IKE Supported Housing Limited (202306074)

Housing Ombudsman Service

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306074

IKE Supported Housing Limited

17 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

The complaint is about:
1. The support put in place for the resident whilst fire safety works were being carried out in the property.
2. The landlord’s consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities when arranging fire safety works in the property.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint cannot be investigated.
In this case, part of the resident’s complaint was in respect of the nature of the support plan which had been put in place by her live in support provider (a private company partnered with the landlord) and the impact this had on her. This Service also does not have the power to assess the quality/amount of support provided to the resident as adult social care provision is not an area that the Housing Ombudsman has any level of expertise or authority. Paragraph 42.j of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider a complaint which fall within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. The actions of the resident’s support provider or the plan it provided for the resident are not matters for this Service to investigate. This would fall within the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. As such the complaint about the nature of the support plan put in place for the resident whilst fire safety works were being carried out in the property, is outside the jurisdiction of this Service.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy at the property since 2019. The property is a room within a block which was built in 2002 for adults with Autism and Aspergers. The resident is registered as blind. The block has 4 ensuite bedrooms with support staff who reside at the property. It also has a lounge, kitchen/diner, communal WC/shower and utility room.
The landlord’s guide to help resident’s understand their tenancy is presented in an easy to understand format and had been created with the help of “easy read tenant ambassadors” of the landlord. It states as follows:
1. Residents must allow contractors to enter the property and do work there for the landlord.
2. The landlord’s staff will inspect the property to see what needs repairing.
The landlord’s safeguarding of vulnerable adults policy states that it will obtain a basic or standard DBS certificate for every employee, contractor, and temporary worker taking part in a regulated activity. An individual is engaged in regulated activity if they are providing any of the following activities as part of their role:
1. Healthcare.
2. Personal care.
3. Social work / Social Care.
4. Assistance with cash, bills, or shopping.
5. Assistance with the conduct of their own affairs.
6. Conveying services.
7. Teaching / Teaching Assistants.
The landlord’s reasonable adjustments policy states as follows:
1. The Equality Act 2010 places a duty on the landlord to carry out reasonable adjustments if a policy, practice or process disadvantages a disabled person significantly more than a person who is not disabled.
2. A reasonable adjustment may include adapting work practices, policies or processes, making physical changes to properties, or offering certain adaptations, in order to avoid or make good the disadvantage to a person with a disability.
3. It has adopted the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s definition of reasonable, which states that the test of what is reasonable is objective and not a matter of personal opinion. When deciding whether an adjustment is reasonable the following should be considered:
  1. How effective the adjustment will be in avoiding or making good the disadvantage that would otherwise be experienced.
  2. The practicality of the adjustment.
  3. The cost, value for money, and whether the adjustment is possible considering its resources and size.
  4. The availability of financial support.
  5. Any disruption to the service that the adjustment may cause, including any negative affect it may have on others.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states as follows:
1. It aims to comply with all relevant legislative and regulatory requirements and meet its contractual obligations.
2. It aims to ensure that all tenants live in a safe and secure environment.
3. It prioritise repairs as follows:
  1. Emergency – to be attended within 5 hours.
  2. Priority – to be attended within 24 – 48 hours.
  3. Urgent – to be attended within 7 working days.
  4. Routine repairs – to be attended within 28 working days.
  5. Other routine repairs – to be attended within 3 – 6 months.
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states that landlords must ensure the property is free of hazards including any defect which poses a risk of harm to the health or safety of the occupiers. Landlords must keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
The Government’s ‘supported housing statement of expectations’ outlines that landlords have to ensure that such supported housing properties meet statutory requirements in respect of fire, access and health and safety.
Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. Fire is a potential hazard that can fall within the scope of the Housing Health and Safety Rating System. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, and take steps to minimize the risk of a hazard. In this case fire doors in need of repair would be classed as hazards which the landlord has to act to rectify.
The Equality Act 2010 provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals and to advance equality of opportunity for all. The landlord would be required to comply with the provisions for public bodies under the Act. 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.
The Social Housing Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard requires registered providers to “treat all tenants with fairness and respect” and “demonstrate that they understand the different needs of tenants, including in relation to the equality strands and tenants with additional support needs” with a specific expectation that providers will “demonstrate how they respond to those needs in the way they provide services and communicate with tenants”.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure. At stage 1 it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and provide a decision within 10 working days, unless there are exceptional circumstances. At stage 2 it will respond within 20 working days. If additional time is required at stage 2, it will keep the resident informed and agree revised time limits with them. This policy is available to residents in an easy to understand format.

Summary of events

On 31 January 2023 the landlord emailed the resident’s support provider and advised that a contractor would be attending on 9 February 2023 to look at and measure the fire doors. It advised that the contractor would need access to each room. The landlord stated that once the fitting date had been confirmed, it would contact the support provider to discuss plans for fitting the doors, in order to minimise disruption to the residents. The support provider advised the landlord that same day that it had made its staff and residents aware of the inspection.
On 3 February 2023, damage was caused to a fire door at the property by the resident (the nature of the damage is not clear and no further details were provided to this Service in respect of this.).
On 6 February 2023 the landlord advised the support provider that the fire door contractor would attend between 9am and 9:30am on 9 February 2023.
The landlord emailed the resident on 7 February 2023 and thanked her for her honesty in respect of the damage to the fire door. It advised that a contractor would be attending that week to look at the fire door.
On 8 February 2023 the landlord advised the support provider that contractors would be attending the block on 21 and 22 February 2023 to carry out remedial works following a legionella check. The landlord provided the support provider with a list of works required for each room.
The fire door contractor attended the block at around 9:30am on 9 February 2023. They were unable to access the resident’s room but advised (according to the support provider) that they did not need to see the resident’s door. On 15 February 2023 the landlord asked the support provider why access had not been granted to the resident’s property. It asked the support provider to undertake an investigation into what had happened to avoid the contractor having to reattend. On 20 February 2023 the support provider outlined lessons learnt from the situation to the landlord, namely that it needed to be more specific in its communication with the landlord. The support provider and landlord agreed that same day to arrange a meeting between them to explore the lessons learned. On 21 February 2023 the support provider advised the landlord that to improve communications with the landlord when works were required, it had developed a proforma document.
That same day (21 February 2023) the landlord emailed the support provider and stated that it was looking at starting works to the fire doors in March 2023. It asked the support provider to confirm it was happy with this.
On 24 February 2023 the support provider advised the landlord that it had created a plan and an order of works for the fire door replacement to be carried out. It asked the landlord to confirm if the proposed schedule was achievable. The landlord advised that it would discuss the schedule with the site supervisor the following week. It stated it would emphasise the importance of completing the works as per the plan.
The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 27 February 2023 in respect of remedial legionella works to her shower. (This complaint does not form part of this investigation as the resident was satisfied by the resolution provided by the landlord at stage 2). Within this complaint, the resident also referred to “the enforced dismissal” from the property and the problems and distress this would cause her. She stated it was not fair to “just turf us out to get the work done, or to make the house so hostile” for the length of time (3 days). She stated that the way of doing the work and the working pattern would need to change, and if not there should be help with a temporary decant from the property. Whilst the resident did not specify that this was in respect of the fire door works, this could be reasonably assumed given that the fire doors works were the only outstanding works.
The landlord advised the resident that same day that it had recorded her complaint (about the fire door works) as a separate matter. It advised her as follows:
1. No work was being done in the property other than urgent emergency works.
2. No site visits would take place for the next 2 weeks.
3. The fire door compliance work that had been booked would be going ahead. The support provider had put a timetable together to ensure that all tenants were made aware of what date and time works in each room would be carried out.
4. The support provider had asked for the works to be carried out in an order and this was what the contractors have been asked to work to.
The resident responded the same day and stated that the fire door work could not viably go ahead in the way that it had been planned as it “enforced homelessness” during the day on the residents.
On 2 March 2023 the support provider completed a proforma in respect of the fire door works and shared this with the landlord. It confirmed it had discussed the form with the resident. The form stated as follows:
1. The landlord needed to replace the fire doors and would be sending contractors to the property on 13, 14 and 15 March 2023.
2. It set out the order for the doors to be replaced.
3. The resident would need to be out of the property by 9am on each day and would be able to return at 4.30pm each day.
4. The resident’s breakfasts and lunches would need to be taken in the communal room of another supported living block.
5. A staff member would supervise the contractors.
6. It understood the works would be a significant change and disruption for the resident.
7. The resident would prefer to be off site while the works were happening. It detailed the activities it had planned each day for her. It also advised that it would provide breakfast and lunches for the resident and would do the resident’s laundry and cleaning.
8. The resident would have a de-brief meeting with support workers.
On 3 March 2023 the landlord advised the resident that it had met with the support provider. To acknowledge the difficulties and the distress which would be caused by the works to upgrade the fire doors, it offered to pay for the resident to have a day trip to a local attraction on 15 March 2023.
That same day (3 March 2023) the resident advised the landlord that she was grateful for the day trip ticket. She explained that her complaint was in respect of the intensity at which the work to the fire doors was being done, and the fact that she was effectively being made to live as if her home was a “B&B” for 3 days. She advised that the outcome she wanted was for the landlord to make such works less “traumatic” in the future. She stated that the timing of the repair of the fire doors straight after legionella work had not left her enough time to recover. She stated that she felt “very vulnerable and brittle”.
On 8 March 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and stated that she had a right to “live in the property undisturbed”. She stated that therefore she could not “legally be forced out of the property” against her will at times of the landlord’s choosing.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 about the remedial legionella works on 10 March 2023. Whilst the complaint response was focused on the legionella works, it also responded to her concern about the fire door works. It stated that it had not requested that the resident vacate the property whilst fire door works were taking place. This was something that the support provider had advised. The risk assessment and draft plan the support provider had put together to alleviate the resident’s anxieties, had been shared with the landlord on 3 March 2023. As such it had offered to pay for a day out for the resident. Following this, it appears that the works went ahead as planned.
On 20 March 2023 the resident responded to the complaint outcome and advised as follows:
1. She requested the matter be escalated to stage 2. She asked that the complaint about the fire door works be investigated as a separate complaint.
2. She stated that if she had stayed in the property during the fire door works, the environment would have been unpredictable and unsafe for her.
3. The support provider had warned her that it was not safe to be in the property. As such she did not have a choice but to leave. She stated that the landlord therefore did “force” her to be out of the property for 7.5 hours on 3 consecutive days, contravening her right to live undisturbed. Other activities had to be planned to alleviate anxiety. These had been hard to arrange as she was short of funds. The works had disrupted her cleaning and washing days.
4. Repairs should have been managed to reduce the length and intensity of the disturbance whilst still maintaining safety standards.
5. She stated that her desired outcome was a change in the landlord’s practices, to ensure this never happened again. She requested full recognition of the distress caused by the landlord and that actions should be taken, which could include staff autism awareness training.
The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 24 March 2024. It asked if it could meet with the resident to discuss her complaint. It advised that until it had addressed her concerns, no work or site visits would take place at the property unless there was a legal obligation or urgent emergency works. The resident agreed to take part in an online meeting with the landlord on 11 April 2023. In respect of this meeting, the landlord noted internally as follows:
1. The resident had stated that a letter had advised there would be no more visits but there had been. Fire doors were banging and the laundry door was faulty.
2. The resident though it was unreasonable that she had to go into another house to have breakfast and that she had had to vacate her property.
3. She had found a letter from the landlord to be hostile as it did not account for how she could interpret it.
4. Suggestions for improvements were discussed as follows:
  1. More planning in line with the support provider and rotas.
  2. An appreciation of the impact of 3 day works on the tenants.
  3. It would be beneficial to meet the landlord and contractor beforehand so residents could express their concerns and help with planning.
  4. Prioritise work schedules.
  5. The landlord could check works after completion.
On 4 May 2023 the landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints and stated as follows:
1. Further visit – it had advised that no work or site visits would take place at the property unless it was a legal obligation or urgent emergency works. Its records show that no visits had taken place after this. It asked the resident to let it know if this was not accurate and it would investigate further.
2. Fire doors banging and the laundry door being faulty – its contractors would need to reattend to fit some new door handle sets, which had been out of stock. It intended to carry out final adjustments at the same time. It would give as much notice as possible of this to enable this to be included in the resident’s weekly planner. The resident had pointed out a part on the fire door which had become detached. It advised that this was cosmetic, to hide the screws, and could be left off. The contractors would check the door seals during their visit.
3. Contractors checks and training – it confirmed that its contractors were all checked to see if they are competent, qualified and where relevant, members of professional bodies. It also issued them with guidance on how to behave in its properties and around its tenants. Its contractors were not DBS checked as they did not carry out any regulated activities. This was why the support staff (who were DBS checked) were present, to accompany residents and provide support. The contractors who worked on the fire doors were certified by professional bodies and were members of The Institute of Fire Safety Managers. They were classed as specialists in their field of fire door fitting and maintenance.
4. The resident having to have breakfast in another house – this had been planned by the support provider in order to minimise the effect on the resident. It advised that contractors had required a reasonable working space to be able to work safely. They also required a reasonable amount of time to carry out the works. The change of location for the resident to have breakfast had been for safety reasons.
5. What would have happened if the resident had become unwell at the time of the works? – it explained that if this had happened, it would have worked with the support provider to see if the work could be carried out. It would have considered the importance of the work, the risk to people’s safety and wellbeing and this would have been balanced against any illness.
6. The nature of the landlord’s letter – it apologised that the resident found the letter to be hostile. It advised this was not its intention. It advised it would like to meet with the resident following the stage 2 response to discuss it with her.
7. 3 days work being too much for the resident – it advised that sometimes this could not be avoided, however it would try to break works down into more manageable sections. This might depend on the contractor’s availability and whether the job was urgent or an emergency.
8. The resident’s request to meet contractors beforehand – this was not always possible as contractors had limited time. This was why it used the same companies if possible, so residents had a greater chance of getting contractors they had met before. The fire door supervisor had visited prior to the works, on the 9 February 2023 but had not been able to access the resident’s property.
9. The resident’s request to meet with the landlord before works commenced – it could not commit to this. This was the responsibility of the support provider however it did work with them to make sure as much information was shared and planning undertaken.
10. The resident’s request for the landlord to check works after completion – its staff were not experts in the work its contractors carried out. That was why it used approved, certified and competent contractors. The support provider always fed back to it the outcome of works.
11. The request for works to be spaced out – in the case of the fire doors, this was not possible. Numerous jobs had to be done, as quickly as possible, to keep tenants safe. New laws insisted that fire door works need to be carried out as soon as possible. Splitting the work into parts may have put people at risk. It may be able to do this on jobs not relating to urgent safety or compliance works. It would consider this on large jobs and on a job by job basis, where possible.
12. Visual impairment/autism awareness guidance – it was reviewing this and would be in touch after this had taken place.
13. The request for a Word friendly tenancy agreement without pictures – the resident’s support worker was going to assist her with this.
14. It advised that it had new staff members starting soon to help it support tenants in a more personal way. It offered to introduce them to the resident.
On 5 May 2023 the resident advised that she was dissatisfied with the response and stated as follows:
1. Most of the response was reasons why the landlord could not make reasonable adjustments and also assertions that most of it was the responsibility of the support provider.
2. Contractor needs should come second to her needs as a tenant.
3. The landlord was willing to compromise her safety to the point where the support provider had to say that she could not be in the property. This compromised her liberty.
4. She would refer the matter to the Housing Ombudsman as the landlord was “hurting” her.
On 11 May 2023 the landlord met with the resident and her support worker and noted as follows:
1. The resident fully appreciated that contractors did not have to be DBS checked.
2. The resident had been concerned about what would have happened if she had been ill at the time of the fire door works. The landlord had explained that if she had been ill and the work was not an absolute emergency, the contractors would have been cancelled. She had requested this in writing. It had undertaken lessons learnt and would put in place a procedure to deal with tenants’ illness. It would send a letter to the resident thanking her for bringing this to its attention.
3. The resident accepted and appreciated the feedback on the fire door strips that had come off and felt reassured.
4. Her main point of dissatisfaction was that she had had to leave the property for 3 days. The landlord had outlined the reasonable adjustments it had put in place, such as the planning with the support provider and paying for a day out.
On 16 May 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident following the meeting with it on 11 May 2023. It stated as follows:
1. It had taken learning from the resident’s concern about what would have happened if she had been ill. It would create a procedure for all its support providers to follow. This would be to inform the landlord if any tenants had any illnesses that would or could cause interruption to works booked. It thanked her for bringing this to its attention.
2. It provided information on supported housing and signposted the resident to further resources in respect of this.
The resident responded that same day and thanked the landlord. She stated however that she could not leave herself in a situation where the landlord could do this again. She stated that the landlord had not responded positively to her request for reasonable adjustments which was a breach of the Equalities Act 2010. She stated that the landlord could be proactive about seeking an extension from regulators to give it more time to meet future legislation changes, whilst preserving the safety and liberty of vulnerable tenants.
The resident referred her complaint to the Housing Ombudsman on 18 May 2023 and stated as follows:
1. A resolution had not been provided at stage 2 as the landlord did not offer to relocate her or postpone the fire door works.
2. The landlord had made the resident leave the house for 3 days. She had to eat breakfast in a different support house which had agitated a resident of that house.
3. She had to find activities to do outside the house for 3 days. The landlord would not reimburse her expenses of being out the property such as food costs.
4. Routine was important to her and the works had been very disruptive. Cleaners had to do her laundry and other tasks, which took away her liberty, independence and control. She believed the landlord had not complied with the Equality Act.

Correspondence following the referral to this Service

The landlord advised this Service as follows:
1. Since the complaint all relevant members of its staff working with the resident had completed an online university ‘Understanding Autism’ course.
2. The resident now had an assigned Tenant Involvement Officer and an Operation Manager dealing directly which her along with support from the support provider when any maintenance or works are required. Meetings had been held between newly allocated staff and the resident to agree plans going forward and how to deal with future works.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has stated that she believes the landlord breached its obligations under the Equalities Act 2010 in how it managed the fire door repairs. It is acknowledged that this is a serious allegation. Although the Ombudsman is unable to reach legal findings or determine if such a breach took place, we can consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s vulnerabilities, and its response to her concerns. The resident has the option to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue her concerns using equalities legislation.

The landlord’s consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities when arranging fire safety works in the property

Given the known vulnerabilities of the resident in this case, the landlord would be expected under both the Equality Act 2010 and the Social Housing Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard, to demonstrate that it had taken steps to ensure that it understood the resident’s needs and to demonstrate that it had respond to those needs in the way it provided its services.
From the correspondence seen by this Service, the resident’s main concern was that the landlord went ahead with the fire door works, despite other works having been carried out in respect of legionella’s disease, a short time before. She also stated that the fire door works had caused a disruption to her living environment for the period of 3 days. She requested as a resolution that the landlord not be permitted to carry out such disruptive works requiring her to be out of the property for such a length of time, in the future. This Service is a reactive service and as such is not able to consider any future, speculative works which the landlord may have to undertake in the block. It would also be inappropriate for this Service to impose restrictions on how and when the landlord can instruct contractors to complete works. As such this resolution is not one which can be provided by this investigation.
When considering the landlord’s handling of the fire safety works in the property, the Ombudsman will consider whether the landlord’s actions were fair and reasonable, given all the circumstances of the case. In this case, this would include the nature of the identified works, the urgency of the works and whether the landlord took reasonable account of the resident’s vulnerabilities when arranging and carrying out the works.
It is not disputed that the landlord was responsible for ensuring that the block met fire safety standards. This included the maintenance, repair and replacement of existing fire doors. The Ombudsman notes that by definition, those living in sheltered accommodation often represent those most vulnerable to injury or more serious consequences in case of a fire. In addition, the design of the block, with multiple residential rooms, may mean that the escape route for residents or the feasibility of ‘staying put’ could be dependent on the functionality of the fire doors. The landlord would therefore be expected to respond to defects with fire doors as a matter of urgency. This would be in accordance with its responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, to take steps to minimise risks to residents in its properties.
The landlord had identified that works needed to be carried out to the fire doors in the block on 31 January 2023. It is noted that in addition to this, some damage had been caused to a fire door by the resident on 3 February 2023. It is not clear what damage was caused although the resident apologised for causing damage.
The landlord appropriately arranged for a fire door contractor to attend on 9 February 2023. It is not clear what category of repair the landlord had considered the works to be, however this was within 7 working days. This was in line with its response timeframe for urgent repairs as per its repairs policy. As such, this inspection timeframe was appropriate. The landlord had appropriately made the support provider aware of this to ensure that the resident was aware that it would be taking place and when.
There was an issue with the contractor not being able to access the resident’s property during the visit on 9 February 2023. The landlord appropriately responded to this access issue by discussing the reasons for this with the support provider. The landlord’s actions in respect of this are to be commended. It had identified that the lack of access could have potentially impacted on the contractor’s ability to carry out the repair. It sought to understand why this had happened and how this could be prevented from happening in the future. This demonstrated that it had understood the impact this could have had on the outstanding health and safety issue within the block and the potential consequence of this not being rectified in a timely manner. The support provider subsequently identified a communication failure. It shared lessons learnt with the landlord including how it would communicate differently with the landlord going forward in respect of works.
The landlord advised the support provider (on 21 February 2023) that the fire door works would take place in March 2023. This gave the support provider around 3 weeks’ notice of the works commencing. During this time, the support provider put together a plan and an order in which it requested the works be carried out. The landlord was receptive to this plan and advised it would let the contractors know the importance of following the plan. This was appropriate and demonstrated that it had taken the advice and planning of the support provider (and hence the resident’s views) into consideration.
The resident submitted a complaint to landlord on 27 February 2023, prior to the fire door works taking place. This was mainly focused on the remedial legionella works but also included her concern about the disruption which would be caused by the fire door works so soon after the other works had been completed. The landlord took the complaint seriously and contacted the resident that same day. It advised that only the fire door works would be going ahead and that it had followed the order of works as advised by the support provider when instructing its contractors. This was an appropriate action to try to alleviate the resident’s concerns and to ensure she was aware that the landlord was working alongside the support provider in its consideration of the impact on the resident.
The support provider shared with the landlord its detailed plan for the resident’s days during the fire door works. This included confirmation that it would arrange breakfast and lunches for the resident. In addition, it outlined that it would carry out cleaning and laundry on the resident’s behalf. The landlord demonstrated effective and regular communication with the support provider. It appropriately met with the support provider to discuss this plan, following which it offered to pay for the resident to have a day out at a local attraction. This was appropriate and demonstrated that the landlord had tried to reduce the impact of the disruption to the resident. This offer was positively received by the resident. It is noted that the resident advised this Service that she had found the days out of the property difficult due to a lack of funds. The plan put together by the support provider accounted for her meals being provided and other activities having been arranged. As noted above the resident’s dissatisfaction with the plan provided by the support provider is not something which can be considered by this Service.
Whilst it is acknowledged by this Service that the resident did not want the fire door works to go ahead, due to the disruption it would cause her, the landlord had a responsibility to all of its tenants in the block to ensure the works were carried out in a timely manner and not delayed due to the health and safety nature of such works. This is mirrored in the landlord’s reasonable adjustments policy. This states that when deciding whether an adjustment is reasonable, the landlord should consider any negative impact the adjustment may have on others. In this case, the reasonable adjustment requested by the resident (that the works not go ahead) may have impacted the health and safety of other tenants of the block. The landlord had to give due consideration to the impact of this on the other tenants and weigh this against the resident’s request.
Whilst the landlord did not specifically confirm that the works went ahead as planned, it can reasonably be concluded from the resident’s escalation request (of 20 March 2023) that the works had taken place as planned in March 2023. This can be concluded as the resident advised that the works had disrupted her and that they should not have gone ahead.
Given that the resident’s complaint had been raised during her complaint in respect of the legionella’s work, it was appropriate for the landlord to offer to meet with her to discuss her concerns. During this meeting on 11 April 2023, the landlord took on board all of the resident’s representations. Despite a number of these not having been raised prior to this, the landlord appropriately addressed each of her concerns within its stage 2 response, which was thorough and clearly set out.
The landlord took on board the resident’s concerns about another contractor visit having taken place. It investigated this but advised that its records did not support this. It appropriately advised that if the resident could provide details of this, it would investigate further. This Service has not seen evidence of the resident having provided this to the landlord. In light of no further details having been provided, the landlord was unable to investigate this concern further.
The landlord explained its position in respect of its contractors not being DBS checked and there not being a requirement for this. Its advice in respect of this was in line with its safeguarding of vulnerable adults policy. It is noted by this Service that the landlord subsequently discussed the complaint outcome with the resident and she indicated her acceptance of this issue.
The landlord demonstrated that it had taken the resident’s concerns on board in respect of 3 day works being too much. It advised that works of this length were sometimes necessary, however it advised that it would look into this in the future. This was appropriate as the landlord would not have been able to commit to such an assurance, however it demonstrated that it had appreciated the impact of this length of work on the resident.
It appropriately advised the resident of the role of the support provider in respect of supporting resident’s before and during such works. It also explained why it would not always be possible to meet contractors beforehand. Its assurance that it tried to use the same contractors to enable familiarity was appropriate and demonstrated a resident focused approach to repairs.
Part of the resident’s concern had been speculative in nature as to what would have happened if she had been ill at the time of the works. The landlord appropriately addressed her concerns after she raised this around April 2023, after her escalation request. It outlined how it would have balanced any such illness with the urgency of the work and the overall risk posed by delaying such work.
The landlord demonstrated that it had taken learning from the resident’s complaint. It is noted by this Service that the landlord recognised that its repairs policy did not cover the event of unforeseen tenant illness during works. As a result of the resident raising this concern, it appropriately committed to updating its policy to include this. It is also noted that on the request of the resident, it carried out autism awareness training with its staff. In addition, it advised that it had recruited additional staff to help support residents in a more personal way. Whilst it is not clear if it was as a result of this complaint, this is a positive action for the landlord to have taken in support of its residents.
Following the stage 2 response, the landlord appropriately discussed this with the resident and her support worker to ensure she understood what it had concluded and the actions it would be taking. This was appropriate and gave the resident the opportunity to ask for further clarity on the landlord’s decision.
Whilst not directly linked to the issues of complaint raised by the resident, it is noted that the landlord provides a number of its policies in an easy to read format. These had been drafted with the input of ‘easy read tenant ambassadors’. Having such policies available to its tenants is an example of good practice in respect of making its policies accessible, which this Service commends. Such policies being provided in such a way is in line with both the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code and the Government’s Supported Housing Statement of Expectations.
In summary, the landlord demonstrated that it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously and it worked alongside the support provider to ensure she was supported throughout to reduce the impact of the unavoidable disruption. It appropriately paid for the resident to have a day trip out, which was above and beyond what it was required to provide by way of consideration of the impact of the works. The landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s complaint and was clear in explaining the reasons why it could not accommodate all of the resident’s requests. The landlord’s decision to complete works to the fire doors was reasonable when considering the health and safety impact of not doing so on its tenants. As such there was no maladministration in the landlord’s consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities when arranging fire safety works in the property.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42.j of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the nature of the support plan put in place for the resident whilst fire safety works were being carried out in the property is outside the jurisdiction of this Service.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities when arranging fire safety works in the property.

Reasons

The actions of the resident’s support workers fall properly within the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
The landlord appropriately considered the resident’s representations. It acted in accordance with its repairs policy and health and safety requirements in determining that despite the resident’s objection, the works required to the fire door could not be delayed. It demonstrated effective and regular communication with the support provider and it took steps to help reduce the impact caused to the resident by the works. It appropriately responded to her concerns and gave appropriate advice to manage her expectations going forward for any further works. It demonstrated that it had taken learning from the case and implemented this within its repairs policy and staff training.