Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202209191)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209191

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

21 September 2023

 

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 the landlord’s handling of:
    1. the resident’s request to install an external tap.
    2. the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She lives with her daughter in an adapted 3 bed bungalow with a private garden. There are household vulnerabilities noted on file.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 30 June 2022 to request that it fit an outside tap to her property, due to the impact that this absence was having on her daughter’s health conditions. The landlord responded on 7 July 2022, advising that its policy states that it does not install outside taps but will only maintain existing ones. The landlord suggested to the resident that she obtain an occupational therapist (OT) report and if the OT recommended the outside tap, then the landlord would look into the request
  3. The resident submitted a Stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 21 July 2022 reiterating her concerns. The  landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 2 August 2022, reiterating its response that its policy advises that it does not fit external taps.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to a Stage 2 complaint on 3 August 2022. She stated that the issues had not been addressed by the landlord and that her household’s situation was unsustainable, stressful and harmful. She stated that the landlord needed to make reasonable adjustments, due to her disabilities.
  5. In its final complaint response of 22 December 2022, the landlord apologised to the resident for the complaint handling and delay in the complaint response and the impact on the resident. It awarded the resident £250 compensation. It reiterated that it does not fit external taps and gave the resident further advice as to how to progress the matter, including requesting an OT report and advice on how to apply for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG).
  6. The resident then contacted this Service again as she believed the blanket policy was discriminatory. As an outcome to her complaint, the resident would like an external tap to be fitted.

Assessment and findings

  1.  It was appropriate that the landlord did not automatically agree to install an outside tap as it was not in its policy. When the resident responded to the landlord, advising that the absence of an outside tap was causing significant harm to her household and that her daughter had serious health issues and could not fully enjoy the garden due to the absence of an outside tap, the landlord appropriately advised her to obtain an Occupational Health report so it could reconsider her request. This was a reasonable response in the absence of any evidence of harm caused by the lack of an outside tap.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for the maintenance and repair of external taps, however it does not repair external taps fitted by residents. There is no mention of the landlord offering this fitting. As the landlord’s policy makes no mention of fitting external taps, it was reasonable that the landlord did not automatically agree to the resident’s request.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy goes on to state that in the case of vulnerable residents, it can provide them with minor health and safety repairs that would normally be the resident’s responsibility. As the policy does not mention external taps, the decision as to whether it was needed was down to the landlord’s discretion and whether it would have been appropriate in the circumstances. As there is no evidence that the lack of an external tap would have an impact on the household health and wellbeing it is reasonable that the landlord did not agree to fit this and advised the resident to obtain an OT report.
  4. The landlord’s Aids and Adaptations Policy states that it carries out aids and adaptations to help residents live independently in their homes. It states that it will ‘ensure all tenants are treated in a fair and equitable way’. It goes on to say that if it cannot adapt the property, it offers solutions to meet tenants’ needs. The Aids and Adaptations Policy further states that minor adaptations are adaptations that ‘should be carried out without delay by landlord staff. They are sometimes requested by an OT but an OT report is not required for them to be installed’. The policy continues to say that the landlord will normally fund minor adaptations without the need for a disabled facilities grant (DFG). The policy advises that major adaptations are ‘works of a more complex nature based upon the recommendations of a qualified OT’.

Although the policy does state that minor adaptations should be carried out without delay and that an OT report is not required for them to be installed, the landlord acted reasonably in advising the resident to obtain an OT report in its email correspondence of July 2022 and in its final complaint response of 22 December 2022. This is because the absence of an external tap, would not, on the face of it, be considered to be an aid and adaptation which would impact the resident’s daughter’s health or improve her independence. It was reasonable for the landlord to request an OT report, in order to progress the request as an OT is a suitably qualified person, so any recommendation an OT made would be followed up by the landlord. It also advised her that she may be eligible for a Disabled Facilities Grant to fund the works, which was an appropriate response.

  1. The resident’s daughter still had access to the garden and although the absence of an external tap may have impacted on her enjoyment of the garden, there is no evidence to suggest the resident was treated unfairly. There is also no evidence that this impacted on her health. Although the Ombudsman appreciates the frustration and disappointment experienced by the resident, the landlord acted reasonably in its decision not to agree to the request, without a recommendation from an OT and in the advice given to the resident regarding this. As such a finding of no maladministration is made.
  2. The landlord operates a home improvement policy that states that it recognises ‘that residents sometimes want to alter their home. They must ask permission before doing so’ and the landlord ‘will not refuse permission unreasonably and will give reasons for refusal’ if it does not agree to residents carrying out their own improvements. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have discussed this option with the resident when she made a request for the external tap. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to offer this option to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it defines a complaint as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction  – however made’. It states that it will ‘provide a detailed explanation’ if it does not accept or escalate a complaint . The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy:
    1. Stage 1 – where it aims to resolve complaints there and then. ‘If this is not possible it will be  passed onto the person best placed to help’.  A written decision will be given within 10 working days of logging a complaint.
    2. Stage 2 – if asked, the landlord will escalate the complaint to Stage 2. ‘The case will be escalated without delay’ and the landlord will send a final written decision within 20 working days of the request to escalate.
  2. There is no dispute that the landlord did not follow its own complaints policy or the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. It initially refused to accept the resident’s Stage 1 complaint, as it stated that fitting an external tap was not in its policy so it would be logging the resident’s complaint as negative feedback. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s Stage 1 complaint until this Service contacted it, compelling it to do so and then issued a Stage 1 complaint response on 2 August 2022. The resident escalated her complaint to a Stage 2 complaint on 3 August 2022, and did not receive a complaint response until 22 December 2022. This was significantly outside of its response time frames, and once again, it responded to the resident’s Stage 2 complaint only after this Service contacted it to request that it do so. This caused the resident stress, frustration and time and trouble in pursuing the complaint and waiting for the complaint response.
  3. However, the landlord did apologise to the resident for the delay in responding and for the impact on her. It advised the resident that there was a medical marker on her tenant account so it was aware of the need for making adjustments for priority repairs. Furthermore, the landlord offered the resident £250 compensation, which the resident accepted. As such, a finding of reasonable redress is made.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to install a new tap.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to consider the resident’s request for an external tap to be fitted and provide her with a quote for carrying out the works. This is so she has the option of funding this work herself if the OT report fails to recommend an external tap is fitted.