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

Thrive Homes Limited (202414519)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202414519

Thrive Homes Limited

27 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s concerns about welfare adaptations at the property.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property owned by the landlord. The resident relies on a wheelchair for her mobility and has limited movement in one of her hands.
  2. In April 2024, the landlord installed a new fire regulation front door as part of its door replacement programme. Once it fitted the door, the resident experienced problems manoeuvring her wheelchair across the threshold of the front door. She also had difficulty managing the new, smaller front door latch/lock. The landlord inspected the door on 13 May 2024, put some anti-slip tape across the plastic threshold, and asked its contractor to source a different lock.
  3. The resident made a formal complaint (date unknown). According to the landlord she had complained that the new door did not provide for wheelchair access. She was waiting for the contractor to return to sort out the lock. Because of her disability, she struggles to open it and felt that she could be in danger of getting trapped in the house. She said the ramp for her wheelchair at the front of the flat was plastic. The landlord had advised that it would adjust it to make it safe, but she wanted it to replace it with a new one.
  4. As the resident had recently made a stage 1 complaint about other matters, the landlord escalated this complaint straight to stage 2 of its complaint procedure. Following a request for an extension on the response time, it issued its stage 2 response on 11 June 2024. It said the new replacement fire door is at maximum width, as there is a corridor wall on either side of the opening. It had offered an alternative solution, to cut another door opening from the lounge, but the resident did not want this. It said the door has a thumb turn lock on it, which is standard for fire doors. It had, however, fitted a new thumb turner extension to resolve the issue. It apologised for not supplying this sooner and offered her £50 compensation for the stress caused. It said the contractor had fitted an additional plastic trim to aid the wheelchair crossing the threshold. It was providing non-slip tape to resolve the problem. It advised her to initiate an occupational therapist (OT) assessment if she changed her mind regarding wanting a new ramp.
  5. The resident responded by explaining that she had asked for the doorway to be lowered, not widened. The door lock extender had not resolved the issues. She repeated that the plastic door trim was not sufficient and would give way under the weight of her chair.
  6.  On 12 June 2024, the landlord contacted the resident to inform her it had reviewed her case that day and may have found an alternative to the current ramp. It arranged an appointment to measure for a new ramp and review the door lock on 20 June 2024. Workers did not attend, and the existing plastic trim-ramp broke on 10 July 2024.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint to this Service. She said the landlord had not listened to her concerns that the plastic trim was not an acceptable solution to get in and out of the property in her wheelchair.

Assessment and Findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident has said, in her complaint to this Service, that the stress caused by the problems with the front door had impacted her mental and physical health. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, the complaint about the stress caused and the impact on the resident’s mental and physical health is better dealt with via the court. However, the Ombudsman will consider any general distress and inconvenience the situation caused the resident.

Welfare Adaptations

  1.  The landlord has an aids and adaptations policy to support residents with disabilities, to make full use of their home and live independently. One way it commits to achieving this is by considering adaptations to a resident’s home to make it easier for them to manage. Examples of standard adaptations for wheelchair users included ramps, level access showers and widening door openings.
  2. The landlord installed a new fire regulation front door to the resident’s property, as part of its door replacement programme on 14 April 2024. Once fitted, the previously level access entrance into her property was no longer level. The contractor fitted a small plastic ramp feature over the threshold of the property for access in her wheelchair.
  3. The resident informed the landlord that this feature was not working. She could not manoeuvre her wheelchair across the threshold, particularly when re-entering the property.
  4. It was evident in emails between the landlord and resident throughout March 2024 that there had been concerns on her part and it was potentially aware there might be problems with accessibility. It had given thought to providing a new doorway from the lounge for alternative access, which the resident declined. She had also asked for a self-closer, which it considered, but its contractor advised that if it used anything other than the original fittings, it would invalidate the integrity of the door and the warranty.
  5.  Although the resident was extremely unhappy at the landlord’s suggestion of putting a new doorway in the lounge and not being able to have a self-closer, its actions demonstrated the landlord was taking both her disability and her concerns into account. 
  6. However, the first step to making improvements in the landlord’s aids and adaptations policy is a visit to the resident from the OT. It states they can make recommendations as to what changes might be required to better meet the resident’s needs. It would therefore have been appropriate to have consulted an OT when the resident raised concerns about the changes. They are qualified to give advice on what is appropriate for a wheelchair user and what can mitigate any negative impact on her accessibility.
  7. Even though potential problems had been raised, the landlord installed the standard fire regulation front door to the property without a professional disability assessment. It used its own work–around by supplying a plastic makeshift ramp feature across the threshold, which caused her accessibility problems and later completely failed. It had given no consideration to the door lock, which she could not use because of a lack of mobility in her hands.
  8.  It was not clear when the resident raised concerns about her difficulty getting her wheelchair across the threshold and using the lock. The landlord sent its surveyor to inspect the issues on 13 May 2024, a month after installation. He identified that the wheelchair wheels were slipping on the plastic when wet, preventing traction and the resident crossing the threshold. He determined it could not lower the threshold any further without digging into the floor, which would then cause her problems with opening the door over the carpet. He suggested non-slip tape over the plastic would resolve the access issue and asked the contractor to source a different lock. However, it later transpired that the contractor could not source an appropriate lock. As a solution, the landlord ordered a thumb lock extender.
  9.  In the resident’s formal complaint (date unknown) she stressed her anxiety of getting trapped in the house because of the lock. She did not think that any adjustments to the existing plastic ramp feature would make it safe. She wanted a proper ramp installed.
  10. The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged the fitting of the new door had caused problems for the resident. It determined, however, that its provision of the plastic ramp across the threshold, the addition of the non-slip tape and a thumb lock extender had adequately addressed all the issues. It apologised that it had not resolved the lock sooner, as this was a health and safety issue. It offered her £50 compensation for the stress caused to her by this delay.
  11. The landlord had responded to the resident’s concerns and attempted to resolve the issues for her as quickly as possible. However, it would have been appropriate for an Ot to have been involved in resolving the issues. They are suitably qualified to work with technical staff to assess and make recommendations on what is required to meet the health and wellbeing needs of a wheelchair user. Its failure to do so put her at unnecessary risk.
  12. The resident’s complaint stated that she felt she should have a ramp to her front door. In the landlord’s complaint response, it said, “Should you wish to change your mind regarding having a ramp fitted. You will again need to speak to your occupational health therapist and submit a referral.”
  13.  The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy is not clear enough about residents’ responsibility for obtaining the services of an OT to initiate an adaptation. It could read that you would only need to do this if you were applying for a disabled facilities grant. We have recommended reviewing this wording later in the report.
  14. It is good practice for landlords to obtain the Services of an OT if there is any uncertainty when making improvements to a property occupied by a resident with disabilities. As the improvements created difficulties in her ability to get in and out of her property, it should have taken the responsibility for an OT assessment at this stage and not advised the resident to do so.
  15.  On receipt of the response, the resident expressed her dissatisfaction to the landlord with the outcome of the complaint investigation. She said the door lock extender had not resolved the issue. She had to remove it as it prevented anyone from locking or unlocking the door from the outside. This meant that she could not get back in if she went out, and if she fell, no one could get in to help. She also pointed out that when the plastic door trim gave way under the weight of her chair, it would need an emergency response because she would be unable to get in or out. This was likely to cost more than a ramp.
  16.  Following a case review on 12 June 2024, the day after the landlord issued its final stage response, it offered to provide a ramp. While this provided the outcome the resident was seeking, it could have been resolved as part of her complaint response.
  17. Once the landlord agreed to the ramp, and it was aware it had not resolved the situation with the resident’s lock, the expectation would be for the landlord to act with a sense of urgency. The potential risk and impact on her in not doing so, was evident. It arranged an appointment for measuring the ramp and assessing the lock on 20 June 2024, however nobody attended.
  18. The resident had consistently warned that the makeshift plastic ramp would not withstand the weight of her wheelchair. On 10 July 2024, the construction completely collapsed, rendering her housebound. The landlord attended the same day and provided a temporary wood construction to act as a ramp, but understandably, she was not confident of its safety or keen to use it.
  19. The landlord had not progressed with the installation of the ramp agreed on 12 June 2024, so on the collapse of the existing ramp feature, it had to address the issue as an emergency. It measured up and ordered the ramp that same day. It was then able to install it in as little time as 3 working days. Not doing this sooner was a service failing.
  20. Had the landlord sought the opinion of a qualified OT when the resident raised her concerns about the door, it could have identified, planned for and installed the appropriate adaptations (ramp and lock) alongside the fire door installation. This would have eliminated all the risk, stress and inconvenience to the resident. Furthermore, had it acted with a sense of urgency once it was clear the workarounds were unsuccessful, it could also have avoided the incident involving the collapse of the plastic ramp feature and the further detriment this caused to the resident. That it did not was a significant service failure, and it should have considered offering her an increased amount of compensation at this point.

Complaint

  1. From December 2020, all member landlords were required to complete an annual self-assessment against the Housing Ombudsman’s newly published Complaint Handling Code. The Code became statutory in April 2024 which means by law landlords must follow its requirements.
  2. The Code requires that landlords have a 2-stage complaint process. This is to ensure that the resident has the opportunity of requesting a further consideration of their complaint if they are not satisfied with the landlord’s first decision.
  3. The landlord accepted the resident’s complaint as an escalation of a complaint and processed it in stage 2 of its complaint process. The issues raised in the resident’s complaint had not formed part of any previous complaint, so it should have treated it as a stage 1 complaint.
  4. The landlord recognised this was an error when it had completed the investigation but continued to treat it as a stage 2 complaint. This meant the resident could not escalate her complaint and have the decision reviewed. This was a service failing and was not Code compliant.
  5. The Code also requires that when a landlord logs a complaint, it must set out its understanding of the complaint and the outcomes the resident is seeking. The Code refers to this as “the complaint definition”. If any aspect of the complaint is unclear, it must ask the resident for clarification.
  6. The stage 2 response stated in its complaint definition that the resident wanted to have a new ramp fitted. However, in its summing up it said “should she change her mind” about wanting a ramp and gave her advice on what she needed to do to get one. This made little sense. It suggested she had not wanted a ramp when the complaint definition stated that she did.
  7.  A further definition of the complaint was that the resident had said the door was too small for wheelchair use. In its response it explained why the door could not we widened. She said she had never asked it to widen the door, her complaint was about lowering the threshold.
  8. The landlord’s responses to these 2 aspects of the complaint indicated that it had not clearly understood the complaint as the Code requires. This was also confusing for the resident, she said it made her feel that she had clearly not been listened to, which was not reasonable. The lack of understanding may also be attributed to an absence of her actual complaint. It has not provided this Service, with details of a complaint from the resident that relates to its complaint definition. However, if the landlord had not hurried the complaint to a final decision, the stage 2 decision would have enabled it to correct its errors and more properly respond to the issues she raised.
  9. Overall, the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it fully adhered to its complaint procedure. In not doing so, it failed to resolve the substantive complaint and left the resident with no alternative but to approach this Service. It did not clearly understand the original complaint and did not provide a further decision, as the Code requires. This resulted in it providing a confusing response and only going part way to resolve matters outside its complaints process. Its actions diminished her trust and confidence in the landlord.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about welfare adaptations at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord provides evidence to this Service of compliance with the following orders:
    1. Provides a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pays the resident the total sum of £650 (including the £50 previously offered if not already paid) broken down as follows:
      1. £500 for the stress and inconvenience caused by the landlord failing to adequately assess the resident’s mobility needs when carrying out improvements.
      2. £150 for the complaint handling failures identified.
  2. The Ombudsman orders that within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord provides evidence to this Service of compliance with the following orders:
    1. Carries out a review of this case (at senior management level) to identify what went wrong, how it might have prevented the failings and what service improvements can be made to ensure it does not happen again.

 Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord reviews the wording of its aids and adaptations policy. To ensure that it is clear that all resident’s applying for assistance will need to obtain the services of an OT to make the referral.