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

Unity Housing Association Limited (202206322)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206322

Unity Housing Association Limited

8 November 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 the landlord’s handling of the installation a handrail to the steps at the property.

Background

  1. The resident is a secured tenant of the landlord. The property had three steps up to one of the entry ways.
  2. On 29 March 2022, the landlord attended the property and, after speaking with residents and assessing the steps, decided it would be best to install a handrail. On 27 April 2022, the landlord was informed that the resident had fallen on the steps and injured her leg. The landlord investigated whether a handrail should have been installed previously, and found that the property had met all building requirements. However, for health and safety reasons it ultimately installed the handrail on 7 June 2022.
  3. In her stage one complaint, the resident advised that she had asked the landlord for the handrail to be installed before her accident, and stated she had been hospitalised due to the injury which had exacerbated her mobility issues. In her complaint escalation she stated that the handrail should have been installed prior to the scheme being handed over, with an adjacent ramp. She felt the landlord had blamed her for the accident, and was unhappy with incorrect dates in the landlord’s stage one response.
  4. In its response, the landlord explained that the handrail was not a building requirement. It stated that it had planned to install the handrail prior to her accident, but that it cannot be sure the handrail would have prevented it. It apologised for the delays in installing the handrail, and explained how the building had been inspected by the National House Building Council (NHBC) and its local authority, and had been approved. It advised no ramp was needed as there are other level access entry points. It informed the resident it had not blamed her for the accident, and apologised for any miscommunication that had led her to believe this. It also apologised for the errors in its initial response.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint to this Service on 28 June 2022. She was seeking compensation for her accident, as she believed the handrail should have been installed prior to moving in. After communication with this Service, on 11 July 2022, the landlord offered the resident £250 compensation. The resident was dissatisfied with the level of compensation and is seeking an increase in the compensation offered.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim as courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the installation of a handrail to the steps at the property.

  1. The landlord internally discussed the installation of the handrail on 29 March 2022, and identified that, due to the steps being a potential health and safety risk, a handrail should be installed within a week. However, the handrails were not installed until 7 June 2022, a nine-week delay from the landlord’s targeted date of completion.
  2. From the evidence provided, it is clear that the landlord continuously chased its contractor for an update on the installation of the handrail. Nevertheless, nine weeks is long time for the resident to have to wait for the handrail to be installed, and ultimately the landlord was responsible for its contractors and should have taken further action to ensure the handrail was installed in line with its expectations.
  3. During this nine-week delay, there were some delays that were outside of the landlord’s control, such as the delay of three weeks from 17 May 2022 to 7 June 2022, where the handrail had been ordered and was being built to match the measurements of the steps.
  4. Following the resident’s accident, the landlord acted appropriately by investigating that all requirements had been met and approved by the NHBC and the local authority. As the building met the regulations required by both, it would not have been necessary for the landlord to have installed the handrail prior to the scheme being handed over. In addition, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that it could not be sure that the lack of handrail was directly linked to her accident, or that the handrail being installed would have prevented the accident. The landlord apologised for any miscommunication, acknowledging that the resident felt it was blaming her for the accident, and offered its reassurance that there had been no intention to infer that the resident’s accident had been nothing other than accidental.
  5. The landlord also acted appropriately by considering the resident’s requests for other adaptations, such as a ramp, and provided her with an explanation of its decision. As there was another entry to the property that provided level access, the landlord would not be obligated to provide a ramp as an alternative to the stairs.
  6. Overall, whilst the delay in the installation of the handrail was a failure by the landlord, the landlord acknowledged this, and provided compensation of £250 which was proportionate to that failure and sought to put things right in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance. It is evident that the landlord had taken the resident’s concerns seriously and investigated the building to ensure that it had previously met all building requirements and established that it was not obligated to install a handrail prior to the scheme being handed over.

Determination

  1.  In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. That the landlord pay the resident the £250 compensation previously offered, if it has not yet been paid. The determination being made on the understanding that this is re-offered to the resident.
  2. That the landlord review its repairs processes to avoid delays like this happening in future cases.