North West Leicestershire District Council (202224925)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224925

North West Leicestershire District Council

22 March 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 the landlord’s response to the resident about the handling of works recommended by occupational therapists.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a bungalow. The tenancy commenced in September 2021. The resident is disabled and uses a wheelchair, although it is understood he is able to stand up and take steps.
3. Between August and September 2021, the suitability of the property for the resident was assessed by the landlord and local authority occupational therapists. The property was identified to be generally suitable, but doorways needed to be widened to allow easier wheelchair access to some rooms, including the bathroom which was not wheelchair accessible. The resident subsequently moved into the property on it being agreed that he could move in before adaptations, and that works could be done when he was in situ.
4. The landlord later raised works for doorway widening after an adaptations referral; its contractors carried out a pre-inspection in February 2022; and works commenced on 11 April 2022. The same day, the works were suspended after another individual physically assaulted one of the operatives. The resident was later decanted while the works were completed at the end of June 2022, after spending a month in hospital with health issues.
5. The resident later complained in August and October 2022. He said the works should have been done before he moved in. He raised dissatisfaction with how long the works took, and noted he was told that the doorway adaptations would be done “immediately” and told that delays after the works were suspended were due to staff issues. He said the property was uninhabitable when he moved in, as there were concrete floors and no painting had been done. He raised dissatisfaction with the works including dust, debris and how they were done, and raised concern that there had been no risk assessment. He said he should have been decanted when the works started. He said that he suffered a fall due to a hole left in the floor (unrelated to his hospitalisation) which led to his trainers getting damaged and him being prescribed pain medication. He detailed his version of events for the incident which led to the works being suspended, and queried having not been asked for a statement by police. He detailed health issues and some other issues in respect to a smoke alarm; a rear ramp; a window; and the roof.
6. The landlord responded in September and December 2022. It said:
   1. Its offer of the property had involved the works being scheduled after the resident moved in, which he had accepted.
   2. The works were progressed after the resident moved in, and had a completion timeframe of 14 months, but when they commenced the operative assault led to them ceasing. There were then delays due to investigation of the incident, the resident spending time in hospital, and difficulties scheduling the works.
   3. Under the tenancy conditions, it was not responsible for flooring such as carpet and decorations.
   4. The dust and how works were done were as expected, and risk assessments were done before the works which it could provide.
   5. It was common practice to decant residents where required, but it was not required to decant the resident for such works, or identified to be required in his case.
   6. The resident should contact the police about their not having obtained a statement from him.
   7. It denied any liability for the resident’s time in hospital and health issues without professional confirmation that the property condition led to a direct decline in his health. It said that had the operative assault not occurred, any trip hazard would have been made safe.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

7. The resident has raised a number of issues in correspondence to us, however the Ombudsman is unable to investigate all the complaints the resident has about his landlord. Our focus is on the complaint that the landlord provided a final complaint response letter for in December 2022.

The landlord’s response to the resident about the handling of works recommended by occupational therapists

8. The resident raised concerns about the works not being done before he moved in; the length of time they took; his not being decanted for the initial works; the lack of flooring and decoration in the property; and his falling due to a hole in the floor.
9. The evidence shows that staff such as occupational therapists were satisfied that the resident could move into the property before the works were done, and that works could be done while he was in situ. It was therefore reasonable that the works were not done before he moved in, and that he was not decanted, as this reflected professional opinion.
10. The resident was unhappy the works were not started sooner, and the evidence comes across as confusing for what timeframe the works were due to be completed in. The landlord says the adaptations had a completion timeframe of 14 months, but the referral said the completion rating was ‘urgent,’ which guidelines provided indicate should be within 8 months. However, the works ultimately commenced within the 8 months that urgent works should be completed, so the works commenced in a reasonable timeframe.
11. The timeframe in completing the works when they started was also reasonable. Their suspension when an operative was assaulted in mid April 2022 was understandable, and progress was reasonably impacted when the resident was in hospital for a month from late April. The adaptations were later completed within a month of when he was discharged, showing arrangement of a hotel for a decant and completion of the works was relatively swift when the landlord had opportunity to complete the works.
12. The resident raised concern that the floors were concrete and that there was a lack of decoration, which he feels rendered the property uninhabitable. It is evident that flooring and decoration are a tenant’s responsibility, and lack of these would not normally be grounds for a property to be considered uninhabitable.
13. The resident says he fell due to a hole left by the initial works and trainers were damaged. This is understood to have occurred in June 2022 around the time he was decanted, and around a month after his discharge from hospital for other issues. The resident provides photos of his foot, a damaged trainer, and medical records that say he injured a pelvis and hip but suffered no fractures. He also provides photos of a widened door frame, with the original frame cut level with the floor, and a gap around the original frame. The Ombudsman understands how distressing the fall must have been for the resident. We have previously made him aware that the Ombudsman do not make definitive decisions about liability and the impact on health and damage to belongings, but we can assess a landlord’s response. The landlord denied any liability for any of the resident’s health issues, including the fall, and has made reference to the resident having a solicitor and details of its insurer.
14. The landlord has responsibilities to ensure a property is safe and is expected under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System to minimise potential hazards. While a landlord should be proactive and bear in mind the Equality Act 2010, they normally fulfil this obligation and take action when they are made aware of a hazard. It is not evident that any concern about the property condition or potential hazards was raised in a total period of 6 weeks before the fall (excluding when the resident was in hospital for separate issues), in order for the landlord to consider appropriate action. The landlord’s setting out its position to the claim seems an overall reasonable response to this aspect, as it is not evident that any failings in the landlord’s obligations or a lack of response to reports led to any fall. The resident has the option to seek independent advice if he wishes to pursue an injury and damages claim further.

Determination

15. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident about the handling of works recommended by occupational therapists.

Recommendations

16. The landlord is recommended to ensure that it clearly manages resident expectations about the timeframe it will complete an adaptation in.
17. The landlord is recommended to ensure that the resident has details of its liability claims insurer.
18. In order to ensure that works reflect the intended urgency of adaptations referrals, the landlord is recommended to review its advised procedure that, unless flagged by email, it does not treat adaptation referrals marked ‘urgent’ under the urgent priority in its major adaptations guidelines.