One Housing Group Limited (202341276)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202341276

One Housing Group Limited

17 January 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 handling of the resident’s request for aids and adaptations to her property.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord and occupies a 2-bedroom ground–floor flat with her daughter. The landlord has confirmed to the Ombudsman that it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, but she is registered disabled and is a wheelchair user.
An occupational therapist contacted the landlord on 27 October 2022 following their assessment of the resident. They recommended:
1. An additional handset in the resident’s bedroom so she could let carers into the main building entrance while still in bed, as she struggled with accessing the existing door entry system in her hallway.
2. The sliding door from the living room to the patio area be widened in order to make it accessible for the resident while using her wheelchair.
In a further email on 23 February 2023, the occupational therapist advised the landlord that, during a recent visit to the resident, they observed the difficulty she had when using the push exit button to open a communal internal door to the building. They asked the landlord to look at this to ascertain whether the timer could be increased or changed to automatic opening.
On 4 July 2023, the resident complained to the landlord that, 10 months after the occupational therapist put in her application, works to adapt her property had still not commenced, despite her chasing for this. The outcomes she sought were for works to begin and be completed within a month, and compensation “for the stress and time caused”.
The landlord’s stage 1 response, dated 17 July 2023, stated that:
1. There was a delay in forwarding the occupational therapist’s report, received on 27 October 2022, to its aids and adaptations team in December 2022.
2. Thereafter, there was a delay in following up on a quote for the provision of an intercom handset.
3. It would contact her later in the week to discuss the anticipated receipt of a quote for 2 handsets, as now requested by the resident.
4. It would arrange an appointment for its contractor to attend in the next 2 weeks to carry out the initial assessment of works required to widen the doors within the resident’s property.
5. It offered compensation of £250 for the inconvenience and distress caused to her because of the 10-month delay/failure to progress these requests.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 8 September 2023, noting that measurements had been taken inside her property and of the communal entrance doors but matters had not progressed further. She said it had been 8 weeks since she had last heard from the landlord and it would be 1 year next month that she had been waiting on the aids and adaptations. She suggested rehousing her if it did not want to carry out the works to adapt her property.
The stage 2 response was issued on 6 October 2023. In it, the landlord stated:
1. It apologised that its contractor was given an incorrect address and failed to attend an appointment to install the handsets. However, the installation had since been completed.
2. The quote to widen the doors in the property was substantially more than the £1,000 limit set out in its aids and adaptations policy, so the resident needed to apply for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). It apologised for the delay in making her aware of this and acknowledged the impact this had had.
3. The property was suitable for her needs when she was first housed, and adaptations were now required due to a deterioration in her health resulting in her now using a wheelchair.
4. It signposted her to further information about seeking a mutual exchange or transfer and applying for medical priority. It said its allocations team would contact her within 10 working days to discuss her situation.
5. It offered its “sincere apologies” for the time the resident had been waiting for these works to be completed, saying this was not in keeping with the service it aimed to provide to its customers.
6. It offered compensation of £510, comprising:
  1. £10 for the missed appointment.
  2. £250 awarded at stage 1 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to progress her requests for adaptations.
  3. £250 in recognition of the high impact of its repeated failure to complete these works, inaccurate communication, and the further distress it had caused.
Thereafter, the resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman for investigation. She has told us that the aids and adaptations are still outstanding, which means she continues to struggle with mobility in her property, getting out of her property and the building in her wheelchair, and letting carers in. She has said she feels “trapped and isolated”. Also, she said she only suggested rehousing as an option because the landlord told her the adaptations would cost £20,000 and it was taking a long time to start the works.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman notes the resident’s reference, in an email to the landlord on 20 November 2023, to the impact of the outstanding aids and adaptations on her “physical and mental health”. The Ombudsman recognises that this situation has caused the resident significant distress as she has experienced the issue over several months. Where we identify failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. However, unlike a court, we cannot establish what caused the health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for aids and adaptations to her property

A pre-tenancy profiling form, dated 13 July 2020, records the resident’s disclosure of her disabilities, including that she was a wheelchair user and had mobility and mental health issues, and that she was supported at home by carers. The Ombudsman understands that the nature of her health condition means that she can sometimes walk using a Zimmer frame, but at other times, she requires the use of a wheelchair. In all the circumstances, the landlord’s confirmation to the Ombudsman that no vulnerabilities are recorded for her on its system points to a record keeping failure.
The Ombudsman has not received a formal occupational therapist’s report setting out the resident’s needs and the aids and adaptations required in her property. However, it is understood that the basis of the aids and adaptations request in this case was the occupational therapist’s email to the landlord on 27 October 2022.
The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with its aids and adaptations policy dated September 2024. As this post-dates the substantive issue in this case, the Ombudsman has sourced an earlier aids and adaptations policy for the landlord through our previous casework. The applicable policy, dated July 2019, provided that:
1. Following a request for adaptations from an occupational therapist, its aids and adaptations administrator should ascertain whether these were minor works (costing under £1,000) or major works (costing £1,000 or more).
2. A chartered surveyor would manage each case. They would carry out inspections, provide reports/specifications, tender for works, and monitor the contractor’s performance. If works did not go as planned, it was the surveyor’s duty to liaise with the contractor directly.
3. Minor works would be covered by the landlord’s aids and adaptations budget and should be logged as a normal repair to be carried out by an in-house engineer. Such works should be completed within 28 days.
4. Major works needed to be paid from the DFG, which required approval by the local authority. Major works should be completed within 20 working days of an order being raised. In complex cases, the timeframe for completion could be increased to 90 days. The resident and local authority would be notified of the reason for the delay.
5. Under no circumstances should the occupational therapist’s specification be altered. Any alterations should be raised with the surveyor, who would seek confirmation of any changes from the occupational therapist.
Upon receipt of the occupational therapist’s recommendations, the landlord failed to establish whether the works required were major or minor, in line with its policy. Similarly, there is no evidence that it appointed a chartered surveyor to oversee the case. Consequently, it failed to take appropriate steps to progress matters in order to address the resident’s need for aids and adaptations. This avoidably prolonged the inconvenience experienced by the resident, who was vulnerable.
The landlord continued not to proactively progress matters in this case and there were multiple delays in its handling of aids and adaptations. For example, a quote for an additional handset was only requested after the occupational therapist chased for progress updates on 14 November and 1 December 2022. A works order was raised on 21 December 2022 but not picked up by the contractor until 8 February 2023, and there was a further delay in arranging an appointment as the landlord had provided the contractor with incorrect contact details for the resident.
Records show that the handset could not be installed when the contractor attended the property on 28 March 2023 as they did not have the correct materials. This indicates a record keeping and/or communication failure by the landlord. The resident emailed the landlord on 12 April 2023, saying that the contractor had attended with the wrong handset as they thought they were replacing the one she already had in the hallway.
The landlord replied, saying it had chased the quote and its contractor was waiting on costs for materials. The resident asked if this related to all the work, as she believed this was already approved with the occupational therapist, and she noted her confusion. The landlord responded, “No this is not relating to any works being approved, this is regarding follow on work that is needed.” In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was somewhat abrupt and unclear.
A further quote was obtained on 4 May 2023, but no further action was taken to progress matters until the resident made a formal complaint 2 months later. This demonstrates a failure by the landlord to manage and monitor these works, which again contributed to the delay and caused the resident concern and inconvenience.
This failure was compounded by the landlord’s poor communication with the resident on 4 July 2023. It provided several differing reasons for the delays and attributed fault to the contractor for the time they were taking to provide a new quote, the occupational therapist for not answering its requests for clarification, and the resident for seeking a change to the recommended aids and adaptations. These explanations are not borne out by the evidence and were challenged by the resident and occupational therapist at the time. The landlord then said no further clarification was required as it had got the quote and a works order had been raised. When the resident expressed her confusion, it replied, “There is no confusion as we are going with what the OT has requested originally.”
These communications were disingenuous, unclear, confusing and inappropriate. They display an uncaring, unsympathetic and dismissive attitude towards the resident, which is unacceptable. To the landlord’s credit, senior members of staff recognised the inappropriate tone of the emails and took immediate action to intervene. The Ombudsman acknowledges that there was a marked improvement in the landlord’s communications from this point onwards.
Thereafter, the works had to be re-quoted as it was agreed between the parties that 2 handsets instead of 1 would be installed. The job was raised with the contractor on 1 August 2023 and completed on 26 September 2023. This was 40 working days after the job was raised, which exceeded the 20-working-day timeframe provided in the landlord’s aids and adaptations policy for completion of major works. The stage 2 response also accepted that the contractor had missed an appointment due to having the wrong address, although it is unclear if the missed appointment occurred during this period. In any event, the installation of handsets was completed 11 months after the occupational therapist provided their recommendations, which was excessive.
On 27 September 2023, the resident told the landlord that the handsets were impractical as they only granted access through the building entrance doors. She still had to get up to let her carers into her property, so requested an additional adaptation to her front door. She later told the Ombudsman that the landlord installed a third handset for her front door but this was not set up properly and did not work. As those works post-dated the complaint that is the subject of this investigation, the Ombudsman has not considered this issue as part of this assessment. However, as they are intrinsically linked to the substantive issue, it would be prudent for the landlord to consider addressing this in putting things right.
The landlord did not deal with the widening of the sliding patio doors in a timely manner. Although the occupational therapist reiterated this recommendation on 21 December 2022 and the landlord confirmed that a job had been raised, there is no evidence of the contractor attending the resident’s property. Furthermore, it failed to acknowledge the further recommendation for it to consider adaptations to a communal internal door on 23 February 2023, and this was ultimately overlooked in the landlord’s handling of adaptations. As well as the resulting delays, these examples also highlight the landlord’s failure to manage and monitor the resident’s request for aids and adaptations.
In her email of 12 April 2023, the resident stated that no one had been in touch regarding “widening the doors to garden and in and around my flat”. It ought to have been reasonably apparent to the landlord at this stage that there was some disparity between the resident’s expectations and the occupational therapist’s recommendations, which only referenced the patio doors. This may point to an issue with the occupational therapist’s assessment/recommendations, which was outside the landlord’s control. That being said, in line with its policy, it should have referred this issue back to the occupational therapist for clarification if needed. It would also have been reasonable for it to explain the position to the resident. However, it did not do so, thereby mismanaging her expectations.
Following its stage 1 response, the landlord arranged for its contractor to assess the works required to widen and adapt doors in and around the resident’s property. The contractor provided their report on 27 July 2023. This further reinforced the resident’s belief that the internal doors in her property would also be adapted. However, no progress was made with these adaptations and the resident escalated her complaint.
Records show that, on or around 23 September 2024, the resident became aware of the fact that the contractor was only instructed to install wider patio doors and no adaptations to her internal doors would be made. This demonstrates the significant impact of the landlord’s poor communications and mismanagement of her expectations from the outset. Consequently, it is understood that the resident’s social worker referred her back to the occupational therapist for re-assessment. This delay could have been avoided had the landlord communicated with her clearly and effectively in April 2023.
It was unreasonable that the landlord dealt with the need for funding for the first time in its stage 2 response of 6 October 2023. DFG applications may take time to be approved by local authorities, so it is essential for landlords to identify cases where such applications are necessary as soon as possible. In this case, the resident was made aware of this almost a year after the occupational therapist’s recommendations, which was excessive.
Furthermore, the landlord did not offer any help or support with the application process – it simply provided a link for the resident to apply for funding. Given that she had disclosed she had learning difficulties in the pre-tenancy profiling form and that the landlord had details of the adaptations from the occupational therapist and contractor, its approach was unreasonable and unsympathetic. The resident has also provided the Ombudsman with a recording of a telephone call that took place in September 2024, in which the landlord accepted that it should not have asked her to make the application and this was normally done by the landlord itself.
Throughout, the resident has had to repeatedly chase and raise/escalate her complaint in order to see progress and updates on the aids and adaptations. This continued after the stage 2 response, demonstrating that the landlord has not taken sufficient learning from the resident’s complaint.
It is noted that, according to the resident’s most recent update, the adaptations to the resident’s property are still outstanding. The resident has told the Ombudsman that she declined the installation of the wider patio doors in September 2024 because she wanted to ensure that any works undertaken would also address the internal doors in her property. This was understandable given that this appears to have been the resident’s expectation from the outset.
The Ombudsman acknowledges the severe impact the outstanding aids and adaptations have had on the resident. Given the nature and purpose of the requested aids and adaptations, it is clear that she has been caused a significant amount of distress and inconvenience. She expressed her concern and frustration with the outstanding adaptations in numerous emails. For instance, in her request to have her complaint escalated on 8 September 2023, she said she was “so fed up with everything in the way vulnerable people are treated”. More recently, on 20 November 2023, she told the landlord that the situation was “affecting my physical and mental health”.
It is similarly clear that this issue has had a significant detrimental impact on the resident’s day-to-day use and enjoyment of the property over an extended period of time. For example, in an email to the contractor on 18 April 2024, the landlord noted that “the resident is now scared as she keeps getting stuck in the bathroom with the wheelchair.” In an email from her social worker to the landlord on or around 24 September 2024, the resident’s social worker stated, “Her daughter has had to physically lift her on several occasions to get through certain areas of the flat.” The resident has also told the Ombudsman she is concerned that she might not be able to get out of the property in the event of an emergency. These are serious concerns that the landlord needs to address and, insofar as it is possible, put right.
The Human Rights Act 1998 sets out the fundamental rights and freedoms that everyone in the UK is entitled to. The Act requires all public authorities – and other bodies carrying out public functions – to respect and protect individuals’ rights.
The Ombudsman has no legal power to decide whether a landlord has breached the Human Rights Act – this can only be done by the courts. However, the Ombudsman can decide whether a landlord has had due regard to an individual’s human rights in its treatment of them, as part of our consideration of a complaint.
Landlords may be able to show they have shown due regard for the Human Rights Act if they consider the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected and that there is a process for decisions to be challenged by way of review or appeal.
In this case, the Ombudsman is not satisfied that the landlord has demonstrated it had due regard for the resident’s right to respect for her private and family life (Article 8) and right to protection from discrimination (Article 14). For example, it failed to consider the impact of the longstanding delays in progressing her aids and adaptations, which are still outstanding, on her private and family life. Its treatment of her on 4 July 2023 was unreasonable, unsympathetic and inappropriate. Furthermore, its suggestion that she complete the DFG application herself failed to take into account her learning difficulties. While adaptations are still outstanding, there are also concerns over the resident’s mobility and her ability to enjoy the property in a dignified way.
In all the circumstances, the Ombudsman has found that the landlord was responsible for severe maladministration in its handling of the resident’s request for aids and adaptations to her property.
The level of compensation offered by the landlord in its final complaint response was broadly in line with its compensation policy. However, in the Ombudsman’s view, it was not proportionate to the significant amount of concern, frustration, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of its multiple and longstanding failings up to that point. In any event, more severe detrimental impact has come to light after the stage 2 response and which is still ongoing. In all the circumstances of this case, a fairer and more proportionate remedy would fall outside the guidance in its policy. Therefore, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, it is appropriate to make a higher compensation award in recognition of the landlord’s considerable failures and the severe impact identified in this report.
In summary, it is appropriate to find severe maladministration in respect of this complaint because:
1. The landlord’s records do not reflect the resident’s known vulnerabilities.
2. The landlord failed to take timely steps to establish whether the occupational therapist’s recommendations amounted to ‘major’ or ‘minor’ works in order to determine the funding position, in line with its policy. It advised the resident almost a year later that DFG funding was required.
3. Contrary to its policy, the landlord did not appoint a chartered surveyor to manage and oversee the adaptations.
4. There were multiple excessive delays in progressing the aids and adaptations requested by the occupational therapist. The installation of the intercom handsets took 11 months, while the widening of the patio doors is still outstanding over 2 years later.
5. Multiple contractor attendances were needed for the installation of the handsets and the stage 2 response accepted a missed appointment.
6. The landlord overlooked the occupational therapist’s further recommendation on 23 February 2023 for it to consider adaptations to a communal internal door.
7. It failed to advise the resident in April 2023 that the occupational therapist’s recommendations did not include the widening of the internal doors in her property. It also failed to refer this issue to the occupational therapist for clarification.
8. In April and July 2023, its communications with the resident were unclear, confusing, disingenuous, unsympathetic and inappropriate.
9. The stage 2 response unreasonably directed the resident to apply for DFG funding and did not offer any support or assistance with this, despite her learning difficulties and the fact that the landlord had details of the adaptations from the occupational therapist and its contractor.
10. Following the stage 2 response, the resident had to continue chasing for progress and updates as these were not forthcoming from the landlord, demonstrating that it did not take away any learning from her complaint.
11. The landlord has not had due regard for the resident’s human rights to respect for her private and family life and protection from discrimination.
12. The compensation offered in its stage 2 response did not adequately reflect the severe detrimental impact caused to the resident as a result of its serious failings.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for aids and adaptations to her property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Have its Chief Executive Officer apologise in writing to the resident for its failings in this case, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
2. Contact the resident in order to confirm the nature of her vulnerabilities. It should then update its records to reflect these and any reasonable adjustments required.
3. Pay the resident compensation totalling £1,510, which includes the sums awarded by the landlord and comprises:
  1. £10 offered by the landlord for a missed appointment.
  2. £250 offered by the landlord for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to progress her requests for adaptations.
  3. £250 offered by the landlord for the high impact of its repeated failure to complete the adaptation works, inaccurate communication and the further distress caused.
  4. £1,000 in recognition of the additional severe detrimental impact – namely that relating to the resident’s vulnerability, time and trouble – resulting from the landlord’s failures in respect of her request for aids and adaptations to her property.
  5. This amount should be paid directly to the resident and must not be offset against any arrears.
  6. If already paid to the resident, the landlord may deduct from the total compensation payable under this order £510 offered on 6 October 2023.
The Ombudsman orders that, within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must review the aids and adaptations to the resident’s property in light of the information received from the occupational therapist, the resident and its staff/contractors. As part of the review, it should:
1. Obtain any missing/additional information it requires by liaising with the occupational therapist, its staff/contractors and/or other relevant specialists.
2. Liaise with the resident as necessary, and support her in submitting a DFG application if required.
3. Produce a plan of action regarding aids and adaptations to the resident’s property, which includes (but is not limited to):
  1. Details of a suitably senior manager or surveyor who will personally oversee and monitor the actions in its plan.
  2. Clear action points, together with target completion dates.
  3. Consideration to a further occupational therapist’s assessment, if necessary.
  4. Consideration to – and, if relevant, details of – any works it may be prepared to do in the absence of recommendations from an occupational therapist.
  5. Regular updates to be provided to the resident.
  6. An offer to carry out/complete the works previously recommended by the occupational therapist on 27 October 2022 and 23 February 2023, together with any works it is prepared to do without an occupational therapist’s involvement.
  7. Details of how any aids and adaptations will be funded.
4. Provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a copy of its plan of action.
The Ombudsman orders that, within 12 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Provide an update to the resident and the Ombudsman about its performance against the plan of action.
2. Carry out a review of its handling of the aids and adaptations in this case. A report detailing the outcome of the review should be submitted to the Ombudsman and should identify:
  1. What went wrong, what it has learned from the resident’s experience, and what it would do differently to avoid the same happening again.
  2. Any changes (or planned changes) to its processes and practices for managing aids and adaptations to improve its communications with residents and ensure appropriate oversight and monitoring of adaptations to avoid delays in its handling of works.
  3. Any staff training needs to ensure vulnerabilities are accurately recorded, communications are timely and appropriate, and aids and adaptations are dealt with appropriately and effectively.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord self-assess against the recommendations made by the Ombudsman at pages 62 to 64 of the spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights – relationship of equals, unless it has done so within the last 12 months.
It is recommended that the landlord visits the resident in order to carry out an assessment and, if necessary, devises a personalised plan to address her concerns about evacuating the property in case of an emergency.