Citizen Housing (201900746)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201900746

Citizen Housing

30 July 2021

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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adaptations to her property.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of cold spots and drafts in the property.

Background and summary of events

The resident has had a tenancy with the landlord since 11 May 2018, which became an assured tenancy on 11 May 2019. The resident has physical vulnerabilities that the landlord is aware of. The resident has provided evidence of various communications she has had with the landlord since moving into the property in 2018. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. This report will therefore consider evidence largely from March 2019 onwards given November 2019 is when the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord.
On 25 September 2018 an aids and adaptation request to remove the step threshold between the resident’s kitchen and an enclosed porch was submitted. The landlord attended the property on 16 October 2018 to examine and consider the request. On 22 October 2018 the landlord advised the resident to contact her Occupational Therapist to discuss alternative options to the proposed work on the basis that it could not do this due to structural implications for the property.
On 22 March 2019 the landlord attended the resident’s property to inspect the reports of a cold spot. The landlord found minimal evidence of this and noted that it would reattend the property in approximately 3 to 4 weeks and would try to make the appointment for a windy day as the resident was complaining of a breeze getting in, so this would allow it to observe the reported issue most accurately. On 8 May 2019 the landlord called the resident to book a new appointment
On 1 November 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord expressing her dissatisfaction with the condition of the property. She noted that she had had repeated issues with radiators not working which had eventually been replaced by the landlord. Nevertheless she stated the property still had significant issues with retaining heat. The kitchen porch’s step threshold was too high for her to safely step over, and she had fallen previously. She stated that the OT had advised the landlord that the step be removed, but the landlord had replied stating that it was unable to undertake this work which she considered an unsatisfactory response. The landlord again advised her to contact the OT on the basis that it could not undertake the work in the way that had been specified.
On 6 January 2020 the landlord spoke to the resident on the phone and arranged an appointment for 12 March 2020 to assess the issues in the property. This date was arranged as the soonest time both parties would be available to attend the appointment.
On 9 March 2020 the resident contacted the Ombudsman noting that she had not had any updates from the landlord, and the Ombudsman contacted the landlord on the same to request it be in touch with her. The landlord’s internal emails noted that there were no records on its system about draughty windows since the resident had moved in, however some issues with slabs had been reported. The landlord noted that at the inspection it didn’t find much wrong, but promised the resident that it would arrange for all the windows to be resealed and a glazer to check the gasket, both of which were outstanding. It noted the resident had requested it remove the step threshold, and when permission was not granted for this request she was of the opinion that she could no longer live at the property.
On 10 March 2020 the landlord wrote to the Ombudsman setting out its position on the repairs:
1. Based on the inspection that had taken place and conversation with the resident, it was evident the resident felt the windows needed replacing because they were draughty and she was concerned about a loss of heating. Additionally she wished for the threshold to be removed.
2. The landlord considered that there was not any essential work which needed to be done, but rather the issue was the resident’s desire for the adaptations to be made. It noted this appeared to be because of the resident’s deteriorating health and her view that the property was unsuitable.
3. Regarding the cold air drafts, it had arranged for some work to be done to check and replace where necessary any window seals and gaskets but the work had not started. There were no plans for a window replacement at the time as this was not considered necessary work. It had advised the resident that it was not possible to move the threshold, due to this having structural implications.
4. In light of the resident’s contact with the Ombudsman, it had requested its team to meet with her to discuss a possible property move, as it felt this was the most ideal solution if the property was no longer meeting her needs. It noted however that it was unsure if there would be any priority for a move.
5. It had scheduled various team members to attend the property on 12 March 2020 for a second opinion and final check, noting that if the resident remained dissatisfied it would raise a complaint.
On 12 March 2020 the landlord attended the resident’s property to carry out a technical inspection. The landlord’s internal emails set out the following findings of the inspection:
1. The bedroom did not require any general repair. The resident had put tape around the window seals and gasket which the landlord was concerned about. It removed some of the tape but observed the seal to appear fine. The resident reported that the seals were draughty though the landlord stated there was no evidence of this. However it stated that it would replace all of the seals in the bedroom in case the gaffa tape had affected them, and instructed the resident not to put gaffa tape on the new seal.
2. The bedroom wall also did not require any repairs, and the moisture level on the wall was recorded as being “fine”. The resident had put some form of foil on the walls saying it was a “cold spot” and stated that she had been informed by a member of the landlord’s staff that that was the case. The landlord checked and did not have any previous notes recording this finding. It removed some of the foil to check the wall, taking various readings and different locations with the protometer which showed no issues. The wall was not found to feel any colder than the rest of the room, and it was noted to be an internal wall. The resident strongly believed it was colder, and so the landlord agreed to put thermo-boarding on a small area being the part that the resident believed she had been told was a cold spot.
3. The integrated step in the back door was causing issues for the resident. It noted that it had asked the resident to speak to the OT about the step. It noted that it was not a repair, but that occupational health may be able to assess, recommend and cover the cost of a new door which could sit flush with the floor. It would not be able to carry this out under its repairs budget, but explained to the resident that it could meet occupational health on site to discuss the matter with them.
4. The resident had expressed her desire to move out of the property, and the landlord’s staff explained to her the process for this being a registration with Home Finder. It was noted that the resident has an illness that prevented her from putting the heating on for too long as she informed the landlord that this caused her to have breathing problems. Its report stated that unfortunately this meant the home was not being heated long enough, with the hygrometer demonstrating that the property was at 12 degrees Celsius. The landlord explained the results of the inspection’s findings to the resident’s daughter who was present and recommended she contact Occupational Health again.
On 5 August 2020 resident contacted the Ombudsman noting that the landlord had agreed to seal her windows and repair/place some plaster boards which she was satisfied with. However she was dissatisfied with its decision not to install disability aids/adaptations. The landlord wrote to the Ombudsman on 12 August 2020 noting that it had not previously raised a complaint for the issue, as the resident’s previous contact had been dealt with as a request for service. It raised a formal complaint that day and provided an acknowledgement to the resident, noting that it would respond to the resident’s complaint within ten working days or contact her to advise that it required further time to respond.
On 24 and 25 August 2020 the landlord spoke to the resident who advised that she had been in contact with her OT and was waiting for an appointment date.
On 26 August 2020 the landlord provided its stage one complaint response to the resident’s complaint regarding her request to have adaptations made to her kitchen door threshold. It apologised for the resident’s distress and inconvenience. It noted that the resident was advised on 12 March 2020 to request a visit from her OT to carry out an assessment of the property, and that the resident had confirmed on 24 and 25 August that she was waiting on an appointment from the OT. It requested that the resident advise it of the date of the OT appointment once this was confirmed, as it would then arrange for a technical officer to attend the appointment to help progress any works.
On 2 October 2020 the resident communicated to the Ombudsman that the landlord had repaired the wallpaper but that there were cracks behind it.
On 7 October 2020 the landlord wrote to the Ombudsman stating that it had contacted the resident who was in agreement not to escalate her complaint as there was current action ongoing. The resident had been advised that she could escalate the complaint if she remained dissatisfied. The landlord noted that an OT appointment was booked for the following day, with it waiting for the report before report work could commence to the door. It noted it intended to resolve any outstanding repairs as soon as it could following the outcome of the OT assessment. On 8 October 2020 the OT inspection went ahead.
On 10 November 2020 the landlord’s engineer attended the property. The resident told them that the landlord had put plaster boards up at some stage to address the issue, but since then had not undertaken any other work. As a result she stated the property was getting colder. A window specialist attended the property on the same day.
The landlord received the OT report at some point in November 2020. On 18 November 2020 the landlord’s contractors attended the property and reviewed the threshold.
On 20 November 2020 contractors attended the property and undertook sealant work on the hallway long window.
On 27 November 2020 the resident wrote to the Ombudsman setting out her account of what had occurred at the 10 November 2020 inspection. She stated that the window specialist was of the opinion that the windows and the glass middle door needed to be replaced as they were too old. Additionally she noted that upon removal of wallpaper in the bedroom, there were deep cracks in the wall. The contractors had to put plaster boards over these as a means of attempting to stop the draft that was coming through the cracks. The resident also stated that cold air was coming through the bedroom window frame and the living room window.
On 8 December 2020 the landlord wrote to the Ombudsman noting that the landlord’s own internal technical inspector visited the property noting that there was no complex issue at the home, but on the basis of the resident’s reports of her health conditions and feeling the cold, it had fitted thermo lining as a gesture of good will. It noted it was communicating with the resident about the process she would need to undertake to request a property move, as the resident had contacted it that day about the matter.
On 15 December 2020 the landlord’s internal emails noted that the work on the new door and removal of the step/threshold would be above the cost level for minor works, and would therefore require approval for major adaption work from the OT. Following this, the landlord went back to the OT noting it was not viable to carry out the work as a minor adaptation and requested it send a referral for a major adaption work over £1,000.
On 21 December 2020 the Ombudsman contacted the landlord to note that the resident had requested her complaint about her request for adaptations made to the property be escalated to stage two. A stage two complaint was logged by the landlord on the following day, 22 December 2020.
On 6 January 2021 the landlord’s internal emails noted that the landlord’s maintenance team did not support the position that the property was in a bad condition. It noted that the resident would be waiting for a transfer for some time given the number of people on the list, and the fact that she was unlikely to qualify for an emergency transfer on the basis of its policy, which noted the requirement of a resident being unable to use the property due to a severe medical condition with no other avenues available.
Further internal emails noted that the process for disabled adaptions was as follows:
1. A resident requests an adaptation and is referred to an OT to assess the clinical need and best design for the resident.
2. The resident is assessed and requirements identified before being sent to the council’s aids and adaptations team.
3. The council makes an estimate on the work:
  1. If the estimate is less than £1,000, it is passed to the landlord to attend and complete the works at its cost.
  2. If it is over £1,000, the matter is passed back to the OT and the council to reassess for a disabled facility grant paid for by the council.
It noted that it did not currently have a disabled facility grant request from the council to do this.
On 18 January 2021, the landlord’s internal emails demonstrate it was checking if the request had been declined and noted that it was waiting to hear back from the Council with the new referral given the adaptations were classified as major works and sent back following the clarification of the cost on 15 December 2020.
On 27 January 2021 the landlord contacted the council asking for an update about the delay in the works, noting that the issue had been referred back to the council after the OT assessment because they were not minor works. The council noted on 28 January 2021 that for the case to be prioritised it would require the OT to consider that it needed to be taken out of turn and make this justification at a panel meeting, but that a lot of residents were waiting on similar works which meant it was unlikely the resident would receive priority even considering her medical condition.
On 1 February 2021 the landlord provided its final complaint response to the resident in which it set out the following:
1. The resident had made an initial application with support from her OT in 2018 and had been instructed to contact the latter again to discuss alternative options when the landlord had determined it was unable to just take out the step as had been recommended by the OT. Following the necessary second referral to the OT, a works order was received on 5 November 2020. However the work required was outside the scope of a minor works order and had to be referred back to the local council for the works to be considered for a Disabled Facility Grant.
2. It agreed that the situation had taken too long and had been frustrating for the resident. However, as it was not fully involved in the OT referral, it could not explain the length of time that had elapsed. It had focused on whether it had acted in accordance with its responsibilities and processes, which it concluded it had. However it agreed with the position taken by the council that the situation required attention. It had been communicating with them in an attempt to speed up the matter, but because of the number of applications being processed it had not received any commitment to a faster timescale. In the meantime it noted having raised the issue with its team to assess the risk and explore if there were any interim options that could be provided.
3. It noted that the resident had raised very early in her tenancy that she was seeking the installation of replacement windows on the basis that she had been unhappy with cold spots and drafts. As a result, an inspection had been carried out. It had been unable to fulfil the resident’s request for replacement of the windows to be made as this was due in 2027. It noted that it had sealed some of the windows and undertaken other work in response, and was of the opinion that on the evidence available there were no outstanding concerns in terms of any repair obligations.
4. It noted that she had advised staff that her illness prevents her from putting the heating on for too long as this would cause her to have breathing problems. As a result the house was not being heated long enough, with the hygrometer showing the property was at 12 degrees Celsius at the inspection. It stated that this would have contributed to her feeling cold.
5. It noted she was seeking a property transfer and had been advised on how to undertake this process. It noted it did not have control over her application and priority but said it was happy to help her with the application.
On 2 February 2021 the landlord advised the Ombudsman that it had struggled to finalise the complaint within the target timescale as the OT assessor was off work due to a bereavement. It noted that while the complaint process had been concluded, it would be monitoring its commitment to try and speed up the aids and adaptation application with the council and noted it would assess potential alternatives for the backdoor step in the meantime.
On 15 February 2021 the landlord’s internal emails noted that in communication with the council in later January, it had been trying to push for the grant to be agreed so that the work could be started. The council advised that for the case to be prioritised it would require an OT to state that the case needed to be prioritised and this would be considered at a panel meeting. It noted that potential lack of access in the event of a fire wouldn’t give it greater priority in isolation, as many clients were waiting for ramp adaptations in the same position. It also noted that there had been a delay from receiving the initial report from the OT, and also in going back to them when it was noted that the work required exceeded the minor works budget.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s Aids and Adaptations Policy notes:
1. Minor adaptations are works that typically cost less than £1,000 will be provided to residents following their request subject to the available budget. Certain minor works may be agreed without the need for referral to an OT. Where the budget for a financial year has been expended the resident’s application will be recorded on a waiting list, prioritised according to need.
2. Major adaptations typically cost more than £1,000 and include items including alterations to doorways. These are subject to a referral from an OT who has assessed for the level of need. They are usually funded through a Disabled Facilities Grant. Where a DFG has been approved, the OT will make a referral to the landlord on the resident’s behalf with the recommendations. All requests are subject to prioritisation of required approval and available budgets. Funding from local authorities for a DFG may be limited and in some areas a waiting list may be in place.
The Aids and Adaptations Procedure Guide notes that upon receipt of an enquiry, a resident will be signposted to their OT service who will then complete an assessment of the resident’s needs and provide a specification of the works required to meet those needs. Assistance with the DFG application process should be provided to residents as required. Following an OT assessment for a major adaptation, a resident will be placed on a waiting list with requests prioritised in accordance with their need balanced against the cost. High need is classified as a resident who would possibly need admission to care if the adaptation is not provided, with medium need classified as a resident whose safety and well-being is potentially at risk during normal daily activities.
In circumstances where it is not possible to complete the requested aid or adaptation due to restrictions presented by the property itself, the landlord should consult with the resident about possible re-housing alternatives.
The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction with the service provided. The police also notes that when a complaint is received regarding a repair, the landlord should obtain the relevant information from the resident and undertake an initial investigation prior to ensure it is not just a request for a service prior to logging the complaints. Where a complaint resolution involves a repair, and this has been scheduled in, the complaint can be closed, with the repair task being monitored weekly to ensure it is completed as part of the resolution.

Assessment and findings

Disability adaptations request

The Ombudsman is unable to consider the actions of either the Occupational Therapist or the Council in determining whether they acted in a reasonable manner of if there was a service failure. These would be matters for the LGSCO to determine. Instead the report considers the actions of the landlord itself, and in doing so it is important to consider the series of events to establish when the landlord could reasonably have been expected to be taking action to progress the application.
Following the landlord’s advice to the resident to contact the OT in 2018, and the similar advice it gave to her in November 2019, there is no evidence of what steps the resident had taken to contact the OT or pursue the matter in line with the landlord’s instructions until the formal complaint was raised. After the raising of the complaint on 12 August 2020 about the landlord’s handling of the aids and adaptations application, it spoke to the resident on 24 and 25 August 2020 who advised that as of that time she had been in contact with the OT and was waiting for an appointment. In its formal complaint response it confirmed that it was waiting for the appointment to go ahead, as per its policy, and requested the resident update it when the appointment was booked so it could send a technical officer along to assist and help progress the works. Each of these steps was appropriate and in line with its policy, demonstrating a commitment to meeting its obligations in progressing the matter while assisting the resident with the steps that she needed to take.
Following the completion of the OT report and receiving it some time in November 2020, the landlord’s internal emails noted that the quoted cost of the work put it above the threshold for minor works, and noted it would require a new referral from the OT on this basis in line with its policy. It followed its policy by referring back to the OT and seeking a recommendation for major works as required to justify the increased budget that would be needed to undertake the job. Once this was received, while there is some lack of clarity about exactly when it contacted the council about the DFG, the available evidence demonstrates that this was done in December 2020 in an attempt to progress the matter to the next step.
Over the timeline of the issue, the landlord engaged repeatedly with the resident to explain its process and what it needed from the OT to progress the matter. When the matter was in its hands to progress, it engaged with the necessary parties and acted in accordance with the process aimed at resolving the issue. While this length of time was clearly frustrating to the resident, the landlord responded appropriately when it had new information by carrying out an assessment of the property and proposed works and going back to the resident when further steps were required. The landlord had no control over the length of time that it took the OT to provide its report following the former’s instruction to the resident in October 2019, November 2019 and March 2020. This is because it was for the resident to provide the landlord with the report once it had been drafted on the basis of an examination of the resident and the evidence, at which point the landlord could consider its recommendations in line with its housing responsibilities.
The landlord took the view that the works were not responsive repairs but rather than they were subject to the aids and adaptations process, which included the referral to the OT for their recommendations. This was a reasonable position to take given the scope of necessary works: when the landlord first inspected the property in light of the OT’s original recommendations shortly after 16 October 2018, it was clear that there would be structural implications as a result of such work. On this basis, it was appropriate that the resident be referred back to the OT to consider alternative solutions, with an additional factor in support of the landlord’s decision being that the originally recommended work would not be possible under the umbrella of its repairs budget. This is supported by consideration of the landlord’s relevant policy. Its openness to other solutions as considered and recommended by the OT was a fair position to take.
At the point that the council had accepted the application and noted that it was in the queue for the work to be undertaken, there was nothing else for the landlord to do to comply with the terms of its policy. Nevertheless it was proactive in asking the council repeatedly if there was any way it could give a higher priority to the work given the length of time the resident had been wanting it to occur. It also demonstrated it was investigating potential interim work to minimise the inconvenience that the resident was experiencing at the time.

Repairs

The landlord responded appropriately to reports by the resident of problems with the heating in her property. It carried out investigations into the reports of cold and established that there was some work it could undertake to improve the condition of the property. Its inspection of the window seals on 12 March 2020 did not reveal any issues. Nevertheless it carried out re-sealing to various windows and gaskets as necessary, giving advice to the resident about the gaffa tape she had put in place as an interim solution and asking her not to repeat this as it might compromise the repairs.
It checked moisture levels and took various readings with a protometer and used the results to justify its position that minimal work was required. Nevertheless, it put thermo-boarding in place in a small area of the bedroom wall on the basis of the resident’s belief that there was a cold spot present. At some point the landlord also put new plaster boards up to address the issue. When the resident intermittently reported the same issue, the landlord attended the property again to see if it could gather evidence of the cold to establish there was some work it needed to undertake.
The landlord repeatedly communicated to the resident its position that the replacement of the windows was not justified on the basis of the contractor’s inspections of the property, and the opinions expressed in its internal emails and communications with contractors supported this position. In its inspection report and complaint response it noted that the resident’s medical condition prevented her from keeping the heating on as much as was necessary in such a property which meant this was contributing to the property being cold. On this basis, it is reasonable to find that the landlord was taking the steps that it could reasonably be expected to undertake in response to the issues, even though this did not resolve the resident’s complaint.
Parallel to its response regarding the complaint about the adaptations, the landlord recognised that a transfer may be an appropriate solution to the resident’s complaints. It signposted the resident to the process for requesting this and offered her assistance in making the application which was a reasonable approach to finding a resolution for the matter.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord regarding the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adaptations to her property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord regarding the complaint about the resident’s reports of cold spots and drafts in the property.

Reasons

The landlord responded to the resident’s request for a disabled adaptation at each stage of the process. When the matter was in its hands to progress, it acted appropriately and promptly in contacting the relevant parties and undertaking the necessary steps. It advised the resident to contact the OT when the specifically proposed works were not feasible in the first instance, and then again later when it required a specific referral to allow for it to initiate major works above a certain budget as required by its policy. It carried out inspections promptly when it had the information required from the OT and passed the application on to the Council in line with its policy who was then in charge of progressing the matter. It also engaged with the Council in an attempt to speed up the work by getting the resident a higher priority, even though this was unsuccessful.
The landlord carried out multiple inspections of the property and relied on the advice of its contractors and their technical expertise in establishing what work was required. Its inspections did not demonstrate that there were significant issues with drafts allowing cold air into the property, but in light of the resident’s concerns it undertook various repair jobs to seal the windows, put some thermo-boarding and further plastering in place. It noted to the resident that her inability to use the heating would be contributing to the cold in the property as it was not being sufficiently heated to start with, and also discussed with her the possibility of a transfer.