Citizen Housing (202310123)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310123

Citizen Housing

1 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to install a patio door.
2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord for 40 years. Her previous property during the 40-year period was a 2-storey 3-bedroom house with front and rear gardens. The resident has degenerative arthritis and suffers from depression, anxiety and agoraphobia, specifically where escape is difficult. She asked the landlord for a property transfer for health reasons. It approved a mutual exchange with the tenants of one of its other properties. The resident moved into her new property, a 2-bedroom ground floor flat in April 2023.
4. The resident attended a pre-exchange inspection on 13 March 2023. The current residents were present as well as a housing officer and estate manager. She noticed a door from the bedroom to the patio had been removed and replaced with a floor to ceiling window. The resident said she asked for the bedroom door to be re-instated.
5. Throughout the complaint the landlord has said that the resident had not raised the issue with the bedroom door at the inspection.
6. The resident signed the mutual exchange paperwork on 24 April 2023.
7. On 28 April 2023, the resident complained to the landlord. She said that during the pre-exchange inspection the officers present had given her the impression that the patio door would be re-instated. This door was crucial for her to be able to access the patio.
8. The resident emailed the landlord on 4 May 2023. She said, in its complaint acknowledgement the landlord had told her that she would be contacted the next working day to discuss her concerns. She had waited for days but nobody called her. The landlord responded the same day to advise it had passed her concerns to the customer resolution team.
9. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 16 May 2023. It said:
   1. The resident had attended a pre-inspection appointment before accepting the property.
   2. The resident had viewed the property. There were no notes to indicate the patio doors were discussed at the inspection. The patio door was not part of the mutual exchange report.
   3. It advised the resident to approach an occupational therapist (OT) through her GP to request an assessment to determine what adaptions may be possible.
10. Between 16 May 2023 and 13 June 2023, the resident contacted the landlord a number of times. She said:
    1. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 response and did not know how it could come to a decision on the complaint without inspecting the property.
    2. She had spoken about the installation of a patio door at the mutual exchange inspection in the presence of 2 members of the landlord’s staff. She was told nothing had been entered in the inspection notes surrounding this discussion and felt she was being made out to be a liar.
    3. She felt that the absence of a door in the kitchen and bedroom created a fire risk.
    4. She suffered from degenerative arthritis for which she receives full personal independence payment with the enhanced mobility component and employment support allowance. She also has a medically diagnosed mental health condition, anxiety and depression. 
    5. To access the patio, she had to go out through the main communal hallway, up 2 sets of large steps onto a public road, along the footpath and then down a steep grassy slope.
    6. She now regretted leaving her 3-bedroom house for a property where she could not access outside space. Not being able to access the outside space was impacting on her mental health. She felt she was being discriminated against due to her mobility and medical conditions.
11. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 14 June 2023. It advised it had reviewed the outcome of the stage 1 complaint and that its response remained unchanged. The resident had attended a mutual exchange inspection, which was the opportunity to discuss her request for a patio door. She had agreed to the mutual exchange after the viewing.  It reiterated and urged her to follow its previous advice to contact an OT to determine what assistance could be offered.
12. The resident emailed the chief executive on 4 July 2023. She said:
    1. The issue had caused her significant distress. The landlord should have told her sooner than the day before the sign-up appointment that it would not install the door. By this time, she did not have the heart to back out as the children moving into her house were so excited to have their own bedrooms.
    2. An OT had visited, they advised they could not require a door but recommended the landlord should install one. She asked if it would now conduct the work.
13. On 7 December 2023, the resident forwarded a letter from her GP to the landlord. The GP stated that the resident was being treated for anxiety, depression and suffered from degenerative osteoarthritis affecting a number of joints. She had also undergone multiple operations for breast cancer including 2 mastectomies, lymph node biopsies and radiotherapy in the 12 months preceding 16 November 2023.
14. A second OT visited the resident on 27 March 2024. They recommended a level access door from the bedroom to the patio area. This was followed up with a letter advising the same on 3 April 2024.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to install a patio door.

15. The landlord’s aids and adaptions policy states that it is not under a legal obligation to remove or alter a physical feature of the property. In such instances it will consider reasonable adjustments, but these may not always be practical or appropriate.
16. If requested, it will provide minor adaptions that typically cost less than £1000, subject to availability of budget. Where there is uncertainty about cost it may organise a contractor to provide quotes. Major adaptions generally costing more than £1000 will be subject to the referral of an OT.
17. If the landlord is unable to carry out adaptions, it will try its best to accommodate and will consider other options such as relocation. It reserves the right to decline requests where residents have accepted a property with an awareness that it did not meet their needs at the time.
18. The resident advised she called the surveyor 5 times after the inspection and left messages which they did not respond to. The day before she was to sign the contract, she called to ask what the surveyor had decided about the patio door. She was told, she would have to pay for it herself. The manner and timing in which the landlord provided this information was unacceptable.
19. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord advised there was no evidence to show the resident had discussed the patio door at the inspection and that it had not been written into the mutual exchange form. In its stage 2 response it said that the mutual exchange inspection was the resident’s opportunity to advise of the need for a patio door in the property. Having seen the property (and not raised the issue) she had accepted it as it was. However, in its notes to us the landlord advised, “In the inspection visit at the property the tenant was verbally notified by the maintenance manager that the patio door was not a repair and that it could not fund the installation of a patio door.” This contradicts the landlord’s earlier evidence and shows the resident both raised her request for the door and discussed it during the inspection.
20. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. When there is a disagreement in the accounts of the resident and the landlord regarding the particulars of a case, the onus would be on the landlord to provide documentary evidence to support its decision making. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. From the evidence provided to this investigation it is our decision that the resident did raise her request for a patio door at the inspection. As such the landlord based its decision and complaint responses on incomplete evidence, which was unacceptable. 
21. Given that the resident had raised the topic at the inspection, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to discuss what options were available to her and to follow this up in writing. This did not happen and is a failure on the part of the landlord. After receiving the request for the door, the landlord was required to follow its aids and adaptions procedure. The procedure states that it may cost the works so as to determine how the matter may proceed. If it is under £1,000 the landlord may fund the work itself. If over £1,000 the resident is referred to an OT. The resident was referred directly to OT, it is unknown if this was necessary as no costing took place and no indication from the landlord that the cost was likely to be greater than £1000. 
22. Additionally, the landlord missed a number of opportunities to notify the resident of its intentions to follow its aids and adaptions policy and to explain the implications to her. The first was when she raised it at the inspection, then when she made contact after the inspection, when she spoke to the housing officer the day before signing the contract and when she contacted the landlord regarding the complaint. This was a failure on the part of the landlord.
23. While the failure of the landlord to refer the resident to the aids and adaptations policy happened over a relatively short period of time (13 March 2023 to 16 May 2023). The landlord’s inaction caused the resident considerable time and trouble through multiple communications that were not addressed properly or at all, wrong advice being given and a general lack of empathy. This coupled with the aggravating circumstances of the resident, that is, degenerative arthritis, depression, anxiety and agoraphobia, specifically where escape is difficult meant that the resident was more affected by these failures and maladministration has been found.

Complaint Handling

24. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It commits to acknowledging stage 1 complaints in 5 working days and providing a response within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints will be responded to within 20 working days.
25. In its acknowledgement email the landlord advised someone would contact the resident to discuss her complaint, as required by its complaint’s procedure, but nobody contacted her. The resident notified the landlord of this in an email on 4 May 2024, she said that “not having the chance to discuss the situation was unfair and inconsistent.” The email was acknowledged but again nobody contacted her to discuss the matter, which was a failing.
26. After the landlord issued its stage 1 response the resident sent a number of emails indicating her dissatisfaction and requested that someone visit the property to understand how difficult it was for her to access her patio. It was unreasonable that she did not receive a response to this request or an actual visit.
27. In addition, the landlord’s evidence that it had discussed the patio door during the inspection was different to those communicated in the complaint responses. This indicates a poor investigation of the complaint. When there have been errors or mistakes, the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires. landlords to acknowledge this and to take action to put things right. This includes providing explanations or reasons detailing why things went wrong. Not doing so was a failure on the part of the landlord.
28. The landlord failed to fulfil the requirements of its complaints procedure. It did not properly engage with the resident or conduct a thorough investigation of her complaint. Overall, it is the Ombudsman’s decision that there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s
    1. Handling of the resident’s request for a patio door.
    2. Complaint Handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

30. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report:
    1. Provide a written apology from a manager to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure the apology meets the criteria highlighted in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance amended on 17 April 2024.
    2. The landlord must make contact with the local authority and the responsible contractors to expedite the process of having the patio door installed. The landlord must then allocate a specific point of contact to provide the resident with monthly updates in writing.
    3. The landlord must pay the resident £300. The money must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against arrears. It is comprised of:
       1. £200 for the distress inconvenience, time and trouble associated with its handling of the resident’s request to install a patio door.
       2. £100 for the distress inconvenience, time and trouble associated with its complaint handling.
    4. The landlord must review the fire risk assessment. Considering the resident’s mobility, it must satisfy itself that the risk of her not being able to reach an ultimate place of safety in the event of a fire has not been unacceptably increased by the missing patio door and that the layout meets current fire safety standards. The landlord must provide the results of the review in writing to the resident and the Ombudsman.