Stonewater Limited (202318462)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318462

Stonewater Limited

27 November 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 handling of:
   1. the resident’s request for adaptations.
   2. the associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The resident is a full-time wheelchair user. She also suffers from anxiety.
3. The landlord visited the resident with an occupational therapist (OT) on 29 September 2022 to discuss possible adaptations to the property. During the meeting, the landlord made a number of suggestions of what works could take place. It noted that there was already an existing dropped kerb and driveway, but it could consider the possibility of removing a patch of shrubs to allow for better access. It explained to the resident that any works were subject to the outcome of a disabled facilities grant (DFG) and a further visit with a surveyor for the OT service.
4. On 21 November 2022, the landlord informed the resident it had still not received the recommendations from the OT and therefore it could not say what works had been approved, or when they would commence. However on 23 November 2022, 3 parking bollards were installed. The resident queried why only 3 bollards had been ordered, when she thought it had been agreed that 4 would be installed. She chased the issue several times before making a complaint about the amount of time the landlord had taken to resolve the issue on 1 February 2023.
5. The landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its complaint process on 27 February 2023. It said that:
   1. Due to a handover between surveyors, it had taken longer to complete the adaptations. It was sorry for any frustration it had caused.
   2. A fourth bollard had been agreed and a drop kerb would be installed. A job was raised on 17 February 2023 and a site visit had taken place with the contractor, so everyone was clear on what works were involved. A designated surveyor would oversee the adaptations through to conclusion.
6. The resident escalated her complaint on 17 March 2023 and explained that no one had been in contact with her about the works. On 6 April 2023, the landlord provided the resident with a stage 2 final complaint response. It said that:
   1. It was sorry again for the delay and poor service she had received.
   2. It had taken too long to install the dropped kerb and the final bollard. It was sorry for the impact on her wellbeing and wanted to offer her £250 in compensation for the delay.
   3. It had taken steps to introduce new systems to capture commitments it had made and would ensure it had better oversight of overdue repairs. It would complete the works “as soon as possible”.
7. Shortly after the landlord’s final response, the resident referred the matter to the Ombudsman. Between April 2023 and August 2023, the resident continued to chase the landlord about the status of the adaptations. She reported that she felt “lied to, stressed and angry”. The landlord confirmed to the Ombudsman that all adaptation works were completed by 1 September 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

8. The Ombudsman recognises that the situation has caused the resident distress as she waited for adaptations to the property to be completed over a prolonged period of time. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact her living conditions had on her health. The Ombudsman does not underestimate the resident’s concerns. However, unlike a court, the Ombudsman cannot establish what caused a health issue, determine liability, or award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

The resident’s request for adaptations

9. There were failures in the landlord’s record keeping. It is unclear why 3 bollards were raised for installation outside of the property, when there had been no update recorded on the landlord’s system which confirmed the final OT assessment and the outcome of the DFG. As a result, there was confusion as to whether 3 or 4 bollards had been agreed by the surveyor in addition to a dropped kerb for installation. This led to delays in resolving the matter for the resident.
10. The landlord’s adaptations policy explains that it will ensure that there are clear channels of communication with the resident so that it can balance expectations. In this case, the landlord was initially clear that it needed to await the outcome of the OT surveyor’s assessment, but it then later failed to communicate a plan of action with the resident. This caused her evident frustration, as well as time and trouble chasing for an update.
11. In its stage 1 response to the resident on 27 February 2023, the landlord explained that a recent site visit had taken place with all those involved in implementing the adaptations, so that everyone was “clear” on what works needed to take place. This was a reasonable approach to take and would have resolved any ambiguity as to what remedial works were needed.
12. However, the landlord failed to set out to the resident what it had learnt from her experience and did not explain how it would ensure that it kept a robust record of these discussions. As a result, there continued to be confusion about what adaptations needed to take place. This is evidenced in a series of internal emails around 28 April 2023 which discussed the location of the fourth bollard. Within these, the landlord noted that the contractor had “misunderstood the instruction”. The lack of clarity on what works needed to be done contributed to further delays and caused the resident distress.
13. There is no evidence that the landlord followed up on assurances it made to the resident within its stage 1 response that it had assigned the matter to a designated surveyor, who could have acted as a single point of contact. As a result, the resident felt frustrated at the lack of contact and requested an escalation of her complaint on 17 March 2023.
14. The landlord’s final complaint response on 6 April 2023 was an opportunity for it to reflect on the resident’s experience and apply the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of “be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes”. The landlord offered the resident £250 in compensation for the delays. The amount was made in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy for “unreasonable time to resolve a situation”. The offer would have been sufficient to put matters right, had the situation concluded at that point and the resident given an affirmative timescale for completion.
15. Although the landlord informed the resident the works would be completed “as soon as possible”, evidence shows that there were further delays of approximately 5 months in completing all of the remedial works. The dropped kerb was not completed until 29 June 2023 and the fourth bollard was not installed until 1 September 2023. It is accepted some of the delays were attributed to other neighbours parking where the works needed to take place, and there were difficulties in getting hold of the resident towards the end of May 2023. However additional delays were also exacerbated by a lack of learning from the resident’s complaint.
16. For example, despite informing the resident that it had introduced a new system to ensure it had oversight of outstanding repairs, there continued to be an over-reliance on email communication between the landlord’s staff and a failure to keep the resident updated of progress in a timely manner. The Ombudsman has considered an additional amount of compensation in line with our remedies guidance for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the delays in completing the works.
17. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adaptations. The landlord failed to complete the adaptations in a timely manner and this had a direct impact on the resident’s accessibility to the property. Despite assuring the resident that it would have better oversight of outstanding repairs in its final complaint response, there continued to experience further delays over a period of approximately 5 months after the conclusion of her complaint to conclude matters.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

18. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it considers a complaint to be “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents”. This is in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
19. The resident made it clear in her communication on 1 February 2023 that she was dissatisfied with the level of service she had received. She reported that she had “emailed so many times” and was “sick of it”. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within a reasonable time and explained that she could expect a response by 17 February 2023.
20. The landlord failed in its promise to the resident, as a stage 1 response did not follow until 27 February 2023. The response was outside the timescales expected within the landlord’s complaint policy. While the delay was not significant, the landlord failed to acknowledge it and did not apologise to the resident which was unreasonable.
21. The resident escalated her complaint on 17 March 2023. In accordance with the landlord’s complaint policy, the resident could expect a final response within 20 working days. The landlord responded to the resident within this timeframe which was appropriate.
22. Overall, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. There was a minor delay in providing the resident with a stage 1 response by 17 February 2023 as the landlord had assured her it would do. While this did not significantly impact the resident, the landlord still failed to follow its own complaint process. As the landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay, the Ombudsman finds service failure in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adaptations.
24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

25. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failures noted within this report.
    2. Pay the resident £550 in compensation. The amount is to be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The amount is comprised of:
       1. £250 the landlord offered the resident at stage 2 of its complaint process if it has not already been paid.
       2. An additional £250 for the time and trouble caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adaptations.
       3. An additional £50 the time and trouble caused to the resident by failing to respond to the stage 1 complaint within the appropriate timeframe.
26. In accordance with paragraph 54.g. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a management review of case to identify what went wrong and what it would do differently. This should be presented to the Ombudsman within 6 weeks. The review should include, but is not limited to:
    1. An explanation of why the failings identified by this investigation occurred.
    2. An explanation of how the landlord will follow up on requests for adaptations, schedule appointments in a timely manner and maintain oversight of any remedial works.

            Recommendation

27. It recommended that the landlord utilises the Housing Ombudsman’s Centre for Learning and gives consideration to arranging staff attendance to its virtual workshop on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM).