Peabody Trust (202315457)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315457

Peabody Trust

15 January 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for adaptations to the property.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident moved into the property, a 2-bedroom house, via a mutual exchange in 2017. A mutual exchange is a scheme for social tenants to be able to swap their home with another social tenant.
The landlord was made aware the resident had disabilities when she applied for the mutual exchange in 2017. The resident’s friend has acted as her representative to the landlord. For readability, this report refers to both as ‘the resident’ throughout.
On 28 June 2017, prior to moving into the property, the resident signed a disclaimer, which said she understood “no adaptations or changes” would be made to the property as it was “taken as seen”. On 10 January 2022, the resident made an application to the landlord for adaptations to her property. This was approximately 4 and a half years after she moved into the property. The landlord declined this request.
The resident complained to the landlord on 26 April 2023. She said the landlord had allowed her to move into the property despite it knowing her “needs” and it was not supporting her.
The landlord replied at stage 1 of its internal complaints process on 16 May 2023. It said it had advised the resident not to move into the property if she thought she would need adaptations to live there. The landlord said the resident was on its internal transfer list and the local authorities housing list, based on her medical needs.
The resident escalated her complaint on 24 May 2023. She said she disagreed with the landlord’s complaint outcome at stage 1 as the points raised by it were “not accurate”.
The landlord replied at stage 2 of its internal complaints process on 5 July 2023. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint as it said it found no evidence it failed to act correctly.
On 27 July 2023, the resident contacted this Service. She said the landlord had taken no responsibility for allowing her to move into a home that could not be adapted. The resident told this Service in December 2024 that she would like to remain at her property if the adaptations required can be installed. However, if that is not possible, she would like to remain in the local area.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
In her correspondence with this Service, the resident raised matters that occurred before that subject to this complaint and have not been through the landlord’s complaints process. These are:
1. The resident asked the landlord for adaptations to her property on 26 February 2018 and supplied an occupational therapy (OT) report. The landlord declined the major adaptations. It did approve a minor adaptation recommended in the report for a specialist toilet at the property.
2. In 2019 the landlord offered the resident a move to a purpose-built property that was suitable to her needs. The resident declined the property.
3. In 2020 a further OT report was completed that stated there was a lack of space to accommodate a stair lift or wheelchair access at the property.
In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to events from 10 January 2022 to 5 July 2023 when the matters relevant to this complaint completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this Service. The historic events above are mentioned for context purposes only.
The resident has told this Service how the issues have impacted on her health. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability. This means we are unable to determine if the landlord was responsible for any health impacts. However, where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The Equality Act 2010 (the Act) provides a discrimination law to protect individuals from unfair treatment and promotes a fair and more equal society. The Act provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. Under the Act, the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where a physical feature puts a person with a disability at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with people who are not disabled. The resident has a disability which is a protected characteristic under the Act.
The Act requires any person or organisation which carries out public functions to have ‘due regard’ to how they can eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations in doing so. Ultimately it is for the courts to determine whether any adjustments (requested or provided) are reasonable. However, we can investigate whether a landlord has properly considered whether the adjustments are practicable and if they would overcome the disadvantages experienced by disabled people. We may find service failure or maladministration if a landlord cannot demonstrate it properly considered whether adjustments were reasonable or should be made.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s adaptation requests to the property

The landlord’s records show the resident made contact on 10 January 2022. She said she wanted to remain in her current property, however, she required adaptations to do so. The resident said 2 occupational therapy (OT) assessments had been undertaken at her property. She said the following adaptations had been recommended and she requested the landlord to action them:
1. The kitchen to be adapted for a wheelchair user.
2. A walk-in shower to be fitted in the bathroom.
3. An internal stairlift for the resident to go between the floors of the property safely.
On 13 January 2022, the landlord responded to the resident and declined the request for adaptations. It said this was due to the disclaimer she had signed upon moving into the property in which she agreed the landlord would not provide adaptations. The landlord said the resident was advised the property was not suitable for her when she applied for the mutual exchange. The landlord confirmed to the resident she was on the rehousing list for the local authority.
The landlord has not been able to provide this Service with documentation regarding the resident’s mutual exchange, such as its approval letter or signed paperwork. It has also not been able to provide documentation to inform us of what type of tenancy the resident holds. However, the evidence provided shows the resident is recorded as an assured tenant with the landlord.
The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy states:
1. It does not have a legal obligation to provide aids and adaptations.
2. It will decline requests for major adaptations where it believes it is “not an effective use of resources or best value for money”.
3. It will work with the resident to consider other options such as any suitable alternative accommodation.
4. For all major aids and adaptations, the landlord will require a resident to apply to their local authority for a disabled facilities grant (DFG) to cover the cost of the aids and adaptations recommended by an OT assessment. Where reasonable it will offer assistance in making the application and work with the local authority to achieve the best solution for the resident.
5. It will make decisions at its discretion on “what is best for the resident”.
The landlord’s mutual exchange policy is silent on how it will treat any future aids and adaptation requests following a mutual exchange.
The landlord’s records show the resident contacted it 3 further times over a 7-month period. The landlord failed to respond to the resident on any of the occasions:
1. 2 August 2022 the resident said she needed help due to her chronic medical issues and her current property was unsuitable for her.
2. 13 October 2022 she said she wanted to discuss the adaptations that had been recommended by the OT reports for her property.
3. 6 March 2023 the resident wanted to discuss her rehousing options. The resident requested the landlord contact her as she didn’t know “what to do next”.
The resident complained to the landlord on 26 April 2023. She said she had an OT has assessed her as needing adaptations at her property, but the landlord had not acted on this information. The resident said it had allowed her to move into the property even though she had declared her needs.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its internal complaint procedure on 16 May 2023. It said the following:
1. The resident moved into her home via a mutual exchange. She was advised by the landlord not to take the property if she thought it was not suitable for her needs in any way. It said the resident signed a disclaimer to say she did not require any adaptations. The landlord said that following the mutual exchange, it received a “fairly extensive adaptations” application, and it declined to provide these. It did, however, install a specialist toilet that had been recommended in an OT report.
2. The resident was offered a “purpose-built” 2-bedroom, wheelchair adapted property with a wet room 4 years previously. This property was in the location needed for the resident for support and ease for medical appointments. The resident declined the property as it had a “no pet” policy.
3. The resident was on its internal “transfer list” and she had also been accepted on to the local authorities housing list “based on her medical needs”.
4. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint as it thought it had “met and understood” the resident’s requirements and provided her with assistance.
The landlord demonstrated the action it had previously taken to support the resident, in line with its adaptations policy, such as installing a specialist toilet and offering her another property. By offering her an adapted property it had recognised the resident’s property was unsuitable for her needs. The landlord also confirmed in its stage 1 response the resident was on its internal, and the local authorities, housing list. These actions by the landlord were in line with its aids and adaptations policy and reasonable in the circumstances
The landlord said no adaptations to the property would be carried out due to the disclaimer signed by the resident. The evidence shows the property had been recorded in the most recent OT report as being “too small” for a stair lift to be installed and adaptations for wheelchair access. In the circumstances it was reasonable that such adaptations were not authorised by the landlord. This is because the evidence showed them not to be feasible within the structure of the property. However, these reasons were not communicated by the landlord to the resident in its responses to her complaint or adaptation requests.
The resident had also asked for adaptations to the kitchen and bathroom. The landlord’s policy states it can offer assistance to apply for a DFG to cover the costs of adaptations. The landlord did not take steps to explore these options with the resident. It did not adhere to its aids and adaptations policy, and this was inappropriate.
In the 8 months before the resident raised her complaint, she contacted the landlord on 3 occasions. The evidence shows the landlord did not respond to the resident and this was unreasonable. The landlord’s lack of communication caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
The resident escalated her complaint on 24 May 2023. She said she disagreed with the “points presented” by the landlord in its stage 1 response.
On 5 July 2023, the landlord responded at stage 2 of its internal complaints process. It said:
1. Upon reviewing its investigation at stage 1 it was “happy” with the investigation and resolution given to the resident. It found no evidence it failed to act correctly or to make reasonable adjustments.
2. The current housing crisis meant her request to be rehoused will take longer.
In its stage 2 response the landlord failed again to review its decision and explanation to the resident as to why it would not allow adaptations to the property. The landlord relied solely on the disclaimer signed by the resident 6 years previously to deny her requests, and this was unreasonable.
The landlord failed to explain to the resident whether it was declining the adaptations based on it not being an effective use of resources or best value for money. This was inappropriate of the landlord as it did not explain its decisions which is reasonable to assume were based on its adaptations policy.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to communicate which adaptations were not feasible due to the structure of the property. However, it did not set out its position to resident. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not consider what was feasible and recommended as per the most recent OT report.
It had been around 6 years since the resident had signed the disclaimer and moved into the property. The most recent OT report had been conducted 3 years previously. The landlord’s decision making at stage 2 focused entirely on the decision to not allow adaptations based on the disclaimer the resident had signed.
There is no evidence the landlord demonstrated that it considered whether it was reasonable to conduct adaptations which were feasible and recommended by OT report. This was inappropriate given its responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010.
If the landlord considered it did not have enough information to make a decision, it is reasonable to conclude that it should have initiated a new OT assessment. There is no evidence the landlord sought to enquire as to the availability of funding, such as a DFG in deciding the reasonableness of those adjustments that were feasible within the fabric of the building. The landlord’s failure to do so was inappropriate. The impact of this inaction on the resident was significant due to her disabilities and the daily impact of living in a property that was not suitable to her needs.
The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. To do this we considered the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The context for the complaint was that the landlord took some steps to help the resident. It offered her an alternative property 4 years before her complaint, and it installed a specialist toilet in her property. The resident remains on its internal housing list, awaiting the allocation of a property suitable for her needs.
However, the landlord told the resident the reason it declined the adaptations was due to the disclaimer she had signed. It failed to review its decision making based on the feasibility for all of the adaptations requested via the OT recommendations. It then failed to communicate to the resident what other factors were involved in the decision to not allow adaptations.
There was a lack of communication with the resident in response to her queries. The landlord did not demonstrate that it fully considered the resident’s adaptation requests through the lens of its responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010. It also did not assist the resident to make an application for available funding as part of establishing the viability of the requested adaptations.
The failures in the landlord’s handling and their impact upon the resident leads to a determination of maladministration. An order for £600 compensation is made below. This amount is calculated in accordance with the Ombudsman’s guidance on outcomes where there has been a failure which has adversely affected the resident, and they have been impacted physically and emotionally by the landlord’s inaction.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The resident complained to the landlord on 26 April 2023. Paragraph 4.1. of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 2022 states that when a complaint is made by a resident it “must be acknowledged” within 5 working days. The landlord did not acknowledge its receipt of the complaint to the resident.
The landlord replied at stage 1 of its internal complaints process on 16 May 2023, around 12 working days later. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will respond to a complaint at stage 1 within 10 working days. This was therefore a delay of around 2 working days for the resident to receive the landlord’s response at stage 1.
The resident escalated her complaint on 24 May 2023. The landlord did not send an acknowledgement of the resident’s complaint at stage 2 of its internal complaints process.
The landlord replied at stage 2 of its internal complaints process on 5 July 2023, around 29 working days later. The evidence shows it communicated to the resident that its response at stage 2 would be delayed. It told the resident that it would respond by 5 July 2023. The landlord’s complaints policy states that at stage 2 it will respond within 20 working days, however, if more time is needed, this will be communicated to the resident. The landlord therefore acted appropriately by communicating the delay.
At stage 2 the landlord identified service failure in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It awarded the resident £200 compensation, broken down as follows:
1. £50 for the failure to acknowledge the complaint at stage 1.
2. £50 for the failure to apologise for the lack of acknowledgement at stage 1.
3. £50 for the failure to acknowledge the complaint at stage 2.
4. £50 for the “overall complaint journey”.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it can award up to £50 for a “minor failure”, for example a failure to follow the complaints policy.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In this case the landlord’s offer of £200 compensation and the acknowledgement of its service failure was in line with the policy and the steps it took to remedy the issue was appropriate. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has been able to evidence it made reasonable and proactive efforts to “put things right” in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s adaptation requests to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in relation to its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

The landlord must, within 4 weeks of this report:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology for the failings outlined above.
2. Pay the resident £600 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its handling of adaptation requests to the property.
The landlord must, within 4 weeks of this report, conduct a review of the resident’s request for adaptations. The review should be conducted within the provisions of its adaptations policy and be informed by the recommendations of a relevant OT report. The landlord’s decisions should be able to demonstrate it has factored the feasibility of the works within the physical structure of the property, its responsibilities to provide reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 and its aids and adaptations policy. The landlord will provide a copy of its decision to the resident and this Service.