Dacorum Borough Council (202332779)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332779

Dacorum Borough Council

24 July 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 the landlord’s:
1. Handling of adaptations to the driveway following an occupational therapist assessment.
2. Handling of void works in the property.
3. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy at the property which is a 3 bedroom house. She has 2 sons who have autism. This effects their mobility.
In 2022 the resident raised concerns to the landlord about the suitability of her previous property. As such, the landlord agreed to move her to her current property in March 2023. Prior to her moving in, the landlord completed works to the property whilst it was void.
After moving to the property, the resident raised concerns about a number of issues in the property including adaptations to the driveway, internal decoration and works in the garden. The landlord met with both her and her local councillor on 19 July 2023 and she outlined her concerns.
On 19 October 2023 the resident told the landlord it had not responded to her complaint that she had raised with it in person. The landlord subsequently responded at stage 1 on 23 October 2023 and addressed the concerns she had raised.
The resident escalated her complaint on 30 October 2023. She said a number of issues were still outstanding. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 15 February 2024 and outlined the action it had taken in respect of her concerns.
The resident referred her complaint to us on 2 June 2024 and said she was dissatisfied that some works were still outstanding.
In September 2024 the resident told the landlord that when it had installed the back fence, it had broken the step at the front of the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has expressed concerns about the impact the situation had on her and her children’s mental health. We are unable to draw conclusions relating to impact on health and wellbeing. Claims for personal injury are matters for a court to decide. A court can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. Where there has been a failing by the landlord, we can consider any general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
Following the completion of the internal complaints procedure, the resident raised her concerns about a broken step. This matter has not completed the landlord’s complaints procedure. As such, this concern cannot be investigated by us at this stage. This is because the landlord must have the opportunity to investigate complaints and be given the opportunity to put things right if failings have occurred. The resident may pursue this complaint through the landlord’s internal procedure if she chooses to do so.

Handling of adaptations to the driveway following an occupational therapist assessment

The resident told the landlord on 19 July 2023 that the driveway was not big enough to transfer her disabled son to and from the car. The landlord told the resident on 4 August 2023 that it had arranged for a surveyor and a private occupational therapist to review the possibility of extending the driveway. It said it had instructed a private occupational therapist to try to speed up the process. The resident said there had been an occupational therapy referral previously. The landlord apologised on 10 August 2023 and said it had not realised a referral had already been made.
An occupational therapist attended on 16 August 2023 to assess the driveway. They recommended extending the size of the driveway area. A surveyor confirmed to the landlord the following day that the recommended work could go ahead.
The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy says that for major adaptations such as access alterations, it aims to complete these between 9 and 30 weeks, depending on urgency. The policy notes that planning permission or other regulatory elements may lead to delays beyond the landlord’s control.
The landlord told the resident on 17 October 2023 that work to the driveway would begin on 23 October 2023. This was in line with the most urgent timeframe of its policy and was around 8 weeks after the adaptations had been recommended by the occupational therapist.
Upon confirming the work start date with the resident, she queried the scope of the work to be done and said that both of her children now had a diagnosis of autism. She asked if a new occupational therapist assessment would be needed as both had mobility and safety issues. The landlord said the work was as previously assessed and it would extend the drive to the front garden forming a level access to the front door. It attached the plan.
The resident said she did not agree with the plans as there would not be enough space to access the cars. She added the following day that she did not want the property to look like a “disabled” house. She requested extra spaces to park. Alternatively, she asked for a new occupational therapist report.
The landlord responded to her concerns and that same day it changed the plan to allow extra space for the cars. The resident said she had been told the whole area would be made flat and that was what she wanted. The landlord explained that the plan had followed and exceeded the occupational therapist’s recommendation and met her son’s needs. However, given the resident’s concerns, it would put the work on hold and meet with her to discuss it further.
This was a reasonable step for it to take at the time to try to understand why the resident felt the suggested works would not be suitable, and also because her other son had a recent diagnosis of autism.
Within its stage 1 response of 23 October 2023, the landlord said it had told the resident that an occupational therapist assessment would be done once she had moved in. This was subsequently carried out on 16 August 2023. It apologised for delays in the process but explained that it had prioritised the assessment. To progress the adaptations, it would visit the resident on 31 October 2023 along with the occupational therapist and surveyor to discuss the resident’s concerns of the planned work.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was an accurate reflection of the evidence we have been provided with in this case. We have seen that the landlord prioritised the occupational health assessment and approached an independent assessor to speed up the process. This was something over and above what it was required to do and demonstrated empathy with the resident’s situation. The subsequent length of time between the landlord’s request and the occupational health assessment was outside of the landlord’s control.
The resident escalated her complaint on 30 October 2023. She said that the drive should be flattened. She did not agree with the plan provided and did not want handrails to be installed.
Following the resident’s concerns, there was a gap in the evidence we were provided with until 1 February 2024. The landlord asked the occupational therapist if the resident’s eldest son also needed an assessment. The occupational therapist confirmed they had not previously been asked to conduct an assessment with the eldest son. That same day, the landlord requested a private occupational therapist assessment of the eldest son’s needs. This was appropriate in the circumstances and demonstrated that the landlord had been responsive to the situation. However the landlord did not explain the 4 month delay to enquire with the occupational therapist about need for an assessment.
The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 2 response on 15 February 2024. It said as follows:
1. The occupational therapist assessment had been based on the youngest son’s medical circumstances. It recommended the resident agree to a second assessment so that both of her son’s needs could be taken into account.
2. Due to the waiting time for assessments it had agreed to cover the cost of a private assessment for this to be done as soon as possible.
3. It could only agree works that were included within the assessment and that were practical. If the assessment recommended removal of the front hedge (as per the resident’s request), it would do so as long as this was in line with any planning conditions.
The landlord’s stage 2 response appropriately addressed the resident’s concerns. It demonstrated the landlord had gone over and above what it was obliged to provide by arranging another private occupational therapist assessment in order to speed up the process. It also managed the resident’s expectations in respect of how it would determine what would be undertaken following this report.
Following the completion of the internal complaints procedure, the further occupational therapist assessment was carried out on 2 March 2024. This recommended a larger off road parking area to support the transport of both children. The landlord subsequently applied to the Council for a dropped kerb in respect of the driveway plans. Work to the driveway was subsequently completed in January 2025.
The evidence in the case shows that although there were some delays in the work to the driveway being completed, most of these were outside of the landlord’s control. The landlord had been ready to commence work in October 2023 in line with the most urgent timeframe as stated in its aids and adaptations policy. When the resident raised concerns about the proposed work, the landlord went over and above what is was required to do in arranging a private occupational therapist assessment.
The landlord’s actions demonstrated that it had considered the household vulnerabilities and the impact the situation was having on the household. It responded to the adaptation requests in line with its policy and arranged both assessments to be done by private occupational therapists, which it was not required to do. As such, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of adaptations to the driveway following an occupational therapist assessment.

Handling of void works in the property

The resident raised concerns about various aspects of the works required while the property was void (between occupation by tenants). We have categorised these as works for internal decoration, works to windows and doors, and external works regarding a fence, overgrown ivy and an electric cable in the garden. We have assessed each of these separately below.

Internal decoration

The resident told the landlord on 5 May 2023 that there was blown plaster in one of the bedrooms. She also said the landlord had not stuck down wallpaper in other rooms as promised during the void period. She said she had painted over the wallpaper but it was peeling and needed to be stripped off.
The landlord responded the next working day. It explained that its surveyor had confirmed the property had met its empty homes standard at the time of the handover to the resident. It advised that during the void period, it had stripped the dining room, living room and one of the bedrooms rooms as was previously agreed. It had stuck down other areas of wallpaper. It explained that, as per the tenancy agreement, the resident was responsible for internal decoration. It advised that, if the wallpaper had lifted since being painted by the resident, she would be responsible for this.
The tenancy agreement states that internal decorations are the resident’s responsibility. The landlord’s standard for letting empty homes also states that there will not be large tears in wallpaper left in the property and that future decoration is the resident’s responsibility.
The evidence shows the landlord’s response to the resident was in line with both the tenancy agreement and its empty homes standard.
The landlord met with the resident on 19 July 2023. She reiterated her concerns about the wallpaper peeling after she had painted it. The landlord advised again of the work it had carried out while the property was empty and that internal decoration was her responsibility. However, as a goodwill gesture it offered £150 towards internal decoration.
This was over and above what the landlord was required to do and demonstrated it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously and had tried to put things right for her in circumstances where there was no obligation for it to do so.
The landlord responded to the complaint issues raised on 19 July 2023 at stage 1 on 23 October 2023. It reiterated its previous stance and its offer of £150. The resident escalated her complaint on 30 October 2023. She said that a watermark should have been replastered and that the wallpaper had not been stuck back.
The landlord visited the resident on 9 January 2024 where it noted again the resident’s dissatisfaction with the wallpaper peeling. Following this, the landlord asked its team if it had considered the household vulnerabilities when it declined to remove the wallpaper.
The landlord sent the stage 2 response on 15 February 2024. It reiterated that the property had met its void standards. It acknowledged that there was an old water stain, but reiterated the resident’s responsibility for internal decorations. Despite not being its responsibility, it said it had considered its response further in light of the household vulnerabilities. As such, it would strip the wallpaper to the stairs, landing and her son’s bedroom and make good any defective plaster. It said this would enable the resident to paint the wall with a washable paint to meet her son’s medical needs. In addition, it advised that its offer of £150 still stood.
Our consideration of the evidence has found that the landlord correctly explained its responsibilities and those of the resident in line with the tenancy agreement and its policy. In addition, it considered the individual household circumstances and the need for the bedroom walls to be washable. In offering to carry out such works, it went over and above what it was required to do. As such, its response to this aspect of complaint in offering to carry out works and offering a goodwill gesture of compensation was appropriate. We have seen that following the completion of the internal complaints procedure the landlord completed this work.

Windows and doors

From the evidence we have been provided with, it is not clear when the resident first raised her concerns about the doors and windows at the property. However, we have seen evidence that the landlord made a referral on 26 May 2023 for an appointment to be made in respect of the doors and windows. We have not seen any evidence that this took place at the time.
The resident outlined her concerns about the windows and doors being old and a fire risk when she met with the landlord on 19 July 2023. The landlord did not provide any update in respect of this and so the resident chased this on 10 August 2023. The landlord responded the same day and apologised for not having addressed this. It said it would arrange an inspection to see if replacements were needed.
The landlord arranged an inspection and this took place on 16 August 2023. We have not been provided with any evidence to show that the landlord told the resident the outcome of this inspection at the time. However, in its stage 1 response, on 23 October 2023, it told her it had added replacement windows and doors to its programme of works. It said this would take place between April 2024 and March 2025. It apologised it had not responded to this aspect of complaint sooner.
The landlord’s decision to replace the windows and doors as part of planned works was in line with its repairs, maintenance and improvements policy. The policy sets out that some works required in a property will be done as planned maintenance. It reiterated its plan to do so within its stage 2 response from 15 February 2024.
The evidence shows that although the landlord’s overall decision to replace the doors and windows as part of its planned maintenance programme was reasonable, its communication about this with the resident was poor. It did not summarise the findings of its inspection, it did not address the resident’s concerns about the doors and windows being a fire risk and it failed to keep her proactively updated about when they would be replaced. This caused unnecessary frustration and distress to the resident. It was also a missed opportunity to alleviate the resident’s health and safety concerns and provide clarity on this sooner.
We have seen that following the completion of the internal complaints procedure, the landlord replaced the windows in September 2024. It did not provide confirmation to us in respect of the replacement door or if this had been carried out. As such, resolution for this point is made in the orders and recommendations section below.

Fence, overgrown ivy and an electric cable in the garden

The resident raised her concerns about aspects of the garden when she met with the landlord on 19 July 2023. She said that ivy on the rear fence had not been removed prior to her moving in. She also reported a hole in the fence where the landlord had removed a shed. She advised that the fence belonged to a neighbour who would not replace it.
The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns on 4 August 2023. It confirmed the fence was owned by the neighbour who was a private owner and not a tenant of the landlord. Despite this, it would write to the neighbour and ask them to take action to address the condition of the fence. It said it had trimmed the ivy and this had been in a manageable condition prior to the resident moving in. It explained that, as per the tenancy agreement, garden maintenance was the resident’s responsibility. This advice was in line with the conditions of the tenancy agreement.
Following the resident’s ongoing concerns, the landlord inspected the ivy and fence on 5 September 2023. It noted the ivy appeared to be supporting the fence. It concluded that it could remove the ivy but the neighbour would need to replace the fence. As such, it told the resident that it would wait to hear from the neighbour before doing so.
The landlord did not hear from the neighbour so it took the decision to remove the ivy and replace the fence itself. It carried out this work on 2 and 3 October 2023. Although the landlord was not responsible for the fence or for removing the ivy, it took a resolution focused approach in deciding to carry out this work itself to resolve the issue for the resident. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
When the ivy was removed the resident told the landlord that there was a cable running down the side of her garden. The landlord was responsive to this and that same day it raised a job for this to be inspected. A contractor attended on 4 October 2023. It advised the landlord the cable carried power and could not be cut. It would need to be done by the neighbour as it was their cable. The landlord asked its contractor to make the cable more secure as the resident was worried about her children. This was a reasonable action to take pending the permanent resolution of the cable. It also demonstrated that it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously.
Within its stage 1 response of 23 October 2023, the landlord told the resident that prior to her moving in, it had assessed the ivy as being in a manageable condition. Following its visit on 19 July 2023 it had reviewed this. Given the lack of response from the neighbour it had decided to remove the ivy and replace the fence in order to resolve the issue. Although the electrical cable belonged to the neighbour, it had arranged for this to be fixed to the wall to make it more secure. It would discuss this with its legal team and keep the resident updated.
This response was appropriate and demonstrated that the landlord had taken reasonable action in respect of the resident’s concerns. Despite not being responsible for the fence or garden maintenance, it had gone over and above its requirements to assist the resident.
Within her escalation request of 30 October 2023 the resident said she did not agree for the neighbour’s cable to be attached to the neighbours wall. The landlord explained within its stage 2 response that the neighbour had run the electric cable on the property without its agreement. It had tried to contact the neighbour and had referred this to its legal team. It explained that the cable was safe but as a temporary measure it offered to clip it to the fence.
Given the neighbour was not a tenant of the landlord it was appropriate for it to refer this matter to its legal team for further advice and guidance. In the circumstances, the landlord was limited in the action it could take. However, it offered reassurance in respect of the safety of the cable and a solution while it investigate this further. In summary, the action it did take, in tying to speak to the neighbour, referring this to its legal team, and offering to secure the cable off the floor was appropriate in the circumstances.

Conclusion

The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns about the internal decoration, the fence, ivy and cable. However, it failed to keep the resident fully informed in respect of the work to replace the windows and doors. It also failed to address her concerns about these being a fire risk. As such, on this basis, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of void works in the property.
To acknowledge the distress, frustration and inconvenience this caused to the resident, we have ordered compensation of £200. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure of the landlord which adversely affected a resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about its standard of service, actions, or lack of action.
The landlord has a two stage complaints process. At stage 1 it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It will respond within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. At stage 2 it will respond within 20 working days. If more time is needed at either sage it will keep the resident informed.
The landlord met with the resident at the property on 19 July 2023. It can be concluded from other evidence we have seen that the resident’s local councillor was also at this meeting. During this the resident set out a number of concerns she had about the property since moving in.
Despite this meeting the landlord’s definition of a complaint as outlined in its policy, it did not respond to the resident’s concerns in line with its complaints process at the time. As such, the resident chased a response from the landlord on 19 October 2023. The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 on 23 October 2023. This was around 3 months after she had raised her concerns. This was significantly outside the 10 working day stage1 response timeframe.
The landlord said that as the resident had addressed her concerns via her councillor in July 2023, it had not raised this as a formal complaint. It apologised for this. It then went on to address her aspects of concern within its complaint response. Although the landlord acknowledged its failure to treat her concerns as a complaint, it did not offer any redress to acknowledged the effect of this on the resident. Nor did it explain what it would do differently in the future to prevent such an issue reoccurring. This was a missed opportunity to put things right for the resident and to show that it understood the effect on her.
The resident escalated her complaint on 30 October 2023. The landlord acknowledged this the following day. The resident chased a response on 22 November 2023 and 15 December 2023. The landlord spoke to the resident on 21 December 2023 and agreed an extension of its stage 2 response to 15 January 2024. It explained to her that there had been an error in its system in registering the escalation request.
The landlord subsequently sent the stage 2 response on 15 February 2024, a month after its extended deadline and 75 working days from the escalation request. We have not seen any evidence that it kept the resident informed of this additional delay during this time. Although the landlord apologised for the delayed stage 2 response, again it failed to consider any redress for the effect of this on the resident.
Given the landlord’s failure to treat the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction as a complaint, and its delays in responding at both stages of its complaints procedure, and the failure to offer to put right with redress, this amounts to maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling. To acknowledge the effect of this on the resident, we have ordered compensation of £250. This is in line with our remedies guidance where the landlord did not acknowledge its failings and made no attempt to put things right.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of adaptations to the driveway following an occupational therapist assessment.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of void works in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman:
1. Pay a total of £600 compensation to the resident. This amount includes the landlord’s previous offer of £150 compensation as a goodwill gesture. The landlord can deduct this amount if it can provide evidence this has already been paid. The additional compensation is made up as follows:
  1. £200 to acknowledge the effect on the resident of the landlord’s failures in its handling of void works in the property.
  2. £250 to acknowledge the effect on the resident of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
2. The landlord is to confirm to us and the resident when the work to replace the external doors will be completed. If this has already been completed, the landlord is to provide us evidence of this.