North Tyneside Council (202405851)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202405851

North Tyneside Council

29 April 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments in its communication with him.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The landlord recorded him as vulnerable due to having multiple health conditions and being a wheelchair user.
3. The resident moved into the property in February 2024. The landlord made a note on its system at the time that said he had “sensory issues to paper and therefore no correspondence [was] to be posted to his home.”
4. The resident made a complaint on 27 March 2024. He said the landlord had failed to adhere to his reasonable adjustment request. He said it had sent him letters in the post on 3 occasions in February and March 2024.
5. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 11 April 2024. It said that the rent arrears letters the resident received were automated, and its system did not allow the letters to be sent electronically. It said it had “no resources” to manually “pull” the letters to send by email. It had created an alert to send communication by email where possible but said this may not always be possible. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response and asked for it to open a stage 2 complaint.
6. The landlord received a letter from an advocacy service for people with disabilities on 2 May 2024. The letter said the advocacy service was concerned the landlord was breaching its Equality Act 2010 duty by failing to adhere to the resident’s reasonable adjustment requests.
7. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 3 May 2024. It said it was “unable to determine” if the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments met the threshold identified in the Equality Act 2010 or was a “personal preference”. It asked him to provide “some additional information” to confirm he was entitled to a reasonable adjustment. It said once this was confirmed it “should be possible” to send individual letters electronically. It explained it would not be possible to send “system generated automated letters” electronically.
8. The resident contacted us on 7 August 2024 and asked us to investigate his complaint. He said he was unhappy the landlord was not following his reasonable adjustment request and was still sending him letters in the post.

Assessment and findings

Scope of our investigation

9. Throughout his complaint, and when he contacted this Service, the resident raised concerns the landlord had breached the Equality Act 2010. He said this was due to failing to adhere to his reasonable adjustment requests. We acknowledge the serious nature of this concern, and do not seek to dispute the resident’s claim. However, the question of whether the landlord breached the Equality Act 2010 is a complaint which must, ultimately, be decided by a court of law. He may wish to seek independent legal advice if he wishes to pursue this matter further.
10. We have considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the reasonable adjustment requests, and whether its approach was reasonable in the circumstances. We have not made a determination on whether the landlord’s actions amounted to breach of the Equality Act 2010.
11. The landlord is a local authority. In line with the approach set out in our Scheme this investigation has focused on the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for reasonable adjustments within its functions as a landlord. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can review complaints about a local authority’s handling of matters not related to its functions as a landlord. If the resident remains unhappy about its handling of his reasonable adjustment requests in other services it provides in its function as a local authority aside from housing, he may be able to raise a complaint with the LGSCO.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments

12. Under the Equality Act 2010, the landlord has a duty to minimise the disadvantages suffered due to a person’s protected characteristics. As such it is required to make “reasonable adjustments” for residents with a protected characteristic to avoid them suffering a “substantial disadvantage”. The Act says that the landlord is not required to adhere to an adjustment request if it places a “disproportionate burden” on it. This is in terms of cost, practicality, and effectiveness.
13. The evidence shows the landlord was on notice about the resident’s request to only receive communication electronically when his tenancy started in February 2024. The notes reflect the request, but we have seen no evidence the landlord outlined its position in relation to the matter at the time. The evidence shows the landlord was of the position it was unable to adhere to his request in all instances. As above, we will not assess whether the landlord breached the Equality Act by not fully adhering to the request. However, it was unreasonable that it did not outline its position from the outset. The resident was inconvenienced by the landlord’s communication about the matter. The lack of clarity may have unfairly raised the resident’s expectations.
14. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response outlined its position in relation to the resident’s request. However, its explanation lacked the appropriate level of detail about why it was unable to fulfil his request. We note the landlord has a responsibility to manage its resources effectively but we consider the tone of its response was dismissive and lacking in empathy for the resident’s lived experience. A better level of detail on how it had reached its decision may have helped manage the resident’s expectations.
15. Our spotlight report on respect, attitudes, and rights (which is available on our website) says the tone of communication with residents is a major factor that impacts on the service residents receive. The report cited that when the tone of the landlord’s response “dismiss[ed] a resident’s lived experiences” this resulted in the resident feeling they had received unfavourable treatment. The evidence indicates the tone of the landlord’s communication created such a situation.
16. The landlord must provide the resident with a more detailed explanation now. We have also seen no evidence to indicate the landlord sought to meet with the resident to discuss his concerns about the matter. This was unreasonable. The landlord missed an opportunity to show empathy with the resident’s lived experience. The resident was inconvenienced by the fact it did not meaningfully engage with him about the matter.
17. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was inappropriate. Its response unreasonably placed the onus on the resident to provide information about his vulnerabilities when it was already in possession of the information. The evidence we have seen clearly shows the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities at the start of his tenancy. Therefore, to question whether his request should be classed as a “personal preference” was inappropriate and dismissive of his concerns. We note it restated its position about what reasonable adjustments it could make. However, as with its earlier complaint response, its explanation lacked an appropriate level of detail. This caused a further inconvenience to the resident. We recommend the landlord does training with its staff around the appropriate approach to reasonable adjustment requests to prevent similar issues happening in future.
18. As a result of the failings identified above, we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter. Our remedies guidance states that orders between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put right failings which adversely affected the resident where the landlord has made no attempt to put things right. Considering this we have determined an order for £150 in compensation is appropriate to put right the errors in its handling of this case.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for reasonable adjustments in its communication with him.

Orders

20. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
    2. Pay the resident £150 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by errors in its response to the resident’s requests for reasonable adjustments.
    3. Meet with the resident to discuss his reasonable adjustments request. Following the meeting it must write to the resident explaining what reasonable adjustments it can and cannot make. It must give an appropriate level of detail to evidence how it has reached the decision. If there are any adjustments it cannot make it should explain why it cannot make this adjustment with regard to the cost/practicality/effectiveness of doing so.

Recommendations

21. It is recommended the landlord gives its staff training on how to handle reasonable adjustment requests. The training should have a particular focus on:
    1. Its responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010.
    2. Clear communication with resident’s about its decision making in relation to reasonable adjustment requests. (including an appropriate explanation if a request is being refused).