Plus Dane Housing Limited (202425260)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202425260

Plus Dane Housing Limited

18 July 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 handling of the resident’s requests for:
   1. A move.
   2. Adaptations to the property.

Background

2. The resident has held an assured tenancy at the property since 5 September 2016. The property is a 2-bedroom end terrace bungalow within a sheltered scheme. It has a communal garden. The resident lives with her husband. She has long term health conditions that mean that she uses a large, electric powered wheelchair both inside and outside. She was allocated the property after her previous, fully adapted home owned by another housing association, was destroyed in a fire.
3. On 8 October 2024 at a meeting between senior members of the landlord’s staff, the resident, and her husband, the resident read out a personal statement. The landlord used this statement as a basis for the complaint which it decided to escalate straight to stage 2 of its complaints process. In summary the resident’s statement said that:
   1. Her current property was unsuitable and she was confined to the sofa in a 3-metre squared room. This had worsened her health, causing her constant pain and injuries from falls. She said her husband’s spinal arthritis had worsened because most of their belongings were stored in the attic as there was no room for them in the living areas. He therefore had to climb up and down a ladder to get them.
   2. The landlord had let the property in an unsafe condition. It had needed extensive repairs and was full of mould, filth, and had a gas leak.
   3. Discriminatory housing allocations policies had favoured other applicants over her urgent need for accessible accommodation.
   4. The landlord had changed its mind regarding her eligibility for a management move.
   5. When she asked the landlord for help to be rehoused it should have either prioritised adaptations or rehoused her as a priority.
   6. There had been issues with the wet room including a decision not to replace the toilet and narrowing a door frame.
   7. The landlord had promised to provide an accessible garden and fencing but had not done so.
4. The landlord provided a detailed response to the resident’s complaint on 11 November 2024. A summary of the responses to the issues covered in this investigation are as follows:
   1. It had approved a management move for the resident to move from her current property to a 3-bedroom property in 2022. This was outside its normal policy as the resident would normally be eligible for a 2-bedroom property.
   2. The statutory obligation for adaptations lay with the local authority but the landlord had agreed to allocate its maximum funding of £15,000 to contribute to any agreed adaptations. It agreed that it had not been clear that any extension to her home would be subject to consultation with neighbours as they had a right to use the communal areas which included the garden area directly outside the property. However, as the local authority had not yet agreed any plans to adapt the property this had not had a detrimental impact on the progress of her application.
   3. Although the resident said that she had been in an intolerable situation for 8 years, she had first informed it that she was struggling to access all areas of the property 2 years after she moved in. It provided rehousing advice at that time. However, it missed this opportunity to advise her to contact the local authority to enquire about adaptations. But it was aware that she had known about the process because her previous home had been adapted in conjunction with the local authority.
   4. It had met with the local authority occupational therapist (OT) in October 2021. The OT had agreed that they would provide support in assessing any adaptations required in any alternative homes that it identified. It also agreed to carry out joint viewings on alternative properties with the OT. In January 2022 the OT started the process of identifying what adaptations could be made to the resident’s current property given the lack of suitable alternative homes available.
   5. Since their meeting in October, it had considered a new build opportunity. However, the resident had confirmed that it was not big enough for her needs and it felt this would be a challenge as all new build 3-bedroom properties had a smaller floor space than she needed. However, it would consider further options through its development programme subject to appropriate funding being available.
   6. It had considered its duties under the Equalities Act 2010, including the scope of its duties to make reasonable adjustments. However, even though its duty was limited, this would not prevent it from choosing to go beyond this and it confirmed its commitment to fund works to her home up to the maximum amount within its policy.
   7. It apologised that service failures would have compounded the feelings of distress she reported.
   8. It would continue to work with the local authority regarding updates on the plans for adapting her current home and it still committed £15,000 towards this subject to approval from all parties.
   9. It would provide her with archetypes of 3-bedroom homes within its stock and give examples of where these were situated so it could understand her preferences better.
   10. It would waive its policy of no adaptations being carried out in the first year of a tenancy and hold a new home while adaptation works were completed.
   11. It would commit to installing a driveway, if permittable, in the new home.
   12. The local authority had put a flag on her housing application to encourage offers from other providers and it encouraged her to view advertised properties each week.
   13. In the meantime, its investment manager would oversee works to her bathroom.
   14. It would provide a fortnightly update on progress with all the above and continue to work collaboratively with her and the local authority.
5. On 19 November 2024 the local authority OT department emailed the landlord. The local authority (LA) said that following a meeting with the resident on 5 November 2024, in which they had reviewed the previous proposals made by both the LA and the resident’s architect, it was concluded that the property could not be made suitable for the resident’s needs without significant compromise. While it was possible that some needs could be met the layout and size of the property meant that problems would always exist. Therefore, the landlord should support the resident with a search for alternative accommodation.
6. The LA carried on to say that it would therefore not submit an amended plan for adaptations but would provide support with assessment of any new homes that were identified. The LA confirmed that it had updated the resident’s housing application to confirm that the property could not be adapted. It said that a restriction had been in place meaning that she could only bid on bungalows or adapted properties and it had now lifted this. The LA said it had now also applied a system override to the residents account so that her bids were not automatically placed below families with children.
7. In February 2025, 2 of the landlord’s properties became available that had been identified by the resident as possibly having a layout that could be adapted to meet her needs. Following an assessment by the OT, the landlord has allocated 1 of these to her and is working with the LA who are responsible for the adaptations and disabled facilities grant funding. As promised, the landlord has waived its policy of not considering adaptations within the first year of an allocation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

8. The resident’s complaint included reference to the condition of the property when she moved in in 2016. Given the lapse of time between when she moved in and the complaint, we would not be able to make robust findings regarding this. Therefore, we have not considered this element of the complaint in this investigation.
9. Likewise, the resident complained about issues in a wet room including the door replacement and narrowing which also occurred in 2016. Therefore, we have also not considered this element of the complaint in this investigation.
10. The resident complained about a discriminatory housing allocation policy. The LA in the area is responsible for this policy and we do not hold jurisdiction over it. It is also responsible for registering and banding housing applications, assessing properties, and providing plans for adaptations. A complaint regarding these aspects would be more appropriately dealt with by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). Because of this, the resident should refer these concerns to the LGSCO if she wishes to pursue these aspects of her complaint further.
11. The resident also complained about promises the landlord made to erect fencing. The landlord did not answer these as part of this complaint because it had already considered them in a previous complaint made by the resident. This was not brought to us to investigate. Therefore, we have not considered this element of the complaint in this investigation.
12. Unlike a court, the Ombudsman cannot establish liability or award damages. Therefore, we cannot determine whether the landlord’s actions impacted the resident’s health. However, we can consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to the resident’s health is more appropriate for the courts or an insurance claim and she may wish to pursue this in a legal setting.

Move

13. We have seen evidence that the resident told the landlord in November 2018 that she felt the property was unsuitable due to its size. However, she has told us that this was not the first time she had told the landlord this. In the absence of any evidence to support this it is impossible to prove or disprove that she had reported it before.
14. There was a joint responsibility in this case between the LA and landlord, to assist the resident because her property was unsuitable for her needs. The LA was responsible for assessing and prioritising her housing application. The landlord had a responsibility to:
    1. Ensure that it considered her for a managed move within its own stock, including via its development programme.
    2. Liaise proactively with the LA to ensure that it was fully aware of her specific needs and difficulties so that the LA awarded the appropriate banding. This is so that she was considered for any suitable social housing properties in the area, not just those owned by the landlord.
15. There is evidence that the landlord advised the resident to apply to the LA for rehousing, providing evidence of her medical conditions and the difficulties she had, when she contacted it in 2018. The LA then assessed this information, and decided what priority banding the resident would receive.
16. There is evidence that the landlord liaised with the resident and OT department from March 2021 to discuss whether the property could be made suitable by making major adaptations. The landlord was therefore fully aware of the difficulties she was experiencing and it should have considered its responsibilities as listed above.
17. The landlord’s lettings policy says that it will generally consider management moves in exceptional circumstances where the health and safety of a resident could be at serious risk if they remain in their own home, or where other exceptional circumstances need to be addressed.
18. There is evidence that the landlord discussed a managed move with the resident in 2021. However, in a letter sent to her in January 2022, it said that it had decided that this was not the best option, and that it felt that adapting her current property was a better solution. Despite it saying in its complaint response that it had accepted her for a managed move in 2022, we have seen no evidence that it actively did so, for example no records of activities such as:
    1. Completion and approval of any forms.
    2. Consideration by a panel.
    3. Consideration of a reciprocal transfer with another housing association.
    4. Communication to the resident to advise that it was considering her for a managed move.
    5. Discussion with the resident about what type of property she needed and in what area.

The evidence we have seen shows that at that time its focus was on adapting her current property.

19. More recently the landlord has worked well with the resident and learned what properties within its stock might be suitable for her. However, it failed to do this at an earlier stage and it also failed to communicate effectively with her about the managed move. Although we do not know if any suitable properties became available between 2021 and 2024, had the resident felt sure that the landlord was doing everything it could with regards to a managed move she would have felt better supported by it and would have been better informed about the likelihood of a suitable property becoming available to her.
20. It was apparent in July and September 2023 and January 2024 when the resident bid on properties available through the LA’s allocation process, that the banding she had been awarded was not high enough to give her the priority needed to be allocated one. She was also not being considered for 3-bedroom properties, which was what she needed, because there were no children in her household.
21. It would have been appropriate at this time for the landlord to advocate for the resident with the LA to try to ensure that she was also being prioritised for properties owned by other providers in the area. However, we have seen no evidence that it did so. More recently, following the resident’s meeting with the landlord in October 2024, the LA has lifted the restriction which only allowed the resident to bid on bungalows and adapted properties and her bids are no longer automatically placed below the bids of families with children. Had the landlord and LA discussed this issue sooner, the resident may have been considered for a more suitable property by another provider during 2023 or 2024.
22. A housing needs assessment completed by an OT in April 2023 concluded that adapting the resident’s current property would not fully meet her needs as it would not be possible to make the corridor wider or make accessing all rooms easier. However, another email from the LA to the landlord dated 19 October 2023 indicated that the proposals to extend the property had been agreed. Another letter from the OT dated 29 December 2023 confirmed the original advice that the property was not suitable and therefore a move to another property was necessary.
23. We have seen no evidence that the landlord acted on the correspondence that said that the property was not suitable. Considering the conflicting advice, it would have been appropriate to arrange a joint meeting with all involved to get a definitive answer on a way forward, or to escalate queries regarding the conflicting advice to management level within the LA. Instead, considerable periods of time passed with the landlord waiting on updates from the LA. It also would have been appropriate for the landlord to ensure that the resident’s management move application was active and that it was actively looking for suitable properties for her. However, we have seen no evidence that it communicated with her regarding this during this period at all.
24. After the meeting in October 2024, the landlord considered assisting the resident with a property via its development programme. Had it considered this when the resident first approached it for help, 6 years before, the opportunity to assist her either by changing the layout of a property before the internal work was complete, or custom designing a property could have been explored. This was a missed opportunity that could have meant the resident was rehoused more quickly.
25. In summary, the landlord missed opportunities between 2021 and 2024 to:
    1. Communicate effectively with the resident about a management move.
    2. Ensure that it knew what type of property she needed and what properties within its stock would be suitable.
    3. Consider the resident for a property within its development programme.
    4. Liaise with the LA regarding her housing application to ensure it knew her full circumstances and that her banding and the restrictions on her application meant that she was not being considered for suitable properties.
26. Had the landlord completed these actions the resident would have been in a better position to be rehoused into a more suitable property. She would also have felt better supported by the landlord which would have alleviated some of the distress she experienced. Cumulatively these failings amount to maladministration and therefore, we have ordered the landlord to pay £800 compensation to the resident to reflect this and the time and trouble she spent communicating with it.

Adaptations

27. The landlord’s adaptations policy says that it is committed to supporting the wellbeing needs of its customers who are experiencing difficulty living in their home. It will do this by providing an efficient and effective adaptation service that offers value for money and meets the individual needs of its social housing customers.
28. As previously identified, there was a joint responsibility in this case between the LA and landlord, to assist the resident because the property was unsuitable for her needs. The LA was responsible for assessing her current, or any future property to decide if they were suitable for adaptations, drawing up plans and if applicable providing a disabled facilities grant for the adaptations.
29. The landlord had a responsibility to:
    1. Liaise proactively with the LA regarding it drawing up plans to adapt her current accommodation.
    2. Make sure that it considered any other adjustments it could make in the meantime to ensure that the resident was as comfortable as possible in the circumstances. This was especially important given the delays identified.
30. There is evidence that the landlord liaised with the resident and OT department from March 2021 to discuss whether the property was suitable for major adaptation. The landlord was therefore fully aware of the difficulties she was experiencing and it should have considered its responsibilities as listed above.
31. As previously stated, in January 2022, the landlord told the resident that it thought the best solution was to adapt her current home. However, it was reliant on the LA to inform it whether the property was suitable for adaptation. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to liaise closely with the LA to make sure plans were provided in a timely manner, especially given the circumstances that the resident was living in.
32. There is evidence that the landlord did this in January 2022 when it attended a meeting with the LA to discuss funding for adapting the property. The outcome of the meeting was that the OT would submit the disabled facilities grant application and the landlord would contribute £15,000 which was the maximum it could according to its policy. The landlord also agreed at this time to waive the usual 12 month waiting period for adaptations if it allocated the resident a different property. These were both positive steps that showed that it was considering reasonable adjustments to its policies to reflect the resident’s specific circumstances.
33. Following this the OT supplied plans but the resident asked for them to be revised. This delay was therefore outside the landlord’s control. Several months then passed in which there is no evidence of the landlord taking any action. The LA had the responsibility to agree the plans with the resident and while the landlord had no responsibility to chase this up it would have been good practice for it to do so. It would also have been good practice for it to maintain regular contact with the resident and to make sure that her situation had not worsened. Finally, in February 2023, the landlord contacted the OT and resident and discovered that plans had still not been agreed.
34. A housing needs assessment completed by an OT in April 2023 concluded that adapting the resident’s current property would not fully meet her needs as it would not be possible to make the corridor wider or make accessing all rooms easier. However, another email from the LA to the landlord dated 19 October 2023 indicated that the proposals to extend the property had been agreed. Another letter from the OT dated 29 December 2023 confirmed the original advice that the property was not suitable and therefore a move to another property was necessary.
35. We have seen no evidence that the landlord acted on the correspondence that said that the property was not suitable. Considering the conflicting advice, it would have been appropriate to arrange a joint meeting with all involved to get a definitive answer on a way forward. Alternatively, it could have considered escalating the issue within the LA to ensure that managers were aware of the situation. However, we have seen no evidence that it did. Instead, several more months passed with the landlord waiting for updates from the LA.
36. There is evidence that the landlord next spoke to the LA in April 2024, regarding funding for the adaptations. In this conversation the LA agreed to submit a formal request for them to consider additional funding. There is also evidence that it emailed the OT in May 2024 to chase a review of designs that they had promised in a meeting a month previously. The landlord then communicated with the resident to update her regarding this. There is then evidence that the resident and LA were in discussion regarding the plans again. We have seen no evidence that the landlord refused to consider any plans that the LA and resident had agreed.
37. Following the meeting in October 2024, the landlord said that it would do extra work to the resident’s bathroom to help make it more accessible for her. This included a replacement toilet, which she had asked it for previously. However, we have seen no evidence that it previously considered whether it could complete this or any other work to assist the resident while more major adaptations or a move were being considered. While the landlord was still reliant on the LA to make recommendations it should have considered the work it offered to complete in October 2024 sooner. Had it done so, some of the resident’s discomfort and distress caused by living in an unsuitable property may have been alleviated.
38. In summary, the landlord was reliant on the LA to provide plans for adaptations to the property. There were long delays in the LA providing these and conflicting advice on whether the property would be suitable for adaptation. While this was mainly outside the landlord’s control it had a part to play in liaising with the LA to ensure that its resident was not living in unsuitable conditions for longer than necessary. Although it did this sporadically, had it been more consistent and proactive in the process and escalated the issue within the LA a decision may have been reached sooner.
39. The landlord made positive reasonable adjustments to its policies to help the resident. It also considered further work to the bathroom. However, it should have considered this sooner. Overall, we consider that there was service failure in its handling of adaptations to the property and we have ordered it to pay £200 compensation to the resident to reflect the distress this has caused.

Determination (decision)

40. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a move
41. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adaptations.

Orders

42. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report a senior manager must apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified.
43. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must pay the resident directly £1,000 compensation comprising:
    1. £800 for the distress, time and trouble caused by its handling of her request to move.
    2. £200 for the distress caused by its handling of her request for adaptations.
44. Within 10 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should undertake and complete a strategic review the case to identify what lessons it can learn regarding:
    1. How it could have made sure that the resident, who was living in unsuitable accommodation was fully supported in rehousing options including management moves, advocacy with the LA housing team and its development programme where applicable.
    2. Effective liaison with the OT department to ensure that adaptations are considered and where applicable are completed in a timely manner including escalation by managers with the LA if delays or other issues arise.
45. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the relevant time limits.

Recommendations

46. The landlord should continue to support the resident with the adaptation of her new accommodation. This to include continued fortnightly updates and close liaison with the OT department. The landlord should consider escalation within the LA if any barriers occur.