Derby City Council (202345219)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202345219

Derby City Council

29 November 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of disability adaptations at the resident’s property.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord of a 3-bedroom terraced house with disability adaptations. He lives with his partner, who is a disabled wheelchair user, and 3 children, one of whom is also disabled. The resident is paralysed and has a neurological disorder, which require him to use a wheelchair and stop him using the toilet in many circumstances. He has explained that the latter meant he reduced the solid food he ate at his property, which worsened his physical and mental health.
3. The resident was hospitalised after having a stroke in December 2022, which led to his paralysis and neurological disorder. In May 2023, his occupational therapist (OT) recommended the landlord install a permanent front ramp at his property. This was to help the resident access the property due to his difficulty using his existing temporary ramp with his wheelchair. The landlord also recommended his family for tenancy support in June 2023 to coordinate different services for their complex needs, finances, and emotional difficulties. The resident’s hospital social worker additionally requested it increase his toilet’s height to help his wheelchair to toilet transfers in June 2023. The OT therefore ordered a raised toilet seat and suggested further toilet adaptations.
4. In July 2023, the resident was discharged from hospital to his property, but he was unable to use the toilet there due to his disabilities. Social services therefore paid for him to travel to use toilets elsewhere, and the OT inspected the property with the landlord. They found the resident wanted to keep using his temporary ramp, but his bathroom could not be adapted for his complex toilet transfers. A downstairs extension was therefore suggested to provide an adapted toilet and help him use his wheelchair. In August 2023, the landlord’s architect found the extension was challenging with fire safety issues, explaining a permanent ramp would remove off-street parking. As the resident reported falling from his temporary ramp, it agreed to seek a permanent ramp in September 2023.
5. The resident’s stairlift also broke down and trapped him until emergency services arrived in September 2023. He asked the landlord for suitable temporary decant accommodation, which it agreed to seek, but he declined its suggested care home. It then agreed to permanently allocate the resident an adapted 4-bedroom property when one became available in October 2023. This was due to his difficulties at his property, his inability to use commodes there, and his refusal of hospital suggested by his medical professionals. The landlord also discussed interim measures at the property, but it found the proposed extension was prevented by the structure. This was therefore put on hold, together with the permanent ramp, which the resident declined due to loss of parking.
6. In December 2023, the resident complained about the landlord’s handling of the stairlift breakdown, which it had attended the next day. This also broke down again and it repaired this on the same day. The resident additionally complained about the handling of his disability adaptations and repeated his request for temporary decant accommodation. In January 2024, the landlord apologised in response to his stairlift breakdown complaint for not immediately advising him to call emergency services, issuing guidance for this. It attended a further breakdown on the same day but found the interface needed renewal. The landlord then apologised for the resident’s frustration about his adaptations in response to his stage 1 complaint about this. It confirmed it had arranged a surveyor’s visit to assess a permanent ramp with room for him to park.
7. The landlord also acknowledged the resident’s assertion that his inability to access the toilet or bathroom or leave his property without assistance was affecting his health. It therefore agreed to investigate solutions for this after its January 2024 surveyor’s visit. The landlord then replaced the resident’s stairlift control in February 2024, attended further damage to a joystick for this, and ordered a new toilet seat. It additionally took his complaint to the final stage of its complaints procedure. This was about stairlift breakdowns, a broken toilet seat, and the inability to use the ramp or toilet. Moreover, the resident again asked about a temporary decant or hotel accommodation. The landlord then offered him a new 4 bedroom property it would adapt for him and installed a permanent ramp at his current property.
8. In March 2024, the landlord replaced the resident’s stairlift’s joystick and replaced his toilet seat. Its first response at the final stage complaint of its complaints procedure said the permanent ramp improved access and left room for him to park by removing his porch. The landlord also agreed to urgently raise the resident’s stairlift breakdown concerns and update him, explaining his bathroom layout prevented adaptations. This and his disabilities meant he had to travel to use toilets elsewhere, with the broken toilet seat renewal delayed by needing a specialist replacement. The landlord’s second response at the final stage of its complaints procedure in March 2024 then outlined its above actions in the resident’s case in reply to his dissatisfaction with its previous response.
9. The resident reported in March 2024 that he had previously fallen and injured himself as a result of a further stairlift fault. The landlord therefore asked for his stairlift seat to be adjusted in April 2024, which it attended but was unable to adjust, as well as for another OT’s visit. It also responded to the dissatisfaction the resident expressed in April 2024 with its previous response by issuing him with a third response at the final stage of its complaints procedure in May 2024. This described the landlord’s latest and previous actions in his case. The resident then complained to the Ombudsman about adaptations delays and his lack of temporary decant accommodation. He requested a decant, works to adapt his bathroom and stairlift, and compensation to resolve his complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. It is concerning that the resident’s reported inability to use the toilets at his property’s affected his diet and worsened his physical and mental health. The effect of this on his health is, nevertheless, outside the scope of this investigation to consider. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme which states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts or other tribunal or procedure. This service does not have the authority or expertise to determine whether the landlord is liable for the worsening of the resident’s health in the way a court or insurer might. Therefore, it would be most appropriate for the resident to seek determination and resolution on this matter through the courts or other tribunal or procedure.

Disability adaptations

11. The resident’s tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to keep his property’s installations for sanitation in repair and proper working order. Its responsive repairs policy makes it responsible for repairing items including toilets and stairs. The policy requires the landlord to aim to complete emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within 5, 25 or 60 working days. Its welfare adaptations policy only permits major disability adaptations to its properties with OT referrals, which it aims to complete within 80 working days. The landlord is permitted to exceed this timescale where there is added complexity, and it aims to complete adaptations needing property extensions within 6 months.
12. The landlord sought to respond to the resident’s OT welfare adaptation recommendation, on 11 May 2023, in line with its welfare adaptations policy. It did so by acknowledging the OT’s permanent front access ramp recommendation on the same day and considering this, as the policy required. The OT explained the resident’s disabilities limited his mobility and meant he needed a wheelchair, which he struggled to use with his existing temporary ramp. It was therefore appropriate the landlord referred him for support and attended an NHS and social services multidisciplinary meeting on 9 and 12 June 2023. This was due to the resident’s and his family’s complex needs and resulting difficulties arising from issues including his disabilities.
13. The landlord’s above actions were appropriately within its welfare adaptations policy’s 80-working-day major disability adaptations timescale. It also suitably completed a joint inspection of the resident’s property’s front access with his OT within this timescale on 26 July 2023. However, the OT confirmed to the landlord on that date that the resident wanted to continue with his current temporary ramp, and how he used this to manage transferring between his wheelchair and vehicles. Therefore, the fact the permanent ramp depended on an OT’s referral under the policy meant the landlord no longer had to install this at that stage. This is because the resident was no longer requesting the ramp and was supported by the OT in declining this. The landlord’s architect nevertheless confirmed the feasibility of a permanent ramp within its policy’s timescale on 14 August 2023. It noted there would be a loss of off-street parking.
14. It was appropriate that the landlord continued to consider a permanent ramp for the resident at his property. This is because his OT previously recommended that this would benefit him due to his difficulty using his temporary ramp, which had not changed. While the OT did not discuss this further and closed their case on 7 August 2023, the resident could re-request this under their earlier referral. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord prepared to proceed with a permanent ramp if he changed his position on this. This was demonstrated when the resident told it on 14 September 2023 that he had fallen when using the temporary ramp. The landlord therefore agreed to reconsider providing a permanent ramp on that date, as required by its welfare adaptations policy.
15. However, the resident’s MP contacted the landlord on 25 September 2023. The MP reported that the assessment on 21 September 2023 of the gradient of the resident’s drive found it could not fit a permanent ramp the resident considered suitable. The landlord noted on 18 October 2023 that this was because its assessment established the gradient meant the ramp would stop his car fitting on the drive, which meant he declined this. It nevertheless agreed to reassess his permanent ramp options in light of this on 13 November 2023 and discuss these further if he changed his position. The landlord then did so when it noted the resident asked it for a permanent ramp again from 8 January 2024. He explained this was due to his new vehicle and inability to leave his property without assistance. The landlord therefore followed its welfare adaptations policy appropriately by arranging another surveyor’s visit for this on 24 January 2024.
16. The above visits both took place within the landlord’s welfare adaptations policy’s 80-working-day timescale and investigated further permanent ramp options with room to park. It also visited the resident’s property for this on 16 January 2024 and discussed different ramp designs on 24 January and 13 February 2024. The landlord then completed extra works to remove his porch and install the ramp while leaving space to park on 20 February 2024. This was well within the policy’s timescale for it to do so after the resident asked it for the ramp again in January 2024. This was reasonable and so was the fact that the landlord adjusted its works to meet his request to keep off-street parking to help his mobility.
17. It is noted that the resident complained about the length of time taken by the landlord to install his property’s permanent ramp. This took it 198 working days to fit from the OT referral in May 2023 until this was completed in February 2024. This would have been far in excess of the landlord’s welfare adaptations policy’s 80-working-day timescale. However, as outlined above, the resident then declined the ramp in August and October 2023 before re-requesting this in January 2024. It was therefore suitable that the landlord postponed works for this while ensuring these could later proceed at his request, which occurred in his case.
18. It is also noted the resident complained the landlord only used a tape instead of laser measurements for his drive’s gradient, and to establish this meant a permanent ramp would stop his car fitting on the drive. He explained to it on 16 January 2024 a company he arranged used laser measurements for this, finding adequate room for the ramp and parking. The resident considered the landlord did not use correct equipment to assess the ramp, and so he declined this as the landlord found no room for him to park with a permanent ramp. Its complaint responses apologised for his inability to leave his property without assistance until the permanent ramp was installed. The landlord also explained its later surveyor’s inspection used laser measurements, considering they had the experience to earlier assess the resident’s drive without this. It nevertheless agreed to introduce a system for its surveyors to sign out appropriate tools, showing relevant learning from this.
19. The resident regarded the landlord’s above actions as delaying his permanent ramp by up to 6 months. He added his resulting inability to independently leave his property stopped him travelling to use the toilet, reduced his solid foods, and worsened his health. There is nevertheless no evidence the landlord delayed installing the ramp, which it offered to fit from May, September, and November 2023 and January 2024. While it suggested this could remove the resident’s parking, it also reasonably agreed to reassess the options for this at his request on each occasion. The landlord then took this and his new vehicle into account in January 2024 to suitably install the ramp with parking in February 2024. It was not given the opportunity to do so before that date due to the resident’s refusals.
20. It was also appropriate for the landlord to rely on its surveyor’s and architect’s expertise to assess the resident’s permanent ramp before laser measurements. This is because they provided it with their initial findings without reassessing parking options, which their experience and qualifications could reasonably be expected to cover. There was additionally no other expert evidence to the contrary until the resident referred to the findings of the company he instructed in January 2024. This was after the landlord agreed to reassess his ramp and parking options at his request, which found room for both by removing his porch. As there is no evidence it delayed this reassessment, which it repeatedly offered the resident, there were no failings by it regarding the ramp.
21. With regard to the resident’s difficulty using his property’s toilet, his hospital social worker contacted the landlord about this on 15 June 2023. As they explained he needed a toilet the same height as the bath to transfer independently, it liaised with his OT the next day. The OT then ordered a raised toilet seat for the resident to use this and recommended a wet room and pedestal to raise the toilet. It was a suitable response for the landlord to liaise with experts to address his assessed difficulty using the toilet. This followed the referral made on 9 June 2023 for support for his complex needs and difficulties. The landlord therefore promptly sought to provide the resident with appropriate assistance.
22. The landlord complied with the 80-working-day timescale in the welfare adaptations policy following the OT’s above recommendations. It did so by arranging the above joint visit to his property with the OT on 26 July 2023, which agreed to consider extending this. This proposed improving the resident’s complex wheelchair to toilet transfers with a downstairs extension and adapted toilet, as his existing toilet could not be adapted. This was also to overcome his neurological disorder preventing him from using anything he did not consider to be a normal, functioning toilet. This meant social services paid to transport the resident to use toilets elsewhere. The landlord therefore acted reasonably by obtaining its architect’s assessment of the extension within the policy’s above timescale on 14 August 2023.
23. However, the landlord’s architect found a fire risk issue from the proposed extension to give the resident a useable adapted toilet at his property. This removed access to evacuate the property’s rear and back garden to the street without going back into the property if there was a fire. It was therefore appropriate the landlord considered alternative options to this for the resident to use the toilet within the welfare adaptations policy’s above timescale. It did so by suggesting he consider a temporary care home placement on 14 September 2023, which he declined. The landlord then approved the resident’s permanent allocation of adapted accommodation with wheelchair to toilet transfers on 12 October 2023 once this became available.
24. This was because of the resident’s inability to use his property’s toilet or upstairs and downstairs commodes provided by his OT due to his disabilities. The landlord also noted his unwillingness to return to hospital for his conditions, as encouraged by his GP and NHS crisis team. It added on 18 October 2023 that the resident’s property was no longer suitable for him, but the structure prevented toilet adaptations for his wheelchair. The landlord therefore suitably considered interim adaptations for him to use the toilet until he could move, but it was prevented from making these. It is very concerning the resident was unable to do so at his property at that time or travel independently to use the toilet elsewhere. The landlord nevertheless worked with his OT and medical professionals to provide accessible toilets and was not responsible for his property’s structure preventing this.
25. It is additionally noted the resident’s complex needs from his disabilities prevented him from using his property’s toilet despite measures seeking to overcome these. This is because he was unable to do so despite the raised toilet seat and upstairs and downstairs commodes his medical professionals and OT provided. Moreover, the resident declined the temporary care home and return to hospital they and the landlord suggested to overcome his difficulties until he could move. Therefore, it took reasonable steps to work with appropriate agencies to try and mitigate his difficulties in the meantime, and it did not prolong these. However, the resident’s complaints about still being unable to use his property’s toilet from 14 December 2023 meant it was reasonable for the landlord to consider this further.
26. The landlord agreed to continue to seek solutions for the resident to access his property’s toilet after its surveyor’s 24 January 2024 further visit. It was appropriate for it obtain further relevant information about this from the visit before doing so. The resident then also added on 8 February 2024 his toilet seat was broken. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord responded to his concerns by attending the toilet on 13 February 2024. It explained to the resident on 1 March 2024 it found it was still unable to adapt his toilet to make this useable for him. This was understandable given the landlord previously found it could not do so, but it agreed to replace the toilet seat on 21 March 2024. The landlord explained it was unable to previously repair the resident’s toilet seat as this was too close to the wall to access.
27. The landlord added the resident had a specialist toilet seat that needed to be replaced and ordered from a different supplier due to his bathroom’s different design. It was therefore understandable it took 30 working days from February to March 2024 to replace the toilet seat. While this exceeded the landlord’s responsive repairs policy’s 5 and 25-working-day routine repair timescales, it was reasonable for it to follow the policy’s 60-working-day timescale. This is because this was a specialist item it had to order and could not repair after originally attending within 3 working days. It is noted the resident described reporting this to the landlord earlier, but there is no evidence of earlier reports for this investigation to consider. It appropriately sought to permanently resolve this on 14 February 2024 by offering him a property being adapted to his needs.
28. With regard to the resident’s stairlift, he told the landlord’s out of hours service this broke down on 25 September 2023. As it explained its contractor took 9 hours to attend this, it arranged an attendance for the next day. The resident nevertheless described being trapped half-way up the stairs by this and only being freed by emergency services after several hours. It is very concerning that this occurred and would have caused him understandable distress and inconvenience from being unable to escape due to his disabilities. It was therefore suitable the landlord responded to the resident’s 14 December 2023 complaint about this by apologising on 3 January 2024. It reasonably added it would issue guidance to call handlers to immediately refer residents to emergency services in similar circumstances.
29. The landlord also responded to the resident’s 2 March 2024 further complaint about its handling of the stairlift incident on 13 March 2024. It explained it met to learn lessons from this, gave feedback to relevant departments, and acknowledged it should have initially referred him to emergency services. This showed the landlord took appropriate steps to learn from the outcome of the incident to seek to prevent future delays in contacting emergency services. It additionally complied with its responsive repairs policy’s 24-hour emergency repair timescale by arranging a next-day attendance for this. Moreover, the landlord confirmed its contractor was unable to rescue residents from broken stairlifts, or repair these while they were trapped, which was understandable. This is due to its contractors only being qualified and responsible for repairs and not rescues.
30. However, it is still of concern that the resident experienced the above stairlift break-down and further issues with this. He next encountered the stairlift’s arm falling off that the landlord’s contractor repaired on the same day on 23 December 2023. They then found a defective interface and broken joystick on 10 January and 29 February 2024 which was replaced on 15 February and 1 March 2024, respectively. The landlord’s contractor also tested another reported stairlift defect on the same day on 11 March 2024, which they found working but agreed to monitor. The above repairs occurred within its responsive repairs policy’s 24-hour emergency and 5 and 25-working-day routine repair timescales, which was suitable.
31. It is nevertheless very concerning that the resident reported that his stairlift had previously kept free falling until he fell from this and was injured in January 2024, which he told the landlord about on 2 March 2024. It therefore reasonably requested on 3 April 2024 that he be assisted with wheelchair to stairlift transfers by adjusting his stairlift seat’s height. The landlord also appropriately arranged for the resident’s OT to jointly visit the resident’s property with its stairlift installation technician on 4 April 2024. This showed it took suitable steps to arrange for relevant experts to investigate his stairlift concerns within its responsive repairs policy’s 25-working-day timescale. However, the landlord’s contractor found when attending on 25 April 2024 that, while the stairlift was in good condition, this could not be adjusted.
32. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord’s third response at the final stage of its complaints procedure to the resident’s adaptations complaint outlined its further stairlift works on 8 May 2024. It apologised for his inconvenience from the time it took to obtain unavailable spare parts and for its use of temporary measures for this. The landlord also confirmed it had installed a new straight stairlift at the resident’s request, as this was available at short notice. It described him declining its offers of the second-hand carriage it had in stock for his original curved stairlift and of a new curved stairlift. The former was because the resident sought a new stairlift, and the latter was from it taking 8 weeks to deliver a new curved stairlift. This was despite straight stairlifts making wheelchair transfers difficult.
33. The landlord therefore also appropriately investigated installing better fixing to support a grabrail to help the resident’s wheelchair to stairlift transfers. It nevertheless found that his stair wall’s construction prevented it from fitting a grabrail. It is of concern that the resident continued to experience difficult stairlift transfers. However, it is noted that the landlord attempted to assist him with this by exploring adjusting his stairlift seat and installing a grabrail. It also offered the resident parts to keep his existing curved stairlift or to install a new one instead of the straight stairlift he requested. The landlord therefore took suitable steps to try and resolve his stairlift transfer difficulties, as well as resolving his safety concerns.
34. The landlord also promptly installed the resident’s preferred new stairlift within its responsive repairs policy’s 25-working-day routine repair timescale from April to May 2024. The fact it did so, gave him options, and complied with his preferences which meant its actions in response to his stairlift concerns were reasonable. This is particularly because the landlord liaised with the resident’s OT and its contractor and stairlift installation technician to do so by providing appropriate evidence. It is noted he described having safety concerns and falling from his stairlift earlier, but it promptly attended this when he made reports previously. Therefore, the landlord was not responsible for failures regarding the stairlift, apart from its initial breakdown rescue information it suitably apologised for and learnt from.
35. However, the resident also requested temporary decant accommodation from the landlord on 16 September 2023. He asked if it could provide this until he received permanent alternative accommodation, and so it agreed to ask if he could be found a temporary decant. Nevertheless, it is concerning that the only temporary accommodation the landlord considered was the care home it previously suggested on 14 September 2023 and returning him to hospital on 12 October 2023, as outlined above. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s request for it to provide him with a temporary decant itself, which was unreasonable. It should have instead responded to this specific request, which he made to it to try and resolve his difficulties with his property’s disability adaptations, and it should have explained why if this was not possible.
36. As the landlord did not respond to the resident’s initial temporary decant request, he asked for this or hotel accommodation from it again in his stage 1 adaptations complaint on 14 December 2023. However, its stage 1 response on 9 January 2024 did not address his request for this once more, which was inappropriate and did not follow good practice. This also caused the resident unnecessary additional time and trouble from having to repeat his temporary decant request to the landlord. He therefore made a third request for a temporary decant or hotel to it in his final stage complaint on 8 February 2024. Nevertheless, the first response the landlord issued at the final stage of its complaints procedure on 1 March 2024 unsuitably did not address this request either.
37. Moreover, the resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s complaint responses, and with his lack of a temporary decant or hotel from it for a fourth time, on 16 April 2024. However, the third response it issued at the final stage of its complaints procedure on 8 May 2024 still did not address his decant or hotel requests. Therefore, the landlord failed to deal with any of the resident’s 4 requests for it to provide him with temporary decant or hotel accommodation itself, which was unreasonable. This caused him to experience further unnecessary time and trouble from repeatedly unsuccessfully seeking responses to these requests from it.
38. Consideration has been given above to the appropriateness of the landlord’s suggestions of temporary care home or hospital accommodation for the resident in the circumstances. It was nevertheless a failure on its part to not respond at all to his requests for a temporary decant or hotel from it. This likely caused the resident unnecessary additional distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble from the delays he experienced in resolving these requests from the landlord failing to respond to them, and from him having to complain to the Ombudsman for a response. This was unacceptable because it was reasonable for him to request, and for the landlord to consider, whether it could or should have decanted him itself. This is because the resident had a clear, OT-assessed need for adaptations to use the toilet at his property that could not be met there, as well as access difficulties until February 2024, and ongoing concerns about his stairlift.
39. It was therefore a further failing by the landlord that there was no evidence it considered whether providing the resident with a temporary decant or hotel, as he asked, would have been a suitable option to resolve his above difficulties. It is noted that this was not recommended by his OT or medical professionals, and that he previously declined the temporary care home or hospital accommodation already offered. However, the landlord’s overall management of the resident’s property’s adaptations could not have been fully appropriate without considering all of the possible options to resolve his unaddressed needs at the property due to the inability to complete necessary adaptations there. This did not mean that it was obliged to decant him, in the absence of the above recommendations for it to do so, but it was required to consider and respond to him about this, with the reasons for its decision, in order to be fair in all the circumstances of his case.
40. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to pay the resident £600 compensation in recognition of the unnecessary additional distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble he experienced from its failure to respond to his requests for a temporary hotel or decant. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s and the landlord’s compensation policy’s recommendations of compensation in this range for such failures adversely affecting the resident. It has also been ordered below to write to him to apologise and take responsibility for the failures identified by this investigation and acknowledge their effect on him. The landlord should outline exactly why its failings happened and how it proposes to prevent them from occurring again in the future.
41. The landlord has additionally been ordered to contact the resident to respond to his requests for a temporary decant or hotel from it, if it has not done so already. As he has explained that this affected his mental and physical ill-health, it has been further ordered below to provide him with details to allow him to make a liability claim to it or its insurers for the damages to his health he reported. The landlord has been recommended to review its staff’s training needs on the handling of requests for temporary accommodation. This is in order to avoid a recurrence of its failures to respond to the resident’s temporary decant or hotel requests.

Complaint handling

42. The landlord’s complaints, comments, and compliments policy obliges it to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. It is required to respond to final stage complaints within 20 working days and give the reasons for extensions and agree these with the resident. The policy does not provide for multiple responses at the same stage of a complaint.
43. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint – made on 14 December 2023 about the stairlift rescue information – after 11 working days on 3 January 2024. This was slightly outside its complaints, comments, and compliments policy’s 10-working-day timescale for it to do so. There is nevertheless no evidence this minor delay caused any detriment to the resident. It was also understandable this occurred over the holiday period, when the landlord was likely to experience higher demand with fewer staff or working hours. This was also applicable to the resident’s complaint on 14 December 2023 about adaptations, which the landlord responded to on 9 January 2024. This was 15 working days later and so also slightly exceeded the policy’s above timescale during the holiday period, but seemingly without detriment.
44. The landlord then responded to the resident’s 8 February 2024 final stage complaint 16 working days later on 1 March 2024. It therefore complied with the complaints, comments, and compliments policy’s 20-working-day final stage response timescale. Moreover, the landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman to progress his complaint further, but it issued another final stage response when he was dissatisfied. The resident disputed the landlord’s first final stage response on 2 March 2024. It therefore provided him with a second final stage response 7 working days later on 13 March 2024. The landlord also responded to the resident disputing the second response on 16 April 2024 by issuing a third final stage response on 8 May 2024. This was 15 working days later.
45. This meant the landlord was responsible for unnecessarily prolonging the resident’s complaint, as the 2 extra final stage responses meant that the resident could not establish the landlord’s final position and exhaust the process. This is because its complaints, comments, and compliments policy did not provide for such additional responses at the same stage. Moreover, this encouraged the resident to incur time and trouble repeating his complaint to the landlord instead of complaining to the Ombudsman, as he was permitted to do. The landlord was therefore responsible for 28 working days of complaint handling delays in the resident’s case from late and extra responses, which was unreasonable. This meant it was responsible for poor complaint handling in his case.
46. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to pay the resident another £100 compensation to recognise his unnecessary additional time and trouble from its poor complaint handling. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s and the landlord’s compensation policy’s recommendations of compensation in this range for such time and trouble from delays in getting matters resolved. The apology that it has been ordered to write to the resident with, which is described in the previous section of this report, should also be applied to its poor complaint handling in his case. The landlord has additionally been recommended to review its staff’s training needs on its complaints, comments, and compliments policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. This is in order to avoid a recurrence of its complaint handling failures in the resident’s case.

Determination

47. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of disability adaptations at the resident’s property.
48. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

49. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident compensation totalling £700 within 6 weeks, which is broken down into:
       1. £600 to recognise his unnecessary additional distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble from its failure to respond to his temporary decant or hotel requests.
       2. £100 to recognise his unnecessary additional time and trouble from its poor complaint handling.
    2. Write to the resident within 6 weeks to apologise and take responsibility for the failures identified by this investigation and acknowledge their effect on him. It should outline exactly why its failings happened and how it proposes to prevent them from occurring again in the future.
    3. Contact the resident within 6 weeks to respond to his requests for temporary decant or hotel accommodation from it, if it has not done so already.
    4. Contact the resident within 6 weeks to provide him with details to allow him to make a liability claim to it or its insurers for the damages to his health he reported.
50. The landlord shall contact the Ombudsman within 6 weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders and whether it will follow the below recommendations.

Recommendations

51. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Review its staff’s training needs on the handling of requests for temporary accommodation. This is in order to avoid a recurrence of its failures to respond to the resident’s temporary decant or hotel requests.
    2. Review its staff’s training needs on its complaints, comments, and compliments policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. This is in order to avoid a recurrence of its complaint handling failures in the resident’s case.