Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (202322792)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322792

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council

18 November 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:
    1. Response to the resident’s kitchen adaptation request at the property.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of a 2-bedroom bungalow. The landlord offered her the new build property, prior to its build completion, due to her health and priority rehousing need. The landlord is an arms length management organisation (ALMO) which manages properties for the local authority. The resident’s tenancy started on 16 September 2022. The landlord has recorded the resident’s health vulnerabilities. This includes a visual impairment.
  2. On 6 September 2022 the landlord’s housing panel approved kitchen adaptations to the new build property offered to the resident. It accepted an application for a high level oven, due to the resident’s health and vulnerabilities. It advised it could not give her a timeframe for it to complete the work. The resident informed the supporting occupational therapist (OT) that she would like to sign up for the property and move in before the landlord completed the adaptations.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint on 25 April 2023. In which, she said the landlord had left her in the property for 4 and a half months without a cooker.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint the next day and issued its stage 1 complaint response on 30 May 2023. It apologised that it had encountered unforeseen challenges during the kitchen adaptation. Namely, sourcing the matching kitchen cabinets to fit her high level oven and hob to meet the resident’s needs. It acknowledged and apologised for the delay to provide the permanent solution. However, it was satisfied it had ensured she had alternative cooking facilities while awaiting completion of the kitchen adaptation. It offered £175 compensation for an initial 21 day delay to install a temporary hob.
  5. The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints process (ICP) on 12 June 2023. She disputed that the landlord ensured she had alternative cooking facilities.
  6. The landlord provided the resident with its stage 2 final response on 10 July 2023. It said:
    1. The resident accepted the tenancy on 16 September 2022.
    2. By 7 October 2022 it had installed a temporary hob for her to use and offered her a Baby Belling tabletop cooker multiple times. This was a temporary arrangement until it could complete the kitchen adaptation. It said the resident declined its offers and recorded her being happy with the temporary hob.
    3. It acknowledged the installation of the temporary hob took 21 days and apologised that it had not completed this sooner.
    4. By 19 December 2022 it had temporarily installed oven housing, ready for the high level cooker. It experienced delays completing this work due to the resident’s availability and access issues.
    5. It completed all kitchen adaptation works on 2 March 2023.
    6. It acknowledged the delay to provide a permanent adapted cooking facility. However, it was satisfied it had ensured she had cooking facilities while it sourced the materials to house her high level oven. It apologised for the inconvenience and offered an additional £25 for an identified record keeping failure. Increasing the total compensation to £200.
  7. The resident brought her complaint to us. She said she had had to eat microwaved and takeaway food for an extended period of time. She said this affected her health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. We note the resident’s correspondence said that the landlord’s handling of her cooker and hob installation affected her health. She says she was hospitalised due to low levels of potassium and sodium. She attributes a deterioration in her health to having no cooker for 4 and a half months.
  2. Although we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to prove legal liability on whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. Therefore we are unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. A court or insurer must make an assessment of liability in such matters. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue a claim for damages for any adverse effect on her health.
  3. In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint, we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine the complaint by reference to what is, in our findings, fair in all the circumstances of the case. Where we identify a failure by a landlord, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.
  4. We note that the resident’s original complaint included dissatisfaction with what she considered “false” advertising. She said this was regard to a gate and fencing for the new build property. The resident did not bring these matters to us. She advised us that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response regarding the kitchen adaptations. Therefore, our investigation has solely focused on this matter.
  5. We also note that the resident raised additional queries regarding the property’s garden and snagging issues with the new build property in her stage 2 escalation request. These did not form part of her original complaint, nor form part of the landlord’s stage 1 response. Therefore, we will not investigate these matters.

Response to the resident’s kitchen adaptation request at the property

  1. The landlord offered the resident the property during construction in June 2022. Its records note that it was suitable for her needs, except for a high level oven. It was aware that the resident had made an adaptation request via the local authority.
  2. The landlord’s equipment and adaption policy (2021) states that the local authority may wish to visit to complete an assessment. An occupational therapist will assess the resident’s health in their home. Given that the property was still in construction, it was reasonable that the landlord was unable to commence adaptation works before it received guidance from the resident’s occupational therapist. An occupational therapist established the resident’s needs on 2 September 2022.
  3. The landlord’s equipment and adaptations policy (2021) states that its senior management team will meet once per month, on a Tuesday, to review and decide whether to approve major adaptation requests. It says it will send its decision in writing to the resident within 5 working days. Having discussed the resident’s needs with the local authority on Tuesday 6 September 2022, it was appropriate that the landlord informed the resident of its decision the next day.
  4. There is evidence between 5 to 7 September 2022 the landlord communicated with the resident’s occupational therapist. In which, it explained that it was unable to provide a completion timeframe for the adaptation work. This demonstrates that the landlord considered the potential impact on the resident prior to her moving into the property.
  5. There is evidence on 7 September 2022 that the occupational therapist confirmed to the landlord that the resident was:
    1. “Aware that it could not give her a timeframe for completion”
    2. “Happy to move into the property prior to the kitchen being altered.”
  6. This demonstrated that the landlord and the resident’s appropriate medical professional had made her aware of the situation. Therefore, the resident made an informed decision to terminate her existing tenancy and move to the property as seen.
  7. On 27 September 2022 the local authority wrote to the resident. It informed the resident that it had agreed to the adaptations with the landlord and reminded her it was unable to give her a timescale for completion. This demonstrated that communication continued between the landlord and local authority and their efforts to update her, while managing her expectations. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
  8. The resident does not dispute that she had a microwave oven when moving into the property. This demonstrates that she had a means to cook. Also, the landlord states that it offered the resident a tabletop Baby Belling oven. Which it says the resident declined on more than one occasion. The resident does not dispute this. During our telephone call to the resident on 4 November 2024, she said she had been concerned about placing the oven on top of her fridge or other surfaces. However, this was a reasonable offer by the landlord to provide the resident with an additional, temporary, cooking facility.
  9. That said, the landlord’s stage 2 final response acknowledged a need to improve its record keeping. It had been unable to clearly explain the exact dates it made the multiple offers of the Baby Belling oven to the resident. While it was entirely satisfied that it had made the offers, it was reasonable that it offered £25 compensation for the identified record keeping failure. Also, it explained to the resident the action it would take to prevent similar happening again. This demonstrated the landlord taking steps to learn from outcomes and putting things right.
  10. On 7 October 2022 the landlord set up a temporary hob at the property. It also says it offered the Baby Belling oven to the resident, which she declined. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response accepts that the delay of 21 calendar days to set up a temporary hob was unreasonable. It apologised for this delay and offered a total of £175 compensation.
  11. We note that the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response and compensation offer covered communication issues. This relates to matters not considered within this investigation. It would therefore be beneficial for the landlord to consider how it sets out its offers of compensation. This may improve clarity and understanding of what it has actually considered.
  12. There is evidence the resident chased the landlord for a progress update on 26 October 2022. She said she was struggling without an oven. While it was appropriate that the landlord asked its kitchen installer to contact her and proceed as soon as possible, we have been unable to identify if it reoffered her a temporary tabletop oven at this stage. This falls into the already acknowledged record keeping failure.
  13. During a visit to the resident on 29 November 2022, the landlord confirmed that the resident had a working hob and that she declined a tabletop oven. It was reasonable in the circumstances that it remade this offer.
  14. It is clear from evidence that the landlord had difficulties sourcing the specific materials to complete the kitchen adaptations. While this would understandably have caused an inconvenience to the resident, the landlord demonstrated warning the resident and OT prior to the tenancy start date. It took steps to put right the initial delay to install a temporary hob by way of £175 compensation. There is however no evidence which suggests the landlord left the resident without cooking facilities or the option of a cooker for 4 and a half months.
  15. It installed a temporary hob, offered a temporary tabletop oven, and ensured the resident had means to cook. There is no evidence after 26 October 2022 until the resident’s complaint on 26 April 2023 that she raised any further concerns. Nor that a medical professional raised concerns on her behalf.
  16. The landlord’s complaint responses thoroughly summarised the timeline of the resident’s move and adaptation request. It said that it “deeply regretted any frustration or inconvenience” caused by its delay to source the matching kitchen cabinets. It offered a total of £200. This demonstrated the landlord taking steps to learn from outcomes and put things right. This was reasonable and in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for maladministration, in the range of £100 to £600. Therefore, we find that the landlord has made an offer of redress, which in our findings, satisfactorily resolves this matter.

Complaint handling

  1. At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord operated a 2-stage ICP. It would acknowledge a complaint and an escalation request within 2 working days. It would provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days and 20 working days at stage 2.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2022 required landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days. Also, for landlord’s to respond to stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. In accordance with its relevant complaints policy, the landlord committed to the expectations of the Code.
  3. The evidence shows that the landlord acknowledged both the resident’s original complaint and stage 2 escalation request within 1 working day. This was appropriate and in line with its relevant complaints policy.
  4. We note from the evidence that the landlord sent its stage 1 acknowledgement letter printed in a standard font size. Given that it had recorded the resident’s vulnerabilities and need for large print, this was a failing. That said, we have been unable to identify any evidence that the resident expressed concern about this or that it caused her any detriment. We therefore consider this an error, which the landlord demonstrated correcting in later communications.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 30 May 2023. This was not appropriate as this was 12 working days beyond the landlord’s complaint policy response timescale. While the landlord did acknowledge and apologise for this delay, it made no offer of redress to put right this failure.
  6. The evidence shows that the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days. This was appropriate and in line with its it complaints policy and expectations of the Code.
  7. The landlords complaint responses were empathetic to her situation. It reassured her that it welcomed her complaint and took steps to learn from identified failures. That said, while the detriment of the landlord’s delayed complaint response would have been minimal, we find service failure in this matter.
  8. We order the landlord to pay £50 compensation. This is to recognise the distress and inconvenience to the resident as she tried to get matters resolved through the landlord’s ICP. This is in line with the remedies guidance available to us when we do not consider an apology alone proportionate redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the issue of the landlord’s response to the resident’s kitchen adaptation request at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. We order the landlord to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
    1. Pay the resident £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. Our determination of reasonable redress is made on the understanding that the compensation offered of £200 is paid to the resident within 28 days of this report, if it has not already been paid.
  2. We recommend that the landlord ensures that its complaint handling training includes how staff identify vulnerability markers. Such as requests for large print.
  3. We recommend that the landlord considers how it sets out any compensation offered and how it explains which complaint point it is attributed to. This will improve clarity and understanding to all those reading it.