Ashford Borough Council (202320726)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320726

Ashford Borough Council

29 February 2025

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 how the landlord handled the resident’s requests for:
1. Alterations to the driveway and installation of dropped curbs.
2. Clarification on whether it would install an extension.
3. Alterations to the back gate.
4. Improved drainage outside the property.
5. Window upgrades.
6. Works to widen the porch.
7. Lowering of the kitchen floor.
8. Improved heating.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a local authority. The resident is disabled and has mobility issues which require him to regularly use a wheelchair.
On 28 March 2022 the resident’s Occupational Therapist (OT) contacted the landlord and recommended that it considered levelling the front garden with the pathway to the rear of the property and widening the internal doors at the property. They explained that both measures would increase wheelchair accessibility. The OT also explained the resident had mentioned a possible extension and asked the landlord to clarify its position on this. The landlord replied and suggested building ramped access to the rear of the property which the resident then refused.
On 30 June 2022 the OT contacted the landlord and advised the pathway to the front of the property was cracked and needed repairing. On 7 July 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and asked it to clarify what it had proposed in March 2022. The OT and landlord discussed this over the next few days. On 15 July 2022 the OT wrote to the landlord and recommended installing: a ramped and textured pathway from the driveway to the rear entrance, a gate entrance, and rails to 1 side of the ramped pathway. The OT also asked for these adaptations to be fast tracked as the resident was unable to access the downstairs of the property in his wheelchair.
On 22 July 2022 the landlord met with the resident and discussed the OT recommendations. Both parties agreed that a new driveway with dropped curbs and front path would be ideal to satisfy his mobility needs. On 16 August 2022 the landlord raised works to install a drain on the pathway to the backdoor due to rain pooling. On 20 October 2022 the OT made recommendations for further adaptations to: install a dropped curb and pavement crossover, extend the porch, widen the pathway to the front of the property, level this with the front door, rehang the side gates to open outwards, and install a lock and latches on the gate within the resident’s reach.
On 31 October 2022 the landlord raised works to rectify the drain it had fit into the pathway as it was not functioning correctly. At some point between March 2023 and June 2023 the landlord made a successful planning application to install the dropped curbs. On 22 June 2023 it noted it had completed these works. On 11 July 2023 the resident complained about delays in fitting new window hinges, the functionality of the wet room, and the landlord’s delays in providing a position on the possibility of installing an extension. On 13 July 2023 the landlord raised works to repair the side gate and lock.
On 21 July 2023 the OT contacted the landlord and advised that an extension seemed necessary to meet the resident’s mobility needs within the property. The resident then contacted the landlord on 25 July 2023 and advised that the flooring between the lounge and kitchen had a “lip” which was catching and asked it to rectify this. On 26 July 2023 the landlord met with the resident to discuss his complaint. The meeting minutes note that both parties agreed the following works were outstanding:
1. Replacement of drains outside the property.
2. Installation of additional dropped curbs.
3. Damaged flooring between the kitchen and lounge.
4. Flooding to the rear of the property.
5. Assessment of the width of the tarmac pathway for wheelchair access.
6. Replacement window hinges.
At this meeting the landlord also agreed to complete a feasibility assessment for the possible installation of an extension. On 29 July 2023 the landlord attended the property and installed a lock on the rear gate, glued the flooring back down between the lounge and the kitchen, and replaced the window hinges within the property. On 2 August 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord and outlined the works which he considered were outstanding. These were:
1. Replacement of existing drains outside the property.
2. Installation of additional dropped curbs.
1. Installation of new drainage to the side of the property.
2. Widening the width of the tarmac pathway leading to the drive.
On 21 August 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and asked for timescales for these works and an update on the extension feasibility study.
On 30 August 2023 the landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response. It advised it had escalated the resident’s complaint straight to stage 2 due to delays up to this point. In this response it explained that it had asked its contractor to consider making the pathway it installed wider, and to consider whether drainage could be improved. It said that it had failed to notify its surveyor of the need to install an additional dropped curb, but that it was scheduling works to rectify this.
It acknowledged that it had delayed in installing a new lock on the rear gate. It also acknowledged it had delayed in replacing window hinges throughout the property. It explained that it was unlikely to be able to install an extension at the property due to cost, but that it would commence a feasibility study on 3 September 2023 to explore this. It apologised for delays and poor communication, and agreed to draw up an action plan for the remaining works. It also offered the resident £250 in compensation.
The landlord attended on 22 September 2023 and noted that “since the new drainage was installed” there had been no issues of water pooling at the bottom of the ramp. It noted that it would “reduce” the gutter to the exterior of shower room and replace any failing joints, and continue to monitor throughout the winter period to see if drainage issues recured. On 25 September 2023 the landlord installed an additional dropped curb. Its surveyor also completed some drawings of the property related to the extension feasibility study. On 28 September 2023 the landlord raised works for the rear gate because it noted it was “difficult to open”.
On 29 September 2023 the landlord noted that some relevant details were absent from its architectural contractor’s drawings and so it had asked them to reattend to complete these. On 29 September 2023 the landlord attended and replaced the existing drain covers at the property.
At some stage in late October 2023 the landlord attended and completed the works on the exterior gutter and failing joints. On 21 December 2023 the resident contacted the Ombudsman and complained about the landlord’s handling of his requests for it to:
1. Widen doors to make all rooms wheelchair accessible.
2. Install dropped curbs.
3. Install new window hinges.
4. Repair the back gate.
5. Install an extension.
On 23 February 2024 the landlord noted that that it had completed the feasibility study for the requested extension on 22 November 2023. However, it noted its final decision on this was delayed as senior managers would need to review it due to the projected costs exceeding £50,000. On 22 March 2024 the landlord noted it had decided not to proceed with the extension because the projected costs were too high. It decided a more reasonable way forward was to suggest alternative accommodation, and communicated this decision to the resident soon after.
On 22 March 2024 the landlord noted that it considered the tarmac path was already wide enough, and that the OT had advised as much at a site visit on 6 September 2023. On 28 March 2024 the resident made another complaint. He complained that the landlord had unfairly declined to build the extension recommended by the OT on 8 September 2023. He also complained that the landlord had included works in its feasibility study which were not recommended by the OT which inflated the projected costs.
On 30 March 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident and advised it would proceed with the extension on the basis outlined by the OT. It then provided a stage 1 response on 8 May 2024 and agreed to proceed with a single story extension as per the resident’s wishes. On 29 January 2025 the resident advised the Ombudsman that the landlord had stepped up its efforts to completing the outstanding adaptations. On 14 February 2025 he advised that the works were “in their final stages”. He explained that a replacement front door and levelling of the kitchen floor remained outstanding.
However, the resident remains unhappy with what he considers were unreasonable delays in progressing works since 2022. To resolve this, he would like the landlord to pay him further compensation.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

Under paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which is typically within 12 months of the matter arising.
Out of the specific complaints which the resident has asked the Ombudsman to investigate, we can see no evidence that he has raised complaints about requests for the landlord to widen the porch or improve his heating. Therefore, as per 42.c, this investigation will not consider these complaints.
We can see the resident raised concerns in July 2023 that the flooring between the kitchen and lounge was damaged, and that he had caught his wheelchair on it. We can also see that the landlord appears to have glued this back down on 29 July 2023. However, the complaint the resident has put to the Ombudsman is that the landlord has delayed unreasonably in honouring a commitment it made apparently after its stage 2 response to relevel the kitchen floor with the living room following its installation of a new door threshold.
This complaint is distinct to the concerns he raised about damaged flooring in July 2023, and we cannot see that he has since raised a separate complaint about this. Therefore, in line with paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this investigation will not consider his complaint about the landlord’s handling of a request for it to lower the kitchen floor.

Scope of investigation

The landlord has provided records to the Ombudsman dated from July 2020 onwards. The resident made a formal complaint on 11 July 2023. Therefore, as per 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this investigation will not consider the landlord’s actions from July 2020 to 10 July 2022 because these did not occur within 12 months of the complaint.

Window upgrades

The resident contacted us on 14 February 2025 and advised that his windows were warped and full of condensation. He explained that, given they were around 30 years old, he considered the landlord should replace them. While we can see the resident complained about the landlord’s delays in installing new window hinges in July 2023, and that this was addressed in its stage 2 response, we can see no evidence he has brought this distinct complaint to the landlord about a request for it replace all the windows. Therefore, as per 42.c, this investigation will only consider how the landlord handled his requests for new window hinges.

Extension

Paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that we will not consider complaints which have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.
In July 2023 we can see the resident complained that the landlord had not clearly set out whether it would install an extension at the property. However, the resident also wants the Ombudsman to investigate his complaint that the landlord completed a poor feasibility assessment in November 2023. He also wants us to investigate his complaint that the landlord is presently delaying in building the extension despite changing its position and agreeing to do so in May 2024.
The complaint the landlord addressed in its 30 August 2023 stage 2 response was about a lack of clarity as to whether it would build an extension. It addressed this by committing to and completing a feasibility assessment in November 2023, and making a decision on the basis of this in March 2024. It issued this decision to the resident in late March 2024. The resident then made a stage 1 complaint on 28 March 2024 and challenged this decision. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 8 May 2024 and explained it would go ahead with the extension after all. It also explained to the resident how to escalate his complaint if he was not satisfied with this.
Ultimately, we consider that the resident’s complaint about the actions the landlord took following its feasibility assessment is a distinct complaint to the complaint it addressed on 30 August 2023. Typically, as per paragraph 42.a, we will not investigate events that occurred after a final response unless they directly relate to commitments made as part of this response.
The correct route for the resident to challenge the decision made following the feasibility assessment was via a stage 1 complaint, which he made on 28 March 2024. If he remained unsatisfied with the landlord’s response of 8 May 2024, he could have escalated his complaint to stage 2. Therefore, given this part of his complaint has not exhausted the complaints process, we will only consider the landlord’s actions up until it provided the outcome of its feasibility assessment in late March 2024.

Back gate alterations

The resident also complains that the landlord has failed to address his requests for it to make his back gate wider. The complaint record indicates that the complaint the resident put to the landlord throughout June and July 2023 was about the locking mechanism of the back gate, and repairs to the façade. We can see the resident acknowledged the landlord completed these repairs on 29 July 2023. We can also see the landlord addressed this specific complaint on 30 August 2023.
Repairs records indicate the resident then raised further concerns about the back gate being “difficult to open” because it “drags on the floor” on 28 September 2023. This is distinct to the complaint he brought to the landlord about the locking mechanism and boarding of the gate, and appears to relate to a separate issue which came about almost a month after its final response. Therefore, as per 42.a, this investigation will only consider the landlord’s handling of his concerns about the back gate’s facades and locking mechanisms.

How the landlord handled the resident’s requests for alterations to the driveway.

The resident complains that the landlord has failed to increase the width of the tarmac pathway it installed from his property to his driveway, despite his requests for it to do so. He complains that he only has around 10cm of room on each side of the path when in his wheelchair which makes impacts his manoeuvrability.
On 15 July 2022 the OT recommended that the landlord installed a wheelchair accessible ramped pathway from the front door to the driveway with a minimum width of 1200mm. At some point in August 2022 the landlord installed this. In June 2023 the resident then asked the landlord to consider making it wider. He included this as part of his complaint in July 2023, and the landlord committed to consider doing so in its stage 2 response.
Following this, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to carry out an inspection of the pathway and consider the resident’s request as per its commitment. In doing so it should have considered the OT’s recommendations, documented this consideration, and communicated its decision to the resident.
However, following its stage 2 response there are no records related to his request until an internal progress report dated 22 March 2024. This report notes that the landlord considered the pathway was an adequate width, and that this position was supported by the OT who confirmed this at a site visit in September 2023. There is no record of this site visit or of any communication with the OT about the width of the pathway.
Therefore, the landlord has not evidenced that it suitably considered the resident’s request. We also note that the landlord has failed to communicate any position on this to the resident following its stage 2 response despite committing to doing so. We consider these omissions have likely caused the resident some distress. With this in mind, we will order the landlord to reconsider his request with reference to any relevant OT recommendations. It will then be ordered to explain this decision to the resident. We will also order it pays him some compensation.
The landlord’s compensation guidance does not specify how it calculates redress payments, so we have used our own to determine this. Our remedies guidance sets out that payments between £100 and £600 are typically sufficient to put failures which have adversely impacted residents.
The resident has been waiting for a considerable length of time for the landlord to suitably address his concerns about the width of the pathway. However, we note that the impact claimed here is about sub-optimal manoeuvrability as opposed to inaccessibility. With these considerations in mind, we will order the landlord pays the resident £200 to put this right.

How the landlord handled the resident’s requests for the installation of dropped curbs.

On 20 October 2022 the OT recommended that the landlord installed dropped curbs outside the front of the property to accommodate the resident’s wheelchair. The OT also asked for these works to be “fast-tracked”.
Following this there is no record of any related action until an internal email exchange on 13 March 2023 in which the landlord acknowledged that it needed to apply for a “proposed lawful development certificate” before it could install the curbs.
At some stage over the next few months the landlord successfully applied for this certificate. It then installed a number of these curbs in July 2023, but failed to install the total number recommended by the OT. The resident complained about the delays and incomplete works on 26 July 2023. In its stage 2 response, the landlord accepted that it had delayed unreasonably in completing these works, and that its own miscommunication with its contractors was to blame for its failure to install the total number of curbs recommended. It also committed to install the remaining curbs, and we can see it did so on 25 September 2023.
Ultimately, the resident waited for almost a year for completion of this adaptation which was recommended to allow him proper access to his home. By its own admission the landlord delayed unreasonably in progressing things between October 2022 and July 2023. It then failed to complete the works in line with the OT recommendations when it attended in July 2023. As a result, the resident had to wait for another 2 months for his home to be made properly accessible.
We consider these omissions likely caused him distress, and so we will order the landlord pays compensation to put this right. We note the landlord has paid the resident £250 as cumulative redress for delays in its handling of the following works: installation of dropped curbs, alterations to the back gate, and replacement of window hinges. This equates to around £83 compensation for the delays in installing the additional dropped curbs.
We do not consider this sum is sufficient redress for the failings we identified. We have considered the length of time the delay and the landlord’s failure to complete the works when it attended to do so in July 2023. We have also considered the reported impact of the additional curbs on the resident’s ability to properly access the property, and our own compensation guidance. Having done so, we will order the landlord pays the resident an additional £300.

How the landlord handled the resident’s requests for clarification on whether it would install an extension.

On 11 July 2023 the resident complained that the landlord had given mixed messaging as to whether it would build an extension at the property as an adaptation to house a wet room and bedroom. There is no evidence of communication between the resident and landlord about an extension before this date. Therefore, we have treated 11 July 2023 as the date the resident first sought clarification on this point.
The landlord addressed this as part of its stage 2 response on 30 August 2023. In this response it committed to completing a feasibility assessment and explained that this would allow it to decide whether an extension was viable. We consider this a reasonable and comprehensive approach to addressing the resident’s request for clarification.
Following this response the landlord then sent architectural contractors to the property in September 2023 to complete drawings and sketches for it to consider as part of the feasibility assessment. However, internal emails note that the drawings they provided did not contain enough detail, and so the landlord raised a works order for them to reattend. They then returned on 9 November 2023 and completed the drawings.
Internal emails note that the original drawings were missing dimensions, “turning circles”, and furniture. While we recognise the landlord required all of this information in order to progress the assessment, we consider it could reasonably have advised its contractors to include this information before the first visit. We consider that this omission likely led to an unnecessary delay, and that this then likely caused the resident some minor frustration.
The landlord completed the feasibility assessment on 22 November 2023. However, its projected costs totalled £190,000, and so it decided to refer it to senior managers to consider and make a final decision on whether to proceed. On 22 March 2024 its Director of Housing considered the assessment and decided it would not proceed with the extension because it looks to follow government guidance on disability facility grants which are usually capped at £30,000. The landlord then relayed this decision to the resident shortly after this.
Ultimately, the landlord was entitled to carry out a feasibility assessment to determine the viability of building an extension. We also consider it acted reasonably by referring the outcome of this assessment to senior managers to review before making its decision on whether to proceed. Although we note that it took 9 months to reach this decision, we do not consider this delay was wholly unreasonable given the complexity of the project and the associated costs. Therefore, aside from the minor error in communication with the architectural contractors, we consider the landlord suitably addressed the resident’s request for clarification on whether it would build an extension.

How the landlord handled the resident’s requests for alterations to the back gate.

On 15 July 2022 the OT recommended that the landlord should create a back gate entrance within the fence line which separates the back garden and front driveway. We can see that the landlord installed this at some stage over the following months because the OT made further recommendations on 20 October 2022 for the landlord to rehang the gate to allow it to open outwards. They also recommended installing latches within the resident’s reach.
Following this there is no evidence the landlord took any further action in relation to this until an internal email exchange on 10 July 2023, in which it noted it intended to “repair” the gate and fit new locks to make it operational from both sides. It then raised works to do so on 13 July 2023 and classed this as a routine repair. It is unclear from the records why it took the landlord 9 months following the OT recommendations to raise these works. In the absence of any evidence explaining this, we consider the delay was unreasonable.
On 2 August 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and noted that it had successfully installed the new gate locks on 29 July 2023. He also explained that it had replaced the broken façade. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it will address routine repairs within 28 days of raising them. Although it delayed substantially in raising these works, we note it then attended as per its timescales once raised.
In its stage 2 response on 30 August 2023 the landlord acknowledged that it had delayed unreasonably in attending these repairs and apologised for this. It explained this delay was due to miscommunication between it and its contractors. We note this was a positive step toward taking accountability for the delay and attempting to put things right. It also paid the resident £83 in compensation for this.
The landlord delayed considerably in making these alterations to the rear gate, and the resident’s ability to operate the gates while in his wheelchair was likely impaired while he waited for it to install the new locks. We have considered this and our own compensation guidance. Having done so, we do not consider £83 sufficient redress, and will order the landlord pays the resident an additional £200 to put this right.

How the landlord handled the resident’s requests for improved drainage outside the property.

On 16 August 2022 the landlord raised works to install drainage at a section of the rear pathway of the property because rain water was pooling. On 31 October 2022 it raised duplicate works to do so and acknowledged that it had failed to action this previously. Following this there are no related records until 23 November 2022 when the landlord raised urgent works to “investigate front surface water drainage to make sure not blocked.”
We cannot see any evidence to indicate the landlord attended the property and actioned any of these works. There is also no evidence to indicate the landlord updated the resident or explained the reasons for these delays.
From 23 November 2022 onwards we have not seen any further related records until complaint meeting minutes on 26 July 2023 which note the resident wanted the landlord to fit replacement drain covers for the acco drains it had installed at some point during the several months. There are no records related to the installation of these drains, so we are unable to say when the landlord fitted them or take a view on the quality of these works.
In this meeting the resident complained that his wheelchair was damaging the plastic drainage covers and asked the landlord to replace them with metal covers. On 2 August 2023 he then wrote to the landlord and asked it review drainage at the side of the property.
In its stage 2 response on 30 August 2023 the landlord committed to reviewing the drainage at the side of the property. Internal emails note the landlord completed a damp and mould survey on 21 September 2023 and observed that “since the new drainage was installed no further issues have occurred”. However, there is no direct record of this survey. The landlord should have kept a record of this survey which documented these observations.
On 29 September 2023 the landlord attended and replaced the acco drain covers with metal gratings as per the agreement it made at stage 2. It noted that it would continue to monitor drainage outside the property throughout the winter period until 1 March 2024. It also noted that it would reduce the gutter to the exterior of the shower room and replace any failing joints.
While we consider this clearly indicates the landlord had completed some kind of inspection and diagnosed ways it could improve drainage, these observations are listed on an internal email update between landlord staff. We consider the landlord should have documented these inspections more formally and ideally raised the associated works via its repairs process.
Internal emails from 26 October 2023 note the landlord attended and completed the outstanding works to the gutter at some point during the week prior to this. We note it was positive that the landlord completed these works, however, it should have kept repairs records related to them. That being said, while we wish to bring the landlord’s attention to this poor record keeping, we have no reason to take the view that it had any meaningful impact on the pace of the works.
Following this, we have seen no evidence that the resident raised any further concerns related to drainage issues. Therefore, we consider it was reasonable for the landlord to consider the drainage issues resolved from 26 October 2023 onwards.
Aside from the issues with record keeping then, we consider the landlord acted appropriately following its stage 2 response by reviewing the drainage and completing repairs based on the diagnoses it made.
However, we consider it delayed unreasonably in addressing the resident’s concerns from 16 August 2022 until the first related repair on 29 September 2023. For this reason, we will order it pays the resident the resident £200 compensation. This is based on our own compensation guidance, the length of the delays, and the effort the resident went to in chasing the works.

How the landlord handled the resident’s requests for window upgrades.

The resident complained on 11 July 2023 that the landlord had failed to install new window hinges at the property which potentially posed a fire risk. On 29 July 2023 the landlord attended the property and fit the requested replacement window hinges. In its stage 2 response of 30 August 2023 the landlord explained that it had instructed its contractor to replace these hinges before this point but that they had failed to do so. It also acknowledged that this meant it had to make a repeat visit to complete the works.
The earliest record we have seen related to this request is an email exchange from 7 July 2023 in which the landlord instructs a contractor to install “egress hinges” on the windows to bring them in line with building regulations. Therefore, it seems reasonable to take the view that the landlord was first made aware of the issue around this time. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it will address routine repairs within 28 working days. Therefore, the landlord appears to have replaced the window hinges within its timescales.
We note the landlord had to complete an extra visit to finish the job, and that this may have caused the resident some very minor frustration. However, we consider the apology it made at stage 2 is sufficient redress for this given the likely minor nature of any impact caused.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaints about how the landlord handled the resident’s requests for the following are not within our jurisdiction:
1. Works to widen the porch.
2. Lowering of the kitchen floor.
3. Improved heating.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s requests for:
1. Alterations to the driveway and installation of dropped curbs.
2. Alterations to the back gate.
3. Improved drainage outside the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s requests for clarification on whether it would install an extension.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in how the landlord handled the resident requests for window upgrades.

Orders

The landlord is to pay the resident £900, inclusive of:
1. £200 each for its delays in handling the resident’s requests for:
  1. Alterations to the driveway.
  2. Alterations to the backgate.
  3. Improved drainage.
2. £300 for its delays in handling the resident’s requests for additional dropped curbs.
The landlord is to reconsider the resident’s request for it to widen the tarmac pathway outside the front of the property. It is to do so with reference to any relevant OT recommendations. It is then to explain this decision to the resident. If it finds it is responsible for widening the pathway, it is to set out projected timescales for these works.
The landlord is to evidence compliance with these orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.