Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Runnymede Borough Council (202107057)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107057

Runnymede Borough Council

17 February 2022


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:
  1. the landlord’s refusal of the resident’s mutual exchange application and;
  2. the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about repairs/adaptations to the property.

Background

  1. The resident has held a 10-year flexible tenancy with the landlord, a Local Authority, since 2019. The resident lives alone and uses a wheelchair part of the time. She suffers with arthritis, scoliosis and a neurological disorder and has a history of mental health problems. The resident’s mother has made this complaint on behalf of the resident. Though the landlord is a Local Authority, the Ombudsman’s investigation remit extends only to its housing related actions as a member landlord; whilst this report has referenced other Local Authority services, these have not been investigated here.
  2. The property is a one-bedroom bungalow which was previously adapted to include a wet room and access ramp.
  3. The resident was advised on 29 March 2021 that the mutual exchange she was considering could not proceed if the incoming resident did not require the ramp, or if the resident did not require the second bedroom in the exchange property. Records indicate that the landlord had previously intended to repair the ramp outside the property, but the resident refused to sign a ‘Disability Facility Grant’ (DFG) form as this would tie her to the property for five years. On 31 March 2021, the resident made a complaint that she could not exchange with someone who did not require the adaptations at the property, though the access ramp was not fit for purpose. She also stated she could not use her wheelchair properly in the property.
  4. The landlord responded on 16 April 2021 and said the mutual exchange was not viable for the landlord or the third-party landlord. It said the ramp repair was in progress but had been halted while the mutual exchange was considered and confirmed that the DFG form was not now needed as the ramp did not currently meet Building Regulations. It said that a previous recommendation by the occupational therapist (OT) in November 2019 to remove kitchen cupboards to allow wheelchair access and to increase the ramp size was declined by the resident as she was happy with these. The resident complained further on 18 April 2021 and said that the ramp repair was overdue, and she would submit a new OT report when available.
  5. The landlord extended the response date but remained in correspondence with the resident, during which time it refused a mutual exchange on 2 June 2021 on the grounds that the incoming resident did not require the adapted property. The landlord’s final complaint response on 28 June 2021 said that the new ramp was to be installed in July 2021, and the complaint was not upheld as the resident had previously refused to sign for the ramp as she had wanted a bath installed at the property, which was against the OT advice, and to move away.
  6. The landlord said it was liaising with the occupational therapist regarding further adaptations and that it had identified learning so that if a resident refused an adaptation in the future, it would discuss the matter to work towards a solution. The landlord asked the resident for contact details for her hospital consultant and physiotherapist, but this was not shown as supplied. The ramp was replaced in July 2021. The landlord has since agreed to rehouse the resident due to the property not meeting her current needs as her mobility has reduced.
  7. The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied that the mutual exchange was refused as the incoming tenant did not require adaptations, yet, in her view the adaptations at the property were not fit for purpose and therefore it was not reasonable for the exchange to be refused on this basis.

Assessment and findings

  1. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) has already considered the resident’s concerns about the initial allocation of the property, as this falls under their remit. The LGSCO was unable to investigate the allocation however, as it was over 12 months prior to the resident’s complaint. This investigation has considered whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s request for repairs/adaptations and her request for a mutual exchange.
  2. The landlord’s Mutual Exchange Policy (not provided but available online) says at section 6.2.2 that the landlord may refuse an exchange if the property is larger than required in the Allocations Policy. Section 6.2.4 also states that if the property has been adapted, a mutual exchange would normally be approved only if the incoming household requires adaptations. The landlord was therefore entitled to decline the application for a mutual exchange on the basis that the incoming tenant did not meet the adaptations criteria. It was also relevant to the failure in the mutual exchange process that the resident did not meet the size related conditions for the property she had applied to exchange to.
  3. The resident was of the view that the landlord’s reasons for refusal did not apply as the property was not fit for purpose for a disabled person. The landlord’s Adaptations Policy section 3.1 confirms that accessibility adaptations will be considered under the scope of the policy. It is noted that the OT had identified issues with the external ramp and internal access for a wheelchair user, as well as bathroom works to ensure the property met the resident’s needs.
  4. It is evident that there was a period from 2019 where the resident was offered a ramp replacement but refused it as she said she was happy with the size. The landlord had then asked her to sign the DFG form in November 2020 to proceed with repairs to the ramp, but the resident was unwilling as she understood that it would tie her to stay in the property for five years. She also declined the removal of kitchen cupboards which the OT recommended to make the inside of the property wheelchair accessible. The landlord was also refused access by the resident in July 2020 to inspect the wet room to arrange repairs/adaptations, as by this time she wanted a bath installed, although the OT did not approve this. In the OT’s view, a level access shower was sufficient to meet the resident’s disability requirements.
  5. The property has not had the recommended OT adaptations completed but this does not mean that the property is not adapted for a disabled person, only that the specific OT suggestions are not in place. Whilst the reasons for the resident declining the adaptations are understood, the delay was not in the main the fault of the landlord and as such, no service failure has been identified in its overall response on this issue. The resident was unwilling for works to progress to the wetroom, kitchen and ramp and as a result the OT recommendations did not take place within a reasonable timeframe.
  6. The landlord did for a time require the DFG form, but then confirmed in its stage one response in April 2021 that the DFG form was no longer needed. The occupational therapist who advised on this worked for the Local Authority, not the landlord, so the landlord was reliant on their advice. The resident was unhappy with the OT report findings; however, this did not fall within the scope of the landlord’s responsibilities. Any dissatisfaction with the OT’s findings would need to be raised directly with the Local Authority OT team as the landlord has no decision–making authority in this regard.
  7. There is a more recent report from the local Adult Social Care Team which indicates the resident’s health has deteriorated, with a recommendation that she be transferred to more suitable accommodation. It is note that the landlord has approved this move and is working towards sourcing such a transfer in order to achieve a full resolution to the resident’s concerns. The Ombudsman expects member landlords to respond to such changes in circumstances and it is appropriate that the landlord has done so here. This does not impact upon the findings relating to the landlord’s response during the complaint under investigation however, which confirm that the landlord responded reasonably and appropriately to both the OT recommendations and the mutual exchange application.
  8. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles, it is expected that landlord’s will identify learning from complaints so that overall service delivery can be improved. In this respect it is noted that the landlord implemented a procedural change whereby resident’s refusing adaptations would benefit from focussed discussions surrounding the implications of such a refusal. This improved communication will benefit vulnerable residents, enabling them to make a more informed decision about crucial issues.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its refusal of the resident’s mutual exchange.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to its response to the resident’s reports about repairs/adaptations to the property.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord to ensure that its procedure for managing refused adaptations includes retaining a written record of any discussions it holds with residents in relation to the implications of their refusal of such works.