact her ability to use her home. These failures were compounded by the fact that at least as early as the OT’s referral in August 2021, it was aware of the resident’s significant vulnerabilities. However, the landlord failed to take reasonable account of these when prioritising any works needed. The combination of these failures amount to severe maladministration. To make this right the landlord has been ordered to:
1. Arrange for an apology to be given to the resident by the chief executive.
2. Pay the resident £1,300 compensation, this is inclusive of the £100 compensation it offered in its final response offered in its final response if this has not already been paid.
3. Carry out a senior management review of the failures identified with regards to its handling of the adaptations in this case. The landlord is then to confirm to this service what steps it has taken to ensure that similar failings do not happen in the future and that going forward it responds to adaptations requests in line with its aids and adaptations procedure.
The Ombudsman has recently made several orders in other investigations into this landlord about reviewing its record keeping with regards works at its resident’s properties. The Ombudsman has therefore not made separate orders or recommendations around this aspects of its service but expects the landlord to take all relevant learning from this case into account going forward.

Response to the resident’s request for the laminate flooring in her bedroom to be replaced following the installation of a through floor lift adaptation by the Council.

The tenancy agreement sets out the landlord’s and the resident’s rights and responsibilities. In general terms, the landlord is required to maintain and keep in good repair the structure of the building. Laminate floor covering in the bedroom would normally be the responsibility of the resident to repair or replace.
On 19 March 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to say that she had previously raised the possibility of a ‘foundation grant’ from the landlord to assist with the cost of replacing the flooring in her bedroom as the council, which had taken up the laminate floor in her bedroom, would not put it back down saying that it was decoration. The resident said that she ‘‘simply can’t afford’’ to pay for laminate flooring in her bedroom and that laminate flooring helped her pain and muscle spasm.
The resident’s request for funding for her laminated flooring was discussed internally by the landlord on 29 March 2022. The landlord’s initial response was that this would not be something it could action as this would not be classed as a disabled adaptation as it would be a resident responsibility to do.
Given that the resident had said that the council had removed the flooring during its installation of a through floor lift, and not replaced it, it was appropriate for the landlord adaptations surveyor to contact the council about the flooring installation, which they did on 5 April 2022. The council responded to say that prior to its contractors starting, the resident advised them she would be getting new flooring for them to lay. Its contractor included within their quote to lay flooring, but they are not able to pay to supply the new flooring. The council said that the resident advised that she would purchase a new carpet but this never arrived. The council refused to address the issue of the flooring.
In an internal email of 6 April 2022, the landlord again said that it was unable to assist as this did not meet the criteria for funding. The landlord has not provided a copy of its policy with regards to applications for funding and so it has not been possible for this Service to assess whether its position up until this point was reasonable or not.
However, following the escalation of the complaint, the landlord changed its position and worked with the resident’s representative to make a grant funding application for both the laminate flooring and its installation. This was approved on 29 September 2022. Following this there were evidently difficulties in finding a contractor to both supply and fit the flooring however, the evidence suggest that the landlord sought to manage the process and communicated appropriately with the resident’s representative during this time.
In its final response of 1 December 2022, the landlord confirmed that it was able to provide funding for the laminate flooring and the payment was being made to the approved contractor for the resident to arrange at her own convenience. The landlord also committed to arranging an appointment to relocate a radiator to facilitate the works.
Whilst it was not the landlord’s responsibility to replace the flooring, the action it took to secure grant funding from its ‘foundation’ to cover the cost of both supply and installation was both customer and solution focused. It also recognised the impact the flooring being removed by the council had had on the resident.
As per paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints about matters that have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. However, where the landlord has made commitments as part of its final complaint response, we will consider subsequent events in order to establish whether the landlord has put things right and learned from outcomes in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
Having committed to relocate the radiator to facilitate the installation of the flooring, the landlord would be expected to have done what it said it would do in a timely manner, however it did not do so. In a conversation with on 25 June 2024, the resident’s representative advised this Service that, some 18 months after the commitment the landlord made in its final response, the radiator had still not been relocated to allow for the new flooring to be installed.
Given this extensive delay in the landlord carrying out the commitment it made in its final response, and the considerable distress and inconvenience understandably caused to the resident, a finding of maladministration has been made. To make this right, the landlord has been ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £500 compensation, which is inclusive of the £100 offered in its final response..
2. Carry out a senior management review as to what has happened with regards to the relocation of the radiator in this case and to decide what steps it intend to take to put this right. The landlord is then to:
  1. Agree an action plan with the resident and her representative, including timescales, as to when the relocation of the radiator will be completed and the flooring installed.
  2. Provide this Service with a copy of its senior management review and a copy of the action it had agreed with the resident and her representative.

Record keeping with respect to the resident’s vulnerabilities and the impact of this on her.

The Equality Act 2010 states that landlords have a duty to make reasonable adjustments for residents who are at a substantial disadvantage compared to people who don’t have a disability. The Regulator of Social Housing’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard 2017 also requires landlords to treat residents with fairness and respect. It says landlords will provide choices, information, and communication appropriate to the diverse needs of residents.
On 10 February 2022, the resident’s representative called the landlord to ask if it was showing on the landlord’s system that the resident has a disability. The landlord noted that it advised that it did not. The landlord said that the resident signed her tenancy with another landlord who had not recorded her disability and so and that when the tenancy was transferred to it, the same was transferred.
In their escalation request of 23 June 2022, the resident’s representative expressed their dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response and their concern that it had failed to update the disability status. The representative said that this was an ‘‘obvious flaw’’ in its policy and an ‘‘un-acknowledged’’ service failure. They went on to say that this presents ‘‘multiple risks to this disabled & vulnerable resident’s health and safety, as well as negative effects to services provided by the landlord and its contractors.’’
In its final response, the landlord acknowledged that the resident’s disability status information should have been updated on receipt of the occupational therapist’s report. The landlord also recognised that essential information on the needs and vulnerabilities of its residents should be recorded as early as possible, to enable appropriate responses to all requests and services. The landlord acknowledged that changes were needed to its policy, which it noted was an additional failure.
To make this right the landlord said that the alert for residents with disabilities had been added to the resident’s account. However, it failed to provide the resident with any other redress with regards to any distress and convenience this may have caused her.
Further, it also remains unclear whether the landlord actually did what it said it was going to do with regards to updating the resident’s vulnerabilities on its system. This is because, in its evidence submission to this Service on 8 May 2024 the landlord said that ‘vulnerabilities are not stated’, which evidently would not be the case had it added the alert to the resident’s account as it had said it had done in its final response.
The landlord did however consider the changes that were needed to its vulnerabilities policy and published a new policy in February 2024, in which:
1. It makes reference to its obligations in relation to the Equality Act 2010, the Regulator for Social Housing’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard and Housing Ombudsman Complaints Handling Code.
2. Section 5.1 acknowledges that ‘Providing customer-facing services with information on what a vulnerability is and context on how that effects a customer will allow for better communication and enable us to direct resources in a way that minimises service failure or abuse’.
3. Section 7.2 states that ‘recording vulnerability information on its systems will allow for services to make any adjustments in service delivery and support a right first-time approach. Increasing visibility of customers’ needs will support our ability to adjust services and increase our knowledge of our customers and how we can direct resources in the most effective way’.
4. Section 10.7 and 10.8 acknowledge that ‘it is important to ensure that vulnerability data is only accessible to colleagues and contractors who need to see this as part of their role/work, and it is important that they can access this in a timely manner. It goes on to state that all staff will be trained in the processing of vulnerability data. This will include reminders about confidentiality, the importance of collecting accurate and up-to-date information and the use of this data’.
The issue of the withdrawal of the resident’s third party authority on 17 October 2022 was raised by the resident’s representative prior to the landlord’s final response. However, as this did not form part of either the resident’s initial complaint or the escalation request it has not been considered any further here. Nevertheless, the matter of third party authority has been included in the orders made in respect of the landlord’s overall handling of this element of her complaint.
Whilst the landlord acknowledged its failures with regards to its record keeping with respect to the resident’s vulnerabilities and the impact of this on her, and published a new vulnerability policy, the redress it offered was not sufficient to provide the resident with redress for its failures. In light of this a finding of maladministration has been made and the landlord ordered to pay the resident a total of £200 compensation. £200 for its failures with regards to record keeping with respect to the resident’s vulnerabilities and the impact of this on her. This is inclusive of the £100 offered in its final response if this has not already been paid.
The landlord has also been ordered to:
1. Liaise with the resident, and a representative of her choice that is acceptable to the landlord in accordance with its third party consent policy, to ensure that its customer-facing services are provided with information on what the resident’s vulnerability are.
2. Discuss with the resident, and the representative of her choice, how these affect her and how best for it to provide its services to her. This is to include ensuring that third party authority is in place if that is something that would assist the resident in her communication with it.

Handling of the associated complaint

In its stage 1 response the landlord said that the resident initially logged her complaint on 24 March 2022. No evidence of this has been seen by this Service, nor has any response by the landlord at that time. It was not until 11 April 2022, following contact from the resident’s representative, that the landlord issued a stage 1 response.
In accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy and having acknowledged that it received the resident’s complaint on 24 March 2022, it should have provided its stage 1 response within 10 working days of that date, and no later than 14 April 2022.
However, it was not until 24 May 2022, over a month after its stage 1 response would have been due, that the landlord wrote to the resident’s representative. At this point, the landlord said that it had hoped to provide its stage 1 response by 23 May 2022 but would not now be able to do so until 10 June 2022. The landlord did provide its response on 7 June 2022. However, this was almost 2 months outside of the timescales set out in its complaints policy.
This Service’s complaint handling code states that if a landlord is not able to meet the 10 working day deadline it should provide an explanation and a date when the stage 1 response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason. However, there is no evidence of the landlord previously extending the deadline prior to 23 May 2022 and, even if it had done so, to extend the deadline again would not have been in accordance with this Service’s code. Further, when landlords seek to extend deadlines, they would be expected to do so ahead of the deadline passing, which the landlord did not do in this case.
The resident’s representative escalated the complaint on 23 June 2022. In accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy, it should have responded to the complaint within 20 working days, no later than 21 July 2022. However, the landlord did not do so until 1 December 2022, just over another 4 months outside of the timescales set out in its complaints policy.
It is noted that during this period, the landlord was in relatively frequent contact with the resident’s representative about the progress of the grant application and with regards to quotes for the flooring. However, there is also evidence of the resident’s representative chasing the landlord for its complaint response on multiple occasions including:
1. On 3 August 2022, when he said he had requested 6 call backs since 21 July 2022 but had still had no response. In the same email the representative said that their escalation request had still not been acknowledged.
2. On 24 August 2022, following which the landlord said that it would aim to issue its final response by the end of that week. If that were not possible, due to annual leave, it would issue the response after 21 September 2022.
The landlord did email the representative to explain what the current situation with regards to the handrails and grant application. However, this was not done until 29 September 2022, more than 5 working days after the date it had referred to on 24 August 2022. In this email the landlord suggested 2 options: to leave the complaint open until all matters had been resolved or to close the complaint with assurances. The representative’s response to these options has not been seen by this Service. Nevertheless, given the resident’s vulnerabilities and the need for the issues to be resolved as a matter urgency for the landlord to then take a further 5 weeks to provide its response represents a further failure on its part.
In its final response, that landlord acknowledged that it had taken too long to investigate the stage 1 complaint and to provide an outcome. It also acknowledged that there were insufficient updates to all parties as the investigation continued, which had continued into the stage 2 escalation, and there were additional service failures through both the stage 1 and stage 2 case management investigations. To put this right the landlord offered the resident £500 for the delay in the complaint process, this being increased from the £100 offered at stage 1, which is noted included an element for the delay in arranging the adaptations works.
Having considered all the evidence, whilst there were clearly failures by the landlord with regards to its complaint handling overall it provided the resident with reasonable redress for those failures. This is because the landlord recognised and apologised for the unreasonable delay in it acknowledging the complaint and in its responses at both stage 1 and stage 2. The landlord also offered the resident compensation for those failures that was both proportionate and in line with the amounts given in its compensation policy.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the installation of handrail adaptations to the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for the laminate flooring in her bedroom to be replaced following the installation of a through floor lift adaptation by the council.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its record keeping with respect to the resident’s vulnerabilities and the impact of this on her.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for an apology to be given to the resident which needs to be writing and sent by a senior director or above.
2. Pay the resident a total of £2,000 compensation, made up of:
  1. £1,300 for its failures with regards to the installation of the handrails at her property, this is inclusive of the £100 compensation it offered in its final response if this has not already been paid.
  2. £200 for its failures with regards to record keeping with respect to the resident’s vulnerabilities and the impact of this on her. This is inclusive of the £100 offered in its final response if this has not already been paid.
  3. £500 for its failure to carry out the relocation of the radiator which it committed to do in its final response, this is inclusive of the £100 offered in its final response if this has not already been paid.
3. To liaise with the resident, and a representative of her choice, that is acceptable to the landlord in accordance with the third party consent policy, to ensure that its records provide accurate details regarding her vulnerability. The landlord is also to discuss with the resident, and the representative of her choice, how these affect her and how best for it to provide its services to her. This is to include ensuring that third party authority is in place if that is something that would assist the resident in her communication with it.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, and in accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a senior management review of its handling of the installation of handrail adaptations and the relocation of the radiator in this case and to decide what steps it intend to take to put this right. The landlord is then to:
1. Agree an action plan with the resident and her representative, including timescales, as to when the relocation of the radiator will be completed and the flooring installed.
2. Confirm to this service what steps it has taken to ensure that the wider public interest is addressed by ensuring similar failings do not happen in the future and that going forward it responds to adaptations requests in line with its aids and adaptations procedure.

Recommendation

If it has not done so already it is recommended that the landlord now pays the resident the £500 offered in its final response for its complaint handling failures. The finding on reasonable redress being dependent on the landlord doing so.