Exeter City Council — case 202513791

Decision Case ID 202513791 Decision type Investigation Landlord Exeter City Council Landlord type Local Authority / ALMO or TMO Occupancy Secure Tenancy Date 16 January 2026 Background The resident lives in a property owned by the landlord. She has disabilities, which the landlord is aware of. In January 2024, it received final plans for adaptation works to her property. In April 2025, she complained about the time it had taken to complete the work. What the complaint is about The landlord’s handling of: Adaptations to the resident’s home.

The resident’s complaint. Our decision (determination) We found: There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of adaptations to the resident’s home. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. Summary of reasons The handling of adaptations to the resident’s home There were delays in the landlord starting adaptation works to the resident’s property due to its need to liaise with several third parties. Its contractor later started works to a poor standard which it chose to start again, causing further delays.

However, it apologised for the inconvenience and offered compensation in line with its own policy and our remedies guidance. The landlord’s complaint handling The landlord provided its complaint responses on time, in line with its policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Putting things right Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. Our recommendations We recommend the landlord contact the resident to provide an update on the adaptation works, including any projected timescale for completion. We recommend the landlord pays the resident its previous compensation offer of £2,000 for distress and inconvenience relating to adaptation works. The offer recognised genuine elements of service failure, and we make the reasonable redress finding on that basis.

We recommend the landlord speak to the resident and her occupational therapist to establish any additional support it can give her to ensure the temporary accommodation is suitable for her needs. We recommend the landlord speak to the resident about whether she wishes to make a new complaint about the further delays since its stage 2 response in June 2025. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 16 April 2025 The resident complained that the landlord took 9 years to complete suitable adaptations to her home.

She was in temporary accommodation during works, but it had to restart building due to poor work standards. She said the delay affected her mental and physical health and asked for compensation. 24 April 2025 The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. 8 May 2025 The landlord extended its complaint response deadline to 22 May 2025. 22 May 2025 The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the resident’s complaint due to the time taken to adapt her home and provide her with suitable alternative accommodation.

It offered £2,000 compensation for the “serious detrimental impact” on her physical and mental wellbeing. 23 May 2025 The resident escalated her complaint. She felt the landlord’s compensation offer was too low and requested it increase this to £200,000. She described the level of stress she faced and said she had felt suicidal. The landlord said it would respond by 23 June 2025. 20 June 2025 The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. It explained its adaptations policy does not set timescales for works.

It said the works needed planning permission and considerable finances, so it could not meet its 12-month aim. It did not accept that it took 9 years to begin adaptations. It said works took longer than expected and apologised. It said the delay was because the initial works were poor quality. It repeated its £2,000 compensation offer. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and compensation offer and asked us to investigate. She would like more compensation and for the landlord to complete works so she can return to her permanent home.

What we found and why The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration. Complaint The handling of adaptations to the resident’s home Finding Reasonable redress What we did not investigate The resident told us that the situation has had a negative impact on her health and wellbeing.

It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for her to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any illness or injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience. The resident has raised concerns to us about the landlord taking 9 years to complete adaptations.

We cannot consider complaints which the resident did not complain to the landlord about within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. We will therefore only investigate matters from early 2024 when the landlord received the final approved works specifications. What we did investigate The landlord received the final approved specifications on 31 January 2024. Between this date and June 2024, it arranged an appointment with National Grid to discuss movement and installation of the power supply at the property.

It sent the specifications to its contractors for pricing. It also sent a request to the decant team for temporary accommodation for the resident. It found a temporary property and arranged for a property removal and storage quote. We can see the landlord worked to arrange appointments and quotes during this time. While the time this took may have been frustrating for the resident, the landlord was speaking to and arranging appointments with several third parties which can be complex.

The landlord continued to work with its voids team to arrange the resident’s move to temporary accommodation. It provided her with a list of amenities in the temporary property ahead of her move and arranged her move for 5 August 2024. This went ahead as arranged with all the landlord covering all costs in line with its decant procedure. The landlord expected building works to start on 23 September 2024. In October 2024, the resident expressed frustrations about works not starting.

It said it was due to start works on 21 October 2024. However, it faced issues with the electricity supplier moving the meter. It was still working to arrange this at the end of October 2024. In early December 2024, the landlord’s contractors reported the issue with getting the electricity supplier to move the meter was beginning to hold up works. The supplier attended on 24 January 2025 but did not move the meter. At this stage, the landlord asked the resident to arrange authorisation on her account for it to speak to the supplier.

This demonstrated its efforts to progress works. The issue with the supplier may have caused some delay. However, this was outside the landlord’s control. The landlord’s home adaptations policy does not set a specific time for completing adaptation works so it continued to work within its policy for major works. However, we do understand this may have led to further distress for the resident. In early March 2025, the landlord’s surveyor inspected the works and found issues with the quality and standard of the build.

It found breaches of Building Regulations and found its only viablechoice was to demolish the building and start again. It told the resident about this on 17 March 2025 and said works would likely recommencein the following days. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged delays in adapting the home and providing the resident with suitable alternative accommodation. It did not explain the reason for delays. However, it was important for it to take time find a suitable property for her when considering her needs.

It also had to complete works when the property became empty, so it was ready for her to move in. It offered £2,000 for a “serious detrimental impact” on her physical and mental wellbeing. This was in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance for failures with a severe long-term impact. The landlord did not increase its compensation offer in its final complaint response. It explained its home adaptations policy and why the works did not fall within its 12-month target.

It said as it had been unable to find a more suitable property, it had provided the necessary funds for the resident to stay in her home. However, it agreed works had taken longer than expected due to having to restart works and apologised for the inconvenience. Its £2,000 compensation offer remained fair and in line with its policy. Overall, there were clear delays in the adaptation works. However, some delays were outside the landlord’s control when waiting for the resident’s electricity supplier to move the meter.

It communicated with her regularly to arrange the move to temporary accommodation and we can see she was involved in the design process of the adaptations. There were further delays when it inspected the ongoing building works and found major concerns. This was unfortunate but the landlord’s decision to restart works to ensure the resident had a safe and properly built property was fair. Its compensation offer was in line with its policy and our remedies guidance, and it apologised for the inconvenience of delays.

As such, we find that it offered reasonable redress. The resident told us she is still in temporary accommodation as of January 2026. She is struggling with the suitability of the accommodation, and it is not clear when she will be able to return to her property. We recommend she make a new complaint about the further delays since the landlord’s final complaint response. However, we recommend the landlord provide her with a full update on the status of the works and that it speak with her occupational therapists to see if there are ways it can improve the suitability of her temporary accommodation in the meantime.

Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding No maladministration The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It can extend its response time at both stages if it needs more time to investigate. Its policy is compliant with the Code. The landlord extended its stage 1 response time to allow for a meeting with the resident. However, it responded on the date of its final deadline, in line with its policy.

It responded at stage 2 within policy timescales. The resident expressed some concern to us about the landlord’s change from upholding her complaint at stage 1 to only partially upholding her complaint at stage 2. In its response, it explained it did not find failure in one of her complaint points relating to the time she had been requesting adaptations. It upheld her complaint about delays. Its stage 2 response was more detailed and therefore its decision to not uphold one complaint point was fair.

Overall, we find no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. Learning The landlord showed a good awareness of the resident’s disabilities and communicated with occupational therapy throughout the complaint period. Knowledge information management (record keeping) We found no concerns with the landlord’s record keeping. Communication The landlord’s communicated well with the resident about her move to temporary accommodation. It could have updated her more regularly during periods of delay to manage her expectations more effectively.